From: JackH on
On Jul 16, 11:44 pm, Peter <i...(a)> wrote:

> I hear your points but my view is still that instructions in the brain
> are not modifications. Only physical change to the brain is.

Your view is myopic, then.

From: JackH on
On Jul 17, 4:08 am, Clive George <cl...(a)> wrote:

> > I hear your points but my view is still that instructions in the brain
> > are not modifications. Only physical change to the brain is.

> Trouble is, your view differs from that of the people who matter.

Never mind the view, it differs from the facts; a remap is a
modification - if he wants to believe otherwise, let him put it to the
test when he invariably stuffs whatever it is he buys.

(Is it just me that, on the face of the posts so far, reckons that's
looking more likely to be a certainty than a maybe?)

> As JackH says, you can almost certainly get away with it.

As things stand, aye - not sure I'd fancy my chances so much in the
future though given, as already said elsewhere in this thread, it
appears insurers appear to becoming a bit more savvy about this kind
of thing.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I'm 'clean' - the Golf is the
massive 90bhp it left the factory with, much to my disgust on those
occasions when you could do with just that little bit more
acceleration. ;-)

I've not been torturing myself looking at Passat TDI Sport estates (1)
on eBay etc of late at all...

(1) Not that I'll be selling the Golf - quite fond of it, weirdly.

From: JackH on
On Jul 17, 6:44 am, Adrian <toomany2...(a)> wrote:
> Peter <i...(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> >>As above, I'd ask the insurance company.  You need insurance, so they
> >>have you by the balls.
> > I disagree that you "need" insurance.
> > You do need to make reparations only if you cause damage or injury to
> > another party. If you cause death and it was your fault then life in
> > prison or capital punishment is fine.
> Legal necessity aside, how is putting you in prison going to pay for the
> adaptations necessary to allow the person you put into a wheelchair to
> live their life? Or to pay for the nursing care for the person you turned
> into a drooling vegetable? Or to pay for the million quid's worth of
> widgets that were ruined in the HGV that you pushed off the road?

Never mind all that, think of the children!

From: JackH on
On Jul 17, 8:45 am, Chris Bartram <n...(a)>
> On 16/07/10 23:44, Peter wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:17:24 +0100, Chris Bartram
> > <n...(a)>  wrote:
> >> On 11/07/10 01:24, JackH wrote:
> >>>> I know in quite a few models of cars you have the same basic car, with
> >>>> the same engine, the only difference is the programming on the chip?
> >> There's usually a physical difference too, as JackH has mentioned. For
> >> example, the 1.4 16V in my better half's Lupo comes in a 75 or 100BHP
> >> variant: The engines look very similar, but for a start the cams are
> >> different, as well as the ECU map.
> >>>> I was looking at ecu as being sort of the same deal. You don't physically do
> >>>> anything to the brains of the car
> >> You do. You change the instructions in it. If it says 'supply this much
> >> fuel and this much boost' and you alter that instruction, it's as much
> >> of a mod as say swapping a carb for a DCOE, but easier.
> > Does that mean then that putting Shell V Power or similar in your car
> > instead of regular unleaded is also classed as a modification as this
> > will give you slightly more bhp due to the higher octane surely?
> > I hear your points but my view is still that instructions in the brain
> > are not modifications. Only physical change to the brain is.
> Well, if we take the case of the Lupo I mentioned, it does run better on
> super unleaded, but the manufacturer says so in the manual, saying 95
> RON is OK but 98 is better, so I'd guess it's part of the standard spec.
> Not all cars wll run better on high-octane fuel as the ECU map has to
> take account of it. If we're going down that road, how about driving it
> on a cool, dampish day!


Was quite interesting to see how the readings from the dyno used to
vary on the same car, different day, and with no modifications to it
between sessions.

> This does bring up the wider discussion of where to draw the line on
> what *does* constitute a modification. Most people would agree that say
> fitting a different brand of tyres doesn't (lets say the car leaves the
> factory on Dunlop, Conti, or Goodyears, and you fit some pikey
> ditchfinders), but that fitting a lower speed rating seems a grey area.
> Fitting coilovers is pretty definite, for example.

The line sort of relates to how much difference to a vehicle a mod
makes, IMHO.

In this respect, a remap, on the right car, (i.e one that knocks out a
sizeable amount of extra power as a result of the map), makes a lot of

From: Steve Firth on
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)> wrote:

> Rob <ngonly(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> > IIUC the only engine difference between the Mini One and the Mini Cooper
> > is ECU programming.
> On the Mk1 BMiniW, yes.
> The Mk2 is 1.4 for the One and 1.6 for the Cooper.
> Same with the Mk1 Audi TT - same basic engine, but mapping (and a few
> minor hardware mods) had it as 150, 180 or 225bhp.

Pretty much the same with many BMWs and Mercs nowadays. Essentially the
same engine but different maps in the ECU to give different power
outputs, presumably to appease the insurers.

I was astonished that my current insurers insisted on a restriction on
the Exploder that invalidates the insurance if driven by someone under
the age of 30. Apparently >200bhp is regarded as insanely dangerous.