Hello fellow members
I am considering having my 2013 TGM 2.90 remapped in order to get more mpg as i am happy with the pulling power & torque on the truck but i am hearing mixed reports on this. Some say its a waste of time & money having it done & it does not increase mpg by that much for it to be worth doing whilst others say that they have had anything between 10 to 15% increase in mpg. Has anybody had this done & if so what is their findings on it ?
Adjust your driving style. Keep in the green band, let off the throttle and use engine braking more when slowing, especially for roundabouts, junctions and traffic lights and try to time approaching those so you don’t need to stop. Less throttle when accelerating.
Conor:
Adjust your driving style. Keep in the green band, let off the throttle and use engine braking more when slowing, especially for roundabouts, junctions and traffic lights and try to time approaching those so you don’t need to stop. Less throttle when accelerating.
Hello Conor, thanks for your advice but i do feather the throttle & dont thrash it by any means & i know a mate who has the same truck & he only gets 9.5 mpg so i am happy that i am driving correctly & i have i increased my mpg by using shell diesel instead of the cheaper brands
I know a couple of ODs who had Trucks re-mapped, they all said 1+mpg more, and pulled better, depending on your motors milage, new injectors, check valve clearance, and pump timing, will restore lost BHP., Then a re-map.
We’ve had EEDI boxes fitted on the dustcarts that beep at you for harsh acceleration/excessive throttle/harsh braking/idling and rate you higher when you stay in the green band more.
I hated them at first but they’ve defo changed my driving style and my fuel usage has gone down a fair bit. I now use the limiter and cruise control without even thinking - not for motorway etc but for urban driving.
alf1956:
Conor:
Adjust your driving style. Keep in the green band, let off the throttle and use engine braking more when slowing, especially for roundabouts, junctions and traffic lights and try to time approaching those so you don’t need to stop. Less throttle when accelerating.Hello Conor, thanks for your advice but i do feather the throttle & dont thrash it by any means & i know a mate who has the same truck & he only gets 9.5 mpg so i am happy that i am driving correctly & i have i increased my mpg by using shell diesel instead of the cheaper brands
I get >9MPG running at ~40 tonnes one direction and 43.5 tonnes return over the A66 on a 350 mile round trip to Scotland with only running in the yard at the start and end of shift being empty. Running an artic at the kinds of weights a rigid with a 290 in is running I’d be expecting 11+MPG. Certainly on the night trunks when I’m pulling a loaded urban trailer in one direction and empty 45ft loaded with empty pallets back I’m getting 23-24l/100km.
Conor:
alf1956:
Conor:
Adjust your driving style. Keep in the green band, let off the throttle and use engine braking more when slowing, especially for roundabouts, junctions and traffic lights and try to time approaching those so you don’t need to stop. Less throttle when accelerating.Hello Conor, thanks for your advice but i do feather the throttle & dont thrash it by any means & i know a mate who has the same truck & he only gets 9.5 mpg so i am happy that i am driving correctly & i have i increased my mpg by using shell diesel instead of the cheaper brands
I get >9MPG running at ~40 tonnes one direction and 43.5 tonnes return over the A66 on a 350 mile round trip to Scotland with only running in the yard at the start and end of shift being empty. Running an artic at the kinds of weights a rigid with a 290 in is running I’d be expecting 11+MPG. Certainly on the night trunks when I’m pulling a loaded urban trailer in one direction and empty 45ft loaded with empty pallets back I’m getting 23-24l/100km.
Thanks for your input conor
Without wanting to attempt to give egg-sucking lessons to an aged female relative, make sure you are basing your fuel consumption comparisons on real tank-to-tank usage figures, not what the on-board computer doobrie thinks you are using. We have a Renault unit on our fleet which appears (according to the computer) to give significantly better fuel consumption than our MANs. Checking actual consumption on identical runs (with the same driver) shows that it’s not really as good as it thinks it is.
It occurs to me that the seller of a “remapping” service could easily tweak the vehicle computer to make it appear to use less fuel than it really does.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk