280 310 remap

[si850r]

What do the numbers stand for on these remaps???


Cheers Si

[T5frankie]

the claimed bhp figures 280 for 95 petrol and 310 for 98 petrol the figures are just guides as you wont get anywhere near those figures with any remap

[volvolised]

i thought it was if you had just the standard map (280)or the map with an air filter + 2.5 cat back 304....".was once upon a time" ..... ooh that made me sound like a storyteller,(tuner) lol....

[T5frankie]

i thought it was if you had just the standard map (280)or the map with an air filter + 2.5 cat back 304....".was once upon a time" ..... ooh that made me sound like a storyteller,(tuner) lol....

nope my story is true, what is a standard map?

[volvolised]

The "Story" remark is not aimed at you......originaly the standard remap was a rica 280...if you added a itg filter and a 2.5" miltek catback ( bloody excellent exhaust) you were then supposed to be on a 304 map...this was about 5 years ago so maybe nowaday's these higher octane super fuels petrol can give an extra 30 bhp according to map..

[stephenevans99]

I don't think they related to bhp figures, they were just RICA 'map' numbers. I think !!??

[volvolised]

I don't think they related to bhp figures, they were just RICA 'map' numbers. I think !!??

we'll never know !!!..but it defo isn't the bhp figure ....umless dyno adjusted lol....

[S70T5Chris]

I don't think they related to bhp figures, they were just RICA 'map' numbers. I think !!??

I was around really early on with this whole RICA thing, as was Warren, and a handfull of people still on this forum...

Back when the RICA remaps originally came out(!), power was exactly what the numbers referred to. 280bhp, 304bhp, 310bhp, 340bhp, etc.. RICA even had graphs to show that your car would be 310bhp from a remap!!! LOL!!

The original HLM RR only gave WHP figures, and a remapped car would normally kick out 240whp ish. Then Adam & Hamish would tell you that you lose 20% through tramission losses so you are getting the full 310bhp!

I remember being there when a C70 was dyno'd at 250whp, and they told him he had 320bhp! LMAO!

Now it's all been found out to be ££££££, the numbers quoted are all of a sudden just 'rica reference' numbers, not quoted power figures, as they once were

RICA are a terrible company in every way.

[stephenevans99]

Cheers Chris......I was both right and very wrong !

[S70T5Chris]

Cheers Chris......I was both right and very wrong !

LOL, Yeah!!

[p fandango]

The original HLM RR only gave WHP figures, and a remapped car would normally kick out 240whp ish. Then Adam & Hamish would tell you that you lose 20% through tramission losses so you are getting the full 310bhp!

20% of 240 is 48bhp, making it 288bhp. Imagine if they'd calculated the transmission loses at over 50%, it'd be a RICA 360

[volvolised]

dont forget drag lol......

[hamish]

What do the numbers stand for on these remaps???


Cheers Si

Hi,

Originally they were Rica's claimed power figures. Now they are just used as a tongue very firmly in cheek part no.

Take a trip down the Bromsgrove Highway and come and see us.

Regards,
Hamish.

[volvolised]

[QUOTE=S70T5Chris;344995]I was around really early on with this whole RICA thing, as was Warren, and a handfull of people still on this forum...

LOL, yeah your the fecker that started the great posts about vt (now pseudo HLM) and RT's that made me use them both.....dont call me , dont write.....if you need to contact me do it via our now preferred mechanic...Mr Williams......

[volvolised]

Hi,

Originally they were Rica's claimed power figures. Now they are just used as a tongue very firmly in cheek part no.

Take a trip down the Bromsgrove Highway and come and see us.

Regards,
Hamish.

pmsl The Bromsgrove highway.........Bromsgrove Bye way lol....

[S70T5Chris]

Hi,

Originally they were Rica's claimed power figures. Now they are just used as a tongue very firmly in cheek part no.

Take a trip down the Bromsgrove Highway and come and see us.

Regards,
Hamish.

Isn't that what I said?

[S70T5Chris]

20% of 240 is 48bhp, making it 288bhp. Imagine if they'd calculated the transmission loses at over 50%, it'd be a RICA 360

I was waiting for that

By the way, just for your future reference, your calculations are backwards. It would be a 20% loss from the flywheel power. 20% of 310bhp is 62. Meaning if you had a 20% transmission loss you'd end up with 248whp. You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?!

[y2blade]

I was waiting for that

By the way, just for your future reference, your calculations are backwards. It would be a 20% loss from the flywheel power. 20% of 310bhp is 62. Meaning if you had a 20% transmission loss you'd end up with 248whp. You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?!

I shouldn't laugh but that is hilarious thanks Chris, you have made my morning a bit brighter

[p fandango]

I was waiting for that

By the way, just for your future reference, your calculations are backwards. It would be a 20% loss from the flywheel power. 20% of 310bhp is 62. Meaning if you had a 20% transmission loss you'd end up with 248whp. You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?!

well corrected sir i was wrong on that, still a bit off 50% tho isn't it

[BruceT]

[quote=volvolised;345020]

I was around really early on with this whole RICA thing, as was Warren, and a handfull of people still on this forum...

LOL, yeah your the fecker that started the great posts about vt (now pseudo HLM) and RT's that made me use them both.....dont call me , dont write.....if you need to contact me do it via our now preferred mechanic...Mr Williams......

Is he not the mechanic who fitted my nearside front suspension spring up side down? Then said it was it because the manufacturers writing was printed on the spring wrongly despite being a progessivly wound springs so the coils would of been closer together at one end anyway?