Remapping implications

shietpilot · 15-08-2017 04:55PM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Even if the ECU is reset back to original, the fuel pump for example may log that a higher pressure than the original factory limit was requested. The only explanation for that would be a non-factory map. (maybe not, an example for this discussion).

Can you back this up and provide an example make/model that has a fuel pump capable of storing the maximum pressure ever requested?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Directly from my car's manual below. Almost a 14 year old design as this stage but has 39 ECU's of different complexities around the car.

39 engine control units? Hmmm

s15r330 · 15-08-2017 04:56PM

Half the cars in the country must have void insurance as something as simple as bigger wheels is a modification.
Insurance companies would screw you without a second thought.
I have 3 tdi's all remapped. Nice boost in performance and improved mpg. Best money I spent on a car.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Are you advocating fraud there?

Have to laugh at people who portray this squeaky clean persona on public forums. Different story in real life i'd say.

bear1 · 15-08-2017 04:57PM

amf78 wrote: »

Thanks to all for the useful information.
I do have one final question which might sound naive or beside the point but here it is.
Considering the fact that there are quite a few road worthy, perfectly legal cars in Ireland with more than 300 bhp under the bonnet, an increase from 150 to 170-180 bhp seems rather trivial.
Then what about heavily modified cars, who are clearly geared towards racing but cruise public roads without restrictions... where do those guys get insured?

Not sure what you mean by this? They get insured the same as the rest of us do. But those cars left the factory with that power. If they want to increase it then technically they would need to follow the same practice as informing the insurance company.

bazz26 · 15-08-2017 05:05PM

It's a double edged sword really ~ being honest and declaring modifications gives insurance companies a license to print money which in turn discourages owners from declaring them.

I'd say the majority of modifications are not declared whether it be right or wrong.

dar83 · 15-08-2017 05:15PM

Most aren't declared because it's usually the quickest way to be declined a quote, probably right after having a disqualification in the list, which is frustrating.

We really need a modification friendly insurer here, like Adrian Flux in the UK or similar. Problem is our market is too small to be appealing to companies like that, but you never know, hopefully with the shake up the industry might get here we might see the opportunities rising for full declaration and it not resulting in a blackballing of your car.

Henry Ford III · 15-08-2017 08:45PM

Titzon Toast wrote: »

When did you turn into Ned Flanders?!
Lighten up man, he's not talking about swapping the engine or nailing an extra turbocharger to it.

@ the OP, get a remap and say nothing, they're great fun.

I didn't.

My point is by not disclosing a material mod. like a remap you are quite deliberately jeopardizing your cover, and future insurability.

I'm all for a bit of fun, provided it's legal.

grogi · 15-08-2017 08:48PM

s15r330 wrote: »

Half the cars in the country must have void insurance as something as simple as bigger wheels is a modification..

And I have always declared different rim sizes. I was driving Prius on 205/55/r16 instead of 195/55/r16 and that was noted down by insurer as well.

Henry Ford III · 15-08-2017 08:50PM

grogi wrote: »

And I have always declared different rim sizes. I was driving Prius on 205/55/r16 instead of 195/55/r16 and that was noted down by insurer as well.

That's the same wheel size but a wider tyre.

grogi · 15-08-2017 08:52PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That's the same wheel size but a wider tyre.

Diameter is a bit larger, around 4% iirc.

kirving · 15-08-2017 09:39PM

shietpilot wrote: »

Can you back this up and provide an example make/model that has a fuel pump capable of storing the maximum pressure ever requested?

As I said, an example only, but absolutely possible. But the reality is that there are dozens of indicators which could be left behind in software following a remap and subsequent removal.

If anything out of the ordinary is seen by certain components, then it could be logged as a fault. Accelerate too quickly for that model car? Maybe the acceleration sensor is faulty - car logs it just in case. Again an example that could be visible if looked for.

It's not as simple as just putting the old map back on the car if someone really wants to investigate. DTC's are only a small part of the equation when it comes to fault logging in a modern car.

shietpilot wrote: »

39 engine control units? Hmmm

Well, Electronic Control Units. Page 34 here (BIG PDF) actually shows locations of 48 different control modules. New cars would have many more.

rex-x · 16-08-2017 01:57AM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I didn't.

