Yes, one of the nicest guys I’ve ever met. Very passionate and knowledgeable about what he does. And yes he became a friend of mine, even though he is a northerner 🤣

But despite him being my friend, I really like the product and pay for them. I’m too straight to have it any other way, besides I believe I making money and friends need to make money too.

Yes he was big in the early days in the Vauxhall scene. To todays standard those boxes were “simple”, but it was witchcraft compared to what was on eBay.

In my experience from other forums and also with other who I helped install it, the biggest problem seemed to be people turning it up too high. For those who don’t understand it; there is a baseman with generally a number of variants. But there is an ability to boost those relatively; not all cars can take it but should take the base level.

Good guy, great products. Has been in business for a very long time.

GraemeS wrote:

Ensure that the ecm is at the latest level. My April 12 build wasn't and the driveability improvements after updating to the latest level were significant, which included keeping the torque converter locked at lower engine revs on light throttle. However IMO there is room for improvement in torque converter and gear selection management from standstill when using more than very light throttle, particularly noticeable taking off uphill or when towing.

garyRR wrote:

Avon Tuning, Celtic and Rhino, all respected companies perform ZF 8HP tuning.

There's an article on Celtic's site for work they've done on BMWs with the ZF box: https://www.celtictuning.co.uk/news/261-bmw-zf8-gearbox-ecu-remap

I will contact them tomorrow and update the thread with what they say re Range Rovers.

The difference in the gearbox is the ECU mapping and torque limiting, the high/low range gears and the mounting points (and I think also fitment, as this will vary based on crank). The interior mechanicals however are exactly the same. If you have taken one apart before (as I have) - they're identical. The variant in the RR is the ZF 8HP70. I think it's referred to by ZF with an X also, as I think this means the 4x4 transmissions with high/low range.

I will ask all three and post what they say.

Aside from the 4.4 TDV8 needing to be torque limited, at the maximum limit ZF specify for the transmission, I don't yet understand why the mapping couldn't be changed. 2015 Range Rover Autobiography 4.4 SDV8

My own opinion after extensive research is these engines are robust but quite finely balanced. I've had the engine out this year, and I've worked on and tuned sportscars including heritage motor sports.

I've consulted extensively with one of the UK's leading 4x4 tuners. I would avoid remapping a 4.4 TDV8. I am, admittedly, conservative with the L322 because everything tells me it's a great car as standard which doesnt like tuning. Not least due to the sequential turbos, the DPF and cat setup.

If you want to tune something big, grab a defender and put an M57 in it with a gigantic turbo. That'll go over water.

Click image to enlarge

garyRR wrote:

How did you do the flash? Did you get someone to do it or did you pay GAP for each of them and use the IID tool or?

Avon Tuning have clarified:

With regards to the Gearbox Limitations, it's very well known in the Tuning world the ZF 8HP70 can safely handle Torque beyond the specified Torque limits, these specific Transmissions are used in a variety of applications by different Manufacturers.

Land Rover use a different TCU (Transmission Control Unit) to the likes of BMW, Audi etc and unfortunately we don't offer a Gearbox/TCU Remapping application for this specific vehicle.

So, that explains it. Their recommendation is a stage 1 or a custom re-map. 2015 Range Rover Autobiography 4.4 SDV8

Least you know now. Though I think the 70 in the gearbox type refers to 700NM rating. I think it’s a different number in some other applications, like 80 or 90. Not sure what internal changes are done to achieve this.

Of course Avon could still be talking about the 70 specifically. I’m not a gearbox expert.

Here we go….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZF_8HP_transmission

 2011 Range Rover Vogue SE 4.4 TDV8

Previous cars :
2003 Range Rover Vogue TD6
1999 Discovery Td5 ES
1995 BMW M5 3.8 6 speed
1992 Range Rover 3.9 Efi Vogue
1992 BMW M