I still think all this "progressive vs. agressive" talk is crap.
I beleive it started in the early days as a way of "rubbishing" the better performing maps on the market. Whenever a.n.other tuner/owner is questioned as to why theirs doesn't produce as much power as a.n.other tuner/owner's, the standard response seems to be "ah, well, their's is a very agressive map, you see" as if they've worked some majic and the others are just animals. Then people start to comment about drivability, clutches, reliability etc.
My 210 LCR did >80,000 miles on a so called agressive Stage 1 map and never missed a beat (apart from coilpacks). This was cross country/motorway miles on damp/grease potholed UK roads. It got serviced at the dealer, when the book said (i.e. no extra special oil changes etc). I can't say that I "drove it within an inch of its life", but it didn't get mollycoddled. If I wanted to drive it progressively, then I didn't mash the throttle to the floor, when I wanted to mash the throttle, I did. It's THAT simple.
If you pick a remap with lower figures because they are cheaper, or because you don't see the need to get the highest output map, then fine. But I do wish people wouldn't start pointing the finger at other remaps/choices as though the mappers had horns.
The more expensive remaps tend to have more features (switching/tweaking), and tend to have better backup (pan-european/global prescence, etc), tend to be earlier to market, and tend to make higher figures. Fact.
What a load of ****.
As for the op's question, it's very difficult what with Dyno lottery etc, to pick a graph and say it's representative of all cars. Often cars on dynos have problems etc, so you need to take RR graphs with a pinch of salt. Look at the area under the curve rather than peak figures, look at torque as well as power. Look at what point the lines cross.
I beleive it started in the early days as a way of "rubbishing" the better performing maps on the market. Whenever a.n.other tuner/owner is questioned as to why theirs doesn't produce as much power as a.n.other tuner/owner's, the standard response seems to be "ah, well, their's is a very agressive map, you see" as if they've worked some majic and the others are just animals. Then people start to comment about drivability, clutches, reliability etc.
My 210 LCR did >80,000 miles on a so called agressive Stage 1 map and never missed a beat (apart from coilpacks). This was cross country/motorway miles on damp/grease potholed UK roads. It got serviced at the dealer, when the book said (i.e. no extra special oil changes etc). I can't say that I "drove it within an inch of its life", but it didn't get mollycoddled. If I wanted to drive it progressively, then I didn't mash the throttle to the floor, when I wanted to mash the throttle, I did. It's THAT simple.
If you pick a remap with lower figures because they are cheaper, or because you don't see the need to get the highest output map, then fine. But I do wish people wouldn't start pointing the finger at other remaps/choices as though the mappers had horns.
The more expensive remaps tend to have more features (switching/tweaking), and tend to have better backup (pan-european/global prescence, etc), tend to be earlier to market, and tend to make higher figures. Fact.
What a load of ****.
As for the op's question, it's very difficult what with Dyno lottery etc, to pick a graph and say it's representative of all cars. Often cars on dynos have problems etc, so you need to take RR graphs with a pinch of salt. Look at the area under the curve rather than peak figures, look at torque as well as power. Look at what point the lines cross.
The way i always looked a remaps was the way in which the power is feed in, so with an aggressive map you tend to get a big surge in power all of a sudden where as the progressive is more gradual, kind of eases your into it, as you seen in the previous posted graphs
?