My point is by not disclosing a material mod. like a remap you are quite deliberately jeopardizing your cover, and future insurability.

I'm all for a bit of fun, provided it's legal.

The insurance companies have made it so that its impossible to do it legally.... I spent many years getting shafted by Quinn Direct with my 50% increased premiums and engineers reports for being honest until Liberty took over and instead of a renewal sent me a PFO letter saying they didn't want my 10 years no claims and 0 points as I was too high risk...

At that point I gave up! There is not one single company in Ireland that will allow power related modifications and I wont be told what I can or cant do to my car :mad:

If I crash through someones fence and knock down their prize winning endangered zebra while sailing through their priceless art gallery I look forward to being sued by the insurance company who try to recoup their costs because I didn't tell them about my remap, bring it on

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 08:43AM

rex-x wrote: »

The insurance companies have made it so that its impossible to do it legally.... I spent many years getting shafted by Quinn Direct with my 50% increased premiums and engineers reports for being honest until Liberty took over and instead of a renewal sent me a PFO letter saying they didn't want my 10 years no claims and 0 points as I was too high risk...

At that point I gave up! There is not one single company in Ireland that will allow power related modifications and I wont be told what I can or cant do to my car :mad:

If I crash through someones fence and knock down their prize winning endangered zebra while sailing through their priceless art gallery I look forward to being sued by the insurance company who try to recoup their costs because I didn't tell them about my remap, bring it on

What if you cause serious injury or death to an innocent 3rd party though? If your power mod. was discovered your own damages would not be covered and you'd then find it impossible to obtain cover again due to your policy being voided because of your blatant non disclosure.

http://www.boards.ie/ttfthread/20575...1#post98104401

I note from some of your other posts that Liberty offered to re-examine your case following their decision not to renew your policy but after raising the issue with them you declined to provide details. Why?

Do you realise that their decision not to offer renewal terms should have been disclosed to your subsequent/current insurer? I wonder what they'd have said if it had been?

bmstuff · 16-08-2017 08:48AM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

... actually shows locations of 48 different control modules. New cars would have many more.

No 48 here is the maximum number of modules this car can have when fully loaded included side view cameras, gps, automatic transmissions and so on.

New cars these days have half that number of modules. Some up to 30 but then they have self parking, TV, 5 cameras, heated and ventillated seats etc

48 is called over engineered. As progress goes many functions are regrouped from 4-5 modules to only one these days. Simplicity and costs.
A brand new BMW 3 or 4 series would have about 12-15 modules only or more if more options.

PrzemoF · 16-08-2017 09:17AM

selectamatic wrote: »

Think you need to swap to a smaller kompressor (supercharger) pulley to make it worthwhile as this will increase boost slightly a freer flowing exhaust would help too. I think a remap on its own would only see very marginal gains.

Thanks for the answer! I have the older version, so remap should give a lot (163 HP --> ~180 HP) as newer SLKs have exactly the same mechanical setup.

CiniO · 16-08-2017 09:51AM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I didn't.

My point is by not disclosing a material mod. like a remap you are quite deliberately jeopardizing your cover, and future insurability.

I'm all for a bit of fun, provided it's legal.

But afaik there's nothing illegal in non disclosing such facts to insurance company.

Your legal requirement is to have insurance policy for the car you're driving.
By purchasing one you are fulfilling your legal requirement.

If you don't disclose facts as mods, etc to your insurer might be a breach of the insurance contract and might cause your insurer to re refuse to pay for damage to your own car, as well as they might look into recouping from you the amount they paid to third party.

But there's nothing illegal in not disclosing all the facts to insurer.

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 09:53AM

CiniO wrote: »

But afaik there's nothing illegal in non disclosing such facts to insurance company.

Your legal requirement is to have insurance policy for the car you're driving.
By purchasing one you are fulfilling your legal requirement.

