Remapping implications

bear1 · 16-08-2017 03:45PM

BrownFinger wrote: »

A friend of mine is in the traffic core.
He told me next year they are introducing a road side remapping check point.

For what? So they stop random cars and say ok get out cause we are now going to open out your ECU port and check for remapping software.
Ok you've remapped the car, now we are going to check with your insurance now to make sure you've declared it all.
I wouldn't let them plug anything into my ECU and how will they know what the power of the car should be?
Nonsense imo

CiniO · 16-08-2017 03:45PM

BrownFinger wrote: »

A friend of mine is in the traffic core.
He told me next year they are introducing a road side remapping check point.

Who would be doing those checks?
Gardai have nothing to do with remaps so they couldn't and insurers have no authority do to roadside checks.

rex-x · 16-08-2017 03:48PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

But they were obliged to give you renewal terms on the car "as was"! It's partially your own fault for not standing your ground. You'd have been properly insured too.

So having paid loadings for years you just got the hump with Liberty and decided to go rogue elsewhere?

The logic in all that is beyond me I'm afraid.

Id like to hear your take the fact what they did is equally as illegal as what I'm doing now? They were legally obliged to offer a quote but failed to do so, any comment there?

In reality I could have forced them but I was changing cars soon anyway and they would not have been obliged to quote on the new beast so it would have been a fruitless fight with a company who didn't want my custom. Not at all unreasonable I feel

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 03:51PM

rex-x wrote: »

Id like to hear your take the fact what they did is equally as illegal as what I'm doing now? They were legally obliged to offer a quote but failed to do so, any comment there?

In reality I could have forced them but I was changing cars soon anyway and they would not have been obliged to quote on the new beast so it would have been a fruitless fight with a company who didn't want my custom. Not at all unreasonable I feel

I'm not sure if what you allege they did was actually illegal, or was it outside some sort of code of conduct. I suspect the latter but I just don't know.

p.s. Your current insurer possibly wouldn't want your custom if they knew the whole truth either.

tossy · 16-08-2017 03:53PM

CiniO wrote: »

Who would be doing those checks?
Gardai have nothing to do with remaps so they couldn't and insurers have no authority do to roadside checks.

They could confiscate the remaps though and use them to 'soup up' the Garda fleet. It generates revenue and aids the war on crime.

rex-x · 16-08-2017 03:55PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I'm not sure if what you allege they did was actually illegal, or was it outside some sort of code of conduct. I suspect the latter but I just don't know.

p.s. Your current insurer possibly wouldn't want your custom if they knew the whole truth either.

If I run into any issues you will be the first to know

Gazzmonkey · 16-08-2017 04:01PM

selectamatic wrote: »

The parameters of the various readings from ecu's can change for a variety of reasons though and also many manufacturers have and still are making changes mid year and mid production therefore there isn't really any set criteria to go off.

I've never heard of a case where a remapped ecu has been flagged and I've never seen a story about it causing any issues in the media so is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Flash counter?

Build number?

Only guessing

grogi · 16-08-2017 04:03PM

CiniO wrote: »

Who would be doing those checks?
Gardai have nothing to do with remaps so they couldn't and insurers have no authority do to roadside checks.

The chipped car looses the type approval - the CO2 figure is not longer applicable. As such it is not road legal... ;-)

mikeecho · 16-08-2017 04:07PM

grogi wrote: »

The chipped car looses the type approval - the CO2 figure is not longer applicable. As such it is not road legal... ;-)

Dunno about that, my car was remapped by BMW , and they will claim that CO2 and MPG aren't affected !

i doubt their claims.. but hey .. i have extra BHP, and i haven't told my insurance.. and never will.

Also, they (bmw) claim a small BHP icrease, but a rolling road says different.. a lot more BHP ... or whp, to be correct

amf78 · 16-08-2017 04:09PM

grogi wrote: »

The chipped car looses the type approval - the CO2 figure is not longer applicable. As such it is not road legal... ;-)

Actually Superchips at least maintain that the emissions don't change, and you won't fail NCT/MOT. Perhaps an argument from ignorance, but methinks we would know by now if that wasn't the case. They have been around for some time.

grogi · 16-08-2017 04:14PM

amf78 wrote: »

Actually Superchips at least maintain that the emissions don't change, and you won't fail NCT/MOT. Perhaps an argument from ignorance, but methinks we would know by now if that wasn't the case. They have been around for some time.

