My 5 door Dynamic Plus Fuji

Looks fantastic, great choice!
Love the look of the black grill and detailing etc.........maybe something to change on my Pure in the future.

(06-11-2011 07:54am)mark_n Wrote:  Iain, you didn't answer which engine you prefer Si4 or SD4? You say too you prefer the 5 door. Is that because of colour or access or visibility or what?

I've not really done enough miles in either to make a definitive judgement. The petrol is now a lot better as I've had it remapped by DMS Automotive and it's kicking out not far short of the power that Land Rover are touting for their performance version of the car. The slight hesitation when pulling away from rest has gone and there is instant power that gradually builds with the revs. It feels a lot stronger towards the top end in 3rd and 4th gears and definately gathers speed noticeably quicker with a more linear delivery. I will likely have the diesel remapped as well. I can't give anyone definitive figures for the improvements as I've not got a rolling road verification but I am more than happy with the results. I'm used to driving some pretty quick cars and don't feel short changed in the Evoque now in terms of performance versus the size of the engine and weight of the car.

As to the 3 door vs 5 door that is really personal preference. The added height of the roof makes the interior feel more spacious in the 5 door and rear access is certainly far easier but the coupe definately looks more sporting and very "different" to every other SUV on the road. The 5 door has a much more traditional Range Rover outline.

(06-11-2011 11:27am)Iain S Wrote:  I've not really done enough miles in either to make a definitive judgement. The petrol is now a lot better as I've had it remapped by DMS Automotive and it's kicking out not far short of the power that Land Rover are touting for their performance version of the car. The slight hesitation when pulling away from rest has gone and there is instant power that gradually builds with the revs. It feels a lot stronger towards the top end in 3rd and 4th gears and definately gathers speed noticeably quicker with a more linear delivery. I will likely have the diesel remapped as well. I can't give anyone definitive figures for the improvements as I've not got a rolling road verification but I am more than happy with the results. I'm used to driving some pretty quick cars and don't feel short changed in the Evoque now in terms of performance versus the size of the engine and weight of the car.

As to the 3 door vs 5 door that is really personal preference. The added height of the roof makes the interior feel more spacious in the 5 door and rear access is certainly far easier but the coupe definately looks more sporting and very "different" to every other SUV on the road. The 5 door has a much more traditional Range Rover outline.

Excuse my ignorance on the remapping tech matter, but you can please elaborate on Remapping, and how it's determined?
I would have thought the engine management is mapped buy the factory to exploit the engines maximum potential. Or is it as i suspect, mapped to provide a balance of best economy and power?
With remapping, are you effectively mapping for maximum power at cost to economy, and if so,how much does economy suffer?
You also mentioned it totally fixed the slight hesitation at standing starts, making it fully responsive immediately....please let us know how it goes on the diesel too. Thank in advance.

P.S. Really nice looking Evoque by the way

Factory set outputs are usually determined by a variety of factors -

Emissions bands for taxation
Emission bands for local regulations
Economy figures using industry standard protocols
Competitors engine outputs and model pricing

With modern engines being controlled entirely by ECU's it is a relatively straightforward process to alter those programmes and produced a wide variety of power outputs with no modification to the engine. The Mini Cooper and Cooper S is a great example as the only difference between the two cars is an ECU map. The same engines are used by a variety of manufacturers in different cars and given their own maps to greate different characteristics in terms of power delivery, fuel economy, increased torque, higher turbo boost etc to suit the way each model is going to be marketed - for economy, performance, refinement, towing capability etc.

Most programmes are a compromise to achieve a certain set of criteria demanded either by marketing or by legislation (i.e. CO2 and MPG tests). Most remapping programmes look to release the performance of the engine without adversely affecting the MPG significantly (unless the additional power is used all of the time) and also without overstressing the internals of the engine.

The 300bhp version of the Evoque Land Rover are said to be working on will involve a performance remap along with a potential beefing up of some components to ensure that if maximum power is used all of the time the car will not suffer additional wear. It will likely get larger brakes to cope with repeated stopping from high speed, revised intercooler for the turbo etc. As most of us won't ever drive the car at full pelt all of the time as if we were on the Nurburgring then these other component upgrades aren't necessary.

I'm sure some of the site sponsors will give you more detailed info on remapping if you ask in the technical section.

Thanks Iain S, thats given me a good insight. Silly me, i had forgotten about the tech section all together, and i've just noticed their's are thread on this subject, so i'll check it out. cheers

(07-11-2011 12:13pm)Iain S Wrote:  The Mini Cooper and Cooper S is a great example as the only difference between the two cars is an ECU map.

I thought the 'S' had a supercharger (hence the 'S').
IIRC The difference between the 'One' and 'Cooper' was only a map though.

Would also be really interested to hear about the petrol vs diseasal debate though, I still have time to switch engine choice, but having driven both (as standard) I didn't warrant the difference between the 2 worth the drop in economy (or torque).

Looks like a great car though Iain, very lucky - a nice addition to a great stable

(07-11-2011 02:36pm)RacingSnake Wrote:  I thought the 'S' had a supercharger (hence the 'S').
IIRC The difference between the 'One' and 'Cooper' was only a map though.

The first generation "new" Mini Cooper S did indeed use a supercharger but the current generation does not.

gotcha!

will keep reading for when the diseasal is done, and your thoughts on that mapped too