If you don't disclose facts as mods, etc to your insurer might be a breach of the insurance contract and might cause your insurer to re refuse to pay for damage to your own car, as well as they might look into recouping from you the amount they paid to third party.

But there's nothing illegal in not disclosing all the facts to insurer.

1/. Fraud.

2/. Obtaining insurance by deception.

Apart from that it's fine

amf78 · 16-08-2017 09:54AM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

What if you cause serious injury or death to an innocent 3rd party though? If your power mod. was discovered your own damages would not be covered and you'd then find it impossible to obtain cover again due to your policy being voided because of your blatant non disclosure.

The issue shouldn't be disclosure or non-disclosure, the issue should be whether the said modification, disclosed or not, was the sole (or even contributing) factor in the accident. It wouldn't be hard for an expert in the field to convince the jury that the said modification is irrelevant, when, for instance, you have model variants out there with the same - or possibly more - horsepower and torque. If power increase is the added risk, then 300 or 400 bhp cars shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside racing tracks, whether or not it's a factory config.
That's what would happen in a normal world. In a world where we're one step away from making it illegal to cross the street without proper supervision if you're under 21, it's a whole different story.
If there's a law against driving without insurance, then there's should be a law preventing insurance companies from refusing to cover road worthy cars. It's that simple.

grogi · 16-08-2017 09:59AM

CiniO wrote: »

But afaik there's nothing illegal in non disclosing such facts to insurance company.

Actually there is. In Common Law systems the insurance contracts are based on Uberrimae Fidei principle.

Even if not asked, everything that might influence the insurer to offer the cover and the price of the premium needs to be disclosed.

Your legal requirement is to have insurance policy for the car you're driving.
By purchasing one you are fulfilling your legal requirement.

And that is the biggest issue in Ireland.

There is a legal requirement for TPL insurance, but very little regulation of what this insurance covers, how it is offered, the fault determination etc.

It relies solely on the 'invisible market hand'. And MIBI ruling, which to me sounds very ambiguous.

There is no certainty for the drivers and no certainty for the insurers as well. That's why the latter don't want to enter any contract under which they might be made to pay even though the contract itself did not cover it.

grogi · 16-08-2017 10:04AM

amf78 wrote: »

The issue shouldn't be disclosure or non-disclosure, the issue should be whether the said modification, disclosed or not, was the sole (or even contributing) factor in the accident. It wouldn't be hard for an expert in the field to convince the jury that the said modification is irrelevant, when, for instance, you have model variants out there with the same - or possibly more - horsepower and torque. If power increase is the added risk, then 300 or 400 bhp cars shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside racing tracks, whether or not it's a factory config.
That's what would happen in a normal world. In a world where we're one step away from making it illegal to cross the street without proper supervision if you're under 21, it's a whole different story.

But that's not only about that. The risk profile of a driver that fancy modifications is completely different from one that drives unmodified car with same power.

Compare who can afford a 535d with who can get 520d and chip the hell out of it. They might have same power and acceleration, but the statistical driver of them is a completely different chap.

It makes sense that insuring a more risky driver is more expensive. But if you fail to disclose the modifications, you are preventing the insurer to properly asses the risk and the premium.

If there's a law against driving without insurance, then there's should be a law preventing insurance companies from refusing to cover road worthy cars. It's that simple.

It is not that simple. If such law is introduced, you will just get €30000/year quotes instead of refusal to cover.

Del2005 · 16-08-2017 10:43AM

amf78 wrote: »

The issue shouldn't be disclosure or non-disclosure, the issue should be whether the said modification, disclosed or not, was the sole (or even contributing) factor in the accident. It wouldn't be hard for an expert in the field to convince the jury that the said modification is irrelevant, when, for instance, you have model variants out there with the same - or possibly more - horsepower and torque. If power increase is the added risk, then 300 or 400 bhp cars shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside racing tracks, whether or not it's a factory config.
That's what would happen in a normal world. In a world where we're one step away from making it illegal to cross the street without proper supervision if you're under 21, it's a whole different story.
If there's a law against driving without insurance, then there's should be a law preventing insurance companies from refusing to cover road worthy cars. It's that simple.

