You cant program a car to have longer longevity only do things that will hopefully make it last longer and that all depends on how well its put together. The block is strong for n/a use but the head is another story. Also econocars are not programmed for performance (unless its euro), to say that this engine is tuned to the best it can be is extremely laughable. Its tuned to run good enough, not much thought was put into it esp the 2.0l, an example look at any honda with the k-series engine, stock for stock honda wins in performance and fuel economy (mazda is notorious for putting out fake hp/tq numbers).


As for your tranny question, it was brought up because if you have an auto there is no sense is turboing it because the g-series trans are extremely weak and on a manual trans things start to come apart after 350.

 

Laughable? Sorry, like it or don't, believe it or not, improperly tuning an engine, any engine will shorten it's lifespan. Engines are tuned with many-many compromises in mind, output, longevity, economy, and emissions to name just a few; change one thing, something else changes as well. Vehicle manufacturers spend literally tens of millions of dollars on each and every engine they develop, and as part of that cost, they discover the optimal point where each of the design metrics are in balance. Combustion science is very well understood and has been so for a long-long time now, and to suggest that a company like Hypertech can come along and magically improve on output after a few relatively inexpensive dyno pulls, without jeopardizing longevity, emissions, or efficiency is, well, naive. Laughable? I think the only thing laughable is that the term was even used in this context.

Geez, how wrong can one post be?

• Its tuned to run good enough, not much thought was put into it esp the 2.0l: Sorry to rain on your parade, but the 2.0 liter engine purports itself very well when compared to other mass produced 2.0 liter engines on the market. Taking a look at other mass-market 2.0 liter engines on the market today and I find one (and only one) that beats the Mazda3's 2.0 liter engine from a horsepower perspective. That engine? The 2.0 liter mill that comes in the Suzuki SX4 Sport; it is rated at a whopping two more horsepower than the Mazda engine.
• an example look at any honda with the k-series engine, stock for stock honda wins in performance and fuel economy (mazda is notorious for putting out fake hp/tq numbers): Geez, what a disingenuous example. The fact is, the K20 engines are expensive to manufacture, purpose built high RPM motors. Yes, the detuned version does produce a whopping seven more horsepower than the Mazda mill of the same displacement (and delivers roughly the same fuel economy); however, I suspect you were referring to the higher tuned version, a very expensive engine to build in this class, and no, it is not able to return fuel economy that is up there with the Mazda. That and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all versions of the K20 require Premium fuel?

 

Shipo, I'm not clear as to why you think all engines today come from the factory optimally tuned. You seem to disagree with any logic that engines can be tuned for more power or for more efficiency. You provide some good information but do not seem to be open to how modern engines are tuned from the factory or from the aftermarket.

Each year car makers bump up the output of their engines. They do not redesign their engines each year. Where does this mysterious (impossible in your words) power come from? Also, how can these chip and tuner companies continue to be in business if they produce products, costing the consumer hundreds of dollars, that do absolutely nothing? Power is coming from somewhere or there's one huge lawsuit waiting to put these people out of business.

 

Your assertion that each year car makers bump up the output of their engines is, I believe, a smoke screen. Why? I see very little evidence of your claim when I look at the yearly advertised output of pretty much any engine you care to mention. Case in point:

• Mazda 2.0 liter engine: same rating for the last eight model years
• VW 2.5 liter engine: rating bumped from 150 to 170 in 2008 due to a head and cam redesign
• Honda R18 1.8 liter engine: same rating for the last six model years

I could go on and on, but you get the point. The thing is, I've seen lots of claims from aftermarket makers that point to their in-house dyno runs that don't prove out in the real world. As for law suits, not happening. Why? Several reasons, not the least of which is that their buyers "believe" that they've gotten a good deal for their money (and for those that simply want a higher red-line or the top-speed governor removed they got what they asked for).

Let's face it, car makers have been in a horsepower and fuel economy war for a number of years now; what would be the incentive for them to leave power and/or economy on the table? The reality is that they spend millions of dollars tuning each of their engines (way more than the sum of what the aftermarket chip makers spend), and they know very well where the various thresholds are in pretty much every driving scenario.

Long story short, I don't believe the bulk of the claims of output increases for normally aspirated engines simply by changing the chip.

 

Just because a company spends money on a project means there doing it right, look at kia (before they merged with hyundai), daewoo, jensen etc. You can spend millions and come out with...well this, a bland engine. I highly dobut cars today can last long past the 200k mark, obv the tune such as afr is going to help last longer but thats a given for any car, for it to stay within stoich and not wandering into the green or red too much unless its made for it. Ive taken this engine apart along with ford master techs and all they said was "why this" and "why that". What ive found out to be mostly true on cars is that manufactures spend most time/money in one or two areas of the car and thats going to be there selling point, in this case the engine was not apart of it. You tell me how an aftermarket company cannot re-tune a car for more economy when its been proven to gain, tell me how it can improve hp/tq to some degree when again its been proven. If you think manufactures dont take short cuts to put something out there for people to buy then tell me the reason behind some of the rediculous recalls.[/quote]



HA, all manufacures lie about there hp/tq ratings and mazda is one of the worse, want to know how much hp and tq the really 2.0l makes? ~120whp ~115tq.Wanna talk current 2.0? fine, how about the n/a 2.0l legacy or impreza, the honda elements 2.0 b series, any 2.0k series, many engines outperform mazdas 2.0l, stop looking at what the manufacturer says and really look at whats being sold. Oh you ready for this too? AEM CAI + 2.5in exhaust bumps it up to 122whp and 120tq (thank god i didnt actually buy these), wanna know how i know? cuz i dynoed my car and those were my results. Owners with a 2.3 that have an intake and exhaust have made up to 150whp with hypertech tune and gained about 5-7mpg in econo mode.

yes your incorrect, i was not sure myself, but i called and not all kseries use premium fuel, the one that does not still beats the 2.0l areas. Also the mzr engine is far more expensive to make/replace because its a new design while the kseries has changed very little over the years its been out. In case your wondering how manfuactures get there away with lying with there advertised hp/tq numbers? simple, no accessories, tuned intake and header (not sold on production engines) and ran on engine dyno instead of chassis dyno

 

Alright, I'm going to end this useless debate right here. It is a truism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Not even a single maker of aftermarket chipsets (Hypertech included) even remotely meets the requirement of proving the efficacy of their product in the real world. I assert that aftermarket chip makers are selling the modding public a bill of goods that is effectively worthless; that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

As a fellow engineer once signed off after a lengthy debate like this one:

 

really gonna feel like a dik saying this but...its not a chip. if this was a debate about chips i would agree ex.diablesport bad, hondata good (to an extent), but its about a "plug and play" tuner, this is just so the op dont get a plug and play and a chip (soldered into the ecu) confused as the samething.

 

I use the term "chip" as a generic way of saying pretty much anything that effectively changes the programming in the ECU.

 

Hot thread. Hot topic. Hotly contested debate.

 

Ah ok, i see now, i figured you had to know the difference, just may confuse someone who dont know the difference.