CO2 has nothing to do with emission fail.

mikeecho · 16-08-2017 04:14PM

amf78 wrote: »

Actually Superchips at least maintain that the emissions don't change, and you won't fail NCT/MOT. Perhaps an argument from ignorance, but methinks we would know by now if that wasn't the case. They have been around for some time.

OP.. amf78.. what car do you have ?

Just go for a remap, but dont go for super max power.. just go for a reasonable BHP increase, no more than 40, just be sure to service on time every time, or earlier as i do.

30k without an oil change to just too much in my opinion.. but each to their own.

You could get an oil extractor on micksgarage and do a half change .

amf78 · 16-08-2017 04:26PM

grogi wrote: »

CO2 has nothing to do with emission fail.

??
https://www.ncts.ie/media/1010/vir.pdf

grogi · 16-08-2017 04:27PM

amf78 wrote: »

??
https://www.ncts.ie/media/1010/vir.pdf

And where do you see CO2?

Brian Scan · 16-08-2017 04:44PM

mikeecho wrote: »

they cant even check how many penalty points a person has at the roadside

and its Corp, not Core... and soon to be road traffic and events policing RTEP ..... or something similar

There is no legislation for them to check the ECU of your MPV at the roadside.

Good man.

pred racer · 16-08-2017 09:19PM

BrownFinger wrote: »

A friend of mine is in the traffic core.
He told me next year they are introducing a road side remapping check point.

a friend of mine is an idiot.

I dont listen to anything he tells me :rolleyes:

kilianmanning · 17-08-2017 10:03AM

Anybody know what would happen if somebody had bought a car & didn't know it was remapped?

amf78 · 17-08-2017 10:41AM

kilianmanning wrote: »

Anybody know what would happen if somebody had bought a car & didn't know it was remapped?

it wouldn't surprise me if you find yourself in the same predicament (or worse actually, since the mod is already done), with no place to go and no legal means to prevent power abuse

mikeecho · 17-08-2017 10:44AM

kilianmanning wrote: »

Anybody know what would happen if somebody had bought a car & didn't know it was remapped?

As long as you took out the insurance in good faith, I can't see a problem.

amf78 · 17-08-2017 10:46AM

mikeecho wrote: »

As long as you took out the insurance in good faith, I can't see a problem.

and how can you prove you didn't know about it?
and if you did know and choose not to disclose (for rather obvious reasons), how is your case different than those we were discussing yesterday?

bazz26 · 17-08-2017 12:05PM

amf78 wrote: »

and how can you prove you didn't know about it?
and if you did know and choose not to disclose (for rather obvious reasons), how is your case different than those we were discussing yesterday?

Wouldn't it be up to the insurance company to prove that the map was done during your ownership? Ie dates the ECU parameters were changed.

Henry Ford III · 17-08-2017 12:28PM

bazz26 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be up to the insurance company to prove that the map was done during your ownership? Ie dates the ECU parameters were changed.

No.

What it would come down to legally is would a "reasonable person" know the car had a remap. If the car is way quicker than stock it'd be pretty obvious I'd imagine.

If that was the case it'd be the insured duty to disclose it.

Ignorance won't wash as an excuse in those circumstances.

amf78 · 17-08-2017 12:38PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No.

What it would come down to legally is would a "reasonable person" know the car had a remap. If the car is way quicker than stock it'd be pretty obvious I'd imagine.

If that was the case it'd be the insured duty to disclose it.

Ignorance won't wash as an excuse in those circumstances.

yet even that is very murky and hard to prove.
I'm not a very perceptive driver, but I bet I'm not the only one unable to tell the difference between a factory standard BMW 320d and a mapped one, especially if I never drove one before. Maybe if I drove them side by side within minutes of each other I could, but how many people do that when buying a car?
Also who bothers comparing their 0 to 100 time against the manufacturer's specs?

CathalDublin · 17-08-2017 12:52PM

While you should declare your car is more BHP than stock, there would be no way for Guards/Insurance company to prove your car has been mapped and is making more power than stock unless they put your car on a Dyno, my old VLC for my 150bhp golf use to say 115bhp, there wasn't even a 1.8t engine which produced 115bhp ever made, I told the insurance company as it said 115 on my insurance cert because it was taken from the VLC, they removed it and it didn't affect my premium
http://www.chippedire.com/faqs.php?id=10&pg_name=What_about_my_insurance

Mc Love · 17-08-2017 12:54PM

amf78 wrote: »

yet even that is very murky and hard to prove.
I'm not a very perceptive driver, but I bet I'm not the only one unable to tell the difference between a factory standard BMW 320d and a mapped one, especially if I never drove one before. Maybe if I drove them side by side within minutes of each other I could, but how many people do that when buying a car?
Also who bothers comparing their 0 to 100 time against the manufacturer's specs?