I've a 300+ bhp car and my insurance is wayy higher than if I had a 100 bhp car.

Go to your insurance company and get a quote for a 90bhp car and then for its 130bhp model sibling, the quote will be higher for the more powerful car. So by remapping a car to higher power you will definitely be increasing the insurance risk so you should be paying the appropriate amount.

Insurance claims will most likely be civil cases so there's no jury to be convinced it'd be a judge working on the balance of possibilities. So the insurance company will just have to say that the quote wasn't taken out in utmost good faith and is void, you're expert will be wasted.

amf78 · 16-08-2017 12:14PM

grogi wrote: »

But that's not only about that. The risk profile of a driver that fancy modifications is completely different from one that drives unmodified car with same power.

If what you're saying were true, then simply calling your insurer and asking about a remap would be grounds for them to stop covering you or doubling your premium. We don't live in a Minority Report universe (yet), thank God!
And it doesn't even add up, unless you honestly believe that whoever buys a 300hp car does it because there wasn't anything cheaper available, or because they want to pick up the kids from school faster...

grogi wrote: »

It makes sense that insuring a more risky driver is more expensive.

Agreed, as long as the said risk is real, is properly defined and assessed, not based on conjecture. And as long as the premium hike is proportional.

grogi wrote: »

It is not that simple. If such law is introduced, you will just get €30000/year quotes instead of refusal to cover.

Not so, if the law in question would also regulate the reasonable/maximum amount that can be asked for a given scenario. To put it differently, what proof or fact can the insurer invoke to justify such a staggering amount?

rex-x · 16-08-2017 12:21PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

What if you cause serious injury or death to an innocent 3rd party though? If your power mod. was discovered your own damages would not be covered and you'd then find it impossible to obtain cover again due to your policy being voided because of your blatant non disclosure.

http://www.boards.ie/ttfthread/20575...1#post98104401

I note from some of your other posts that Liberty offered to re-examine your case following their decision not to renew your policy but after raising the issue with them you declined to provide details. Why?

Do you realise that their decision not to offer renewal terms should have been disclosed to your subsequent/current insurer? I wonder what they'd have said if it had been?

As I said before I look forward to the day

Libertys offer was basically to insure me on a "standard" car and not to re-evaluate the situation

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 12:31PM

rex-x wrote: »

As I said before I look forward to the day Libertys offer was basically to insure me on a "standard" car and not to re-evaluate the situation

You didn't answer my questions. Never mind.

p.s. You said in your other post that they declined to renew. I'm told that's not allowed. If they carry the current risk they have to quote a renewal premium. Interesting that you didn't pursue this.

rex-x · 16-08-2017 12:36PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

You didn't answer my questions. Never mind.

p.s. You said in your other post that they declined to renew. I'm told that's not allowed. If they carry the current risk they have to quote a renewal premium. Interesting that you didn't pursue this.

I still have the letter somewhere, they declined to continue with the previous 6+ year premiums. They are not allowed to do this technically but if I were to change car etc they would have an out.

I have a question for you though: As a person with a modified car, what would you do? No company is offering insurance within Ireland (even as a favour) So the current situation is insurance is only obtainable by non disclosure. If found out insurance will only be obtainable by non disclosure so there is zero net loss here, uninsurable vs uninsurable.

And the appeals board don't deal with modifications so that route is out.

mikeecho · 16-08-2017 12:50PM

amf78 wrote: »

Hi,

I'm considering getting my car remapped but before doing that I would like to know if there are any adverse implications or legal issues involved.
I'm not talking about voiding the warranty (no longer relevant anyway), increasing fuel consumption or even shortening the engine lifetime.
I'm wondering about potential NCT issues, insurance, road tax and the ability to have it serviced.
Any advice is much appreciated.

Cheers!

I bet you're sorry you asked

amf78 · 16-08-2017 12:50PM

Del2005 wrote: »

I've a 300+ bhp car and my insurance is wayy higher than if I had a 100 bhp car.

Go to your insurance company and get a quote for a 90bhp car and then for its 130bhp model sibling, the quote will be higher for the more powerful car. So by remapping a car to higher power you will definitely be increasing the insurance risk so you should be paying the appropriate amount.

Agreed but "apropriate" is the key word here.
I doubt anybody would find a flat out refusal or 100% premium increase appropriate, when the power goes up by 10-15%. Well, anybody except those in the insurance business maybe.
If the vast majority of people consume white bread, and those wanting brown bread couldn't get it, or would have to pay 10 times the price in order to get it, again I doubt many would be ok with it. And yet consuming bread (white or brown) is not even mandated by law, but car insurance is.

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 12:51PM

rex-x wrote: »

I still have the letter somewhere, they declined to continue with the previous 6+ year premiums. They are not allowed to do this technically but if I were to change car etc they would have an out.

I have a question for you though: As a person with a modified car, what would you do? No company is offering insurance within Ireland (even as a favour) So the current situation is insurance is only obtainable by non disclosure. If found out insurance will only be obtainable by non disclosure so there is zero net loss here, uninsurable vs uninsurable.

And the appeals board don't deal with modifications so that route is out.

I don't have a modified car. I'm told that cover can be obtained for some of them however, at a price.

In the example you mention the options would appear to be:-

1/. Return the car to standard.
2/. Buy a more powerful car in standard tune.
3/. Find an insurer who will cover the modified car.

The thing is though that deliberate non disclosure makes cover fundamentally unsound. It's also an criminal offence.

Get caught and you'll be in big trouble. No insurer will touch you.

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 12:58PM

amf78 wrote: »

Agreed but "apropriate" is the key word here.
I doubt anybody would find a flat out refusal or 100% premium increase appropriate, when the power goes up by 10-15%. Well, anybody except those in the insurance business maybe.
If the vast majority of people consume white bread, and those wanting brown bread couldn't get it, or would have to pay 10 times the price in order to get it, again I doubt many would be ok with it. And consuming bread (white or brown) in not even mandated by law.

There's no such thing as "appropriate" in insurance. Insurers set their rates according to their own underwriting criteria. Premiums aren't always fair and if you don't like them you seek an alternative elsewhere.

It's a unsound notion to suggest a say 15% in engine power should mean a 15% increase in premium.

If you can't get a remapped (or any other) car covered then legally you can't drive it on public roads.

rex-x · 16-08-2017 01:00PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I don't have a modified car. I'm told that cover can be obtained for some of them however, at a price.

In the example you mention the options would appear to be:-

1/. Return the car to standard.
2/. Buy a more powerful car in standard tune.
3/. Find an insurer who will cover the modified car.

The thing is though that deliberate non disclosure makes cover fundamentally unsound. It's also an criminal offence.

Get caught and you'll be in big trouble. No insurer will touch you.

Mods can be insured but not if they increase performance, at any cost! Unfortunately that ended about 3 years ago when it was less of an issue.

Why should anyone have their car enjoyment dictated by an insurance company? it makes no sense, cover should be easily obtainable albeit at a slightly increased rate.

Find me an example of someone punished criminally for non disclosure? It simply doesn't happen. The only place it can hurt you is within the insurance "world".

Id say 30-50% of premiums (based on people I know old and young) in Ireland have some form of non disclosure brought on by the ridiculous restrictions.

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 01:11PM

rex-x wrote: »

Mods can be insured but not if they increase performance, at any cost! Unfortunately that ended about 3 years ago when it was less of an issue.

Why should anyone have their car enjoyment dictated by an insurance company? it makes no sense, cover should be easily obtainable albeit at a slightly increased rate.

Find me an example of someone punished criminally for non disclosure? It simply doesn't happen. The only place is can hurt you is within the insurance "world".

Id say 30-50% of premiums (based on people I know old and young) in Ireland have some form of non disclosure brought on by the ridiculous restrictions.

Compliance with the laws relating to driving isn't optional. Having valid insurance is one of them as you know.

I understand where you are coming from on this. You want increased performance, and you want cover that suits your budget too. Unfortunately cheap performance insurance isn't available but that doesn't give anyone a carte blanche to ignore that and drive on voidable policies.

Remapping implications

Comments