Exactly, I surely wouldnt know the difference if I bought a car and it was remapped. Same as my friend that bought his, never knew until his mechanic told him.

kilianmanning · 17-08-2017 01:02PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No.

What it would come down to legally is would a "reasonable person" know the car had a remap. If the car is way quicker than stock it'd be pretty obvious I'd imagine.

If that was the case it'd be the insured duty to disclose it.

Ignorance won't wash as an excuse in those circumstances.

Plenty of Irish people just about know how to put diesel into their car. They wouldn't even know what a remap is or that it would be possible etc.

bs2014 · 17-08-2017 02:08PM

I spoke to a garage who does this recently and he said it was 350e. I asked about the implications as I'm very straight-laced and he basically said don't tell your insurance. He said most accidents on a car at side of the road, the insurers will never check the power output in the car. He said sometimes people call him to go out to a damaged car at the side of the road to detune the engine back original configuration before insurance assessors come back.....another 350e. I was like "f**k that for messing about" my car is quick enough as it is......that said, the same garage has up on fb a good few new jeeps and cars getting remapped which I would imagine is very risky with the warranty also

bazz26 · 17-08-2017 02:32PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No.

What it would come down to legally is would a "reasonable person" know the car had a remap. If the car is way quicker than stock it'd be pretty obvious I'd imagine.

If that was the case it'd be the insured duty to disclose it.

Ignorance won't wash as an excuse in those circumstances.

Sorry I don't buy into that judgement as an absolute and I don't believe it is as clear cut as you say. I'd like to see how it would stack up in court. I'm talking about a client who disputes the claim by the insurance company that they had the car remapped or were aware of it being remapped when bought.

The burden of proof would need to be on the insurance company and let them pull in the so called experts to provide data from the car that shows when the changes were made and whether that was during the clients ownership. If I wasn't aware of my car being remapped by a former owner then I certainly wouldn't be letting an insurance company bully their way out of liability in that instance just by claiming it's obvious or under circumstantial facts. And also I don't believe the line "ignorance is not an excuse card" can be used in such cases as a court would not expect an average person to be an expert in the field of knowing an unmapped car v a remapped car unless proven otherwise.

Henry Ford III · 17-08-2017 02:34PM

CathalDublin wrote: »

While you should declare your car is more BHP than stock, there would be no way for Guards/Insurance company to prove your car has been mapped and is making more power than stock unless they put your car on a Dyno, my old VLC for my 150bhp golf use to say 115bhp, there wasn't even a 1.8t engine which produced 115bhp ever made, I told the insurance company as it said 115 on my insurance cert because it was taken from the VLC, they removed it and it didn't affect my premium
http://www.chippedire.com/faqs.php?id=10&pg_name=What_about_my_insurance

I believe a qualified technician can establish whether or not a cars ecu is standard or otherwise in a couple of minutes.

It's insurers who would drive any investigation not the Gardai imho. If they could identify blatant non disclosure the proposer would be black listed and would probably be unable obtain cover anywhere.

That statement by Chipped Ire is very ambiguous and unwise at best.

Henry Ford III · 17-08-2017 02:42PM

bazz26 wrote: »

Sorry I don't buy into that judgement as an absolute and I don't believe it is as clear cut as you say. I'd like to see how it would stack up in court. I'm talking about a client who disputes the claim by the insurance company that they had the car remapped or were aware of it being remapped when bought.

The burden of proof would need to be on the insurance company and let them pull in the so called experts to provide data from the car that shows when the changes were made and whether that was during the clients ownership. If I wasn't aware of my car being remapped by a former owner then I certainly wouldn't be letting an insurance company bully their way out of liability in that instance just by claiming it's obvious or under circumstantial facts. And also I don't believe the line "ignorance is not an excuse card" can be used in such cases as a court would not expect an average person to be an expert in the field of knowing an unmapped car v a remapped car unless proven otherwise.

The cars mapping is an absolute. It is what it is. There can be no disputing that element.

The "I never knew it was remapped" argument is just that. An argument. Ultimately a court will decide based on what it decides a "reasonable driver" should know.

Guys on here have repeatedly said that there was a world of difference after their cars were remapped.

Would an average driver appreciate the difference between a 100bhp and a 130bhp engine with better torque and better mpg? I'd say they would. I certainly would know and appreciate the difference.

Remapping implications

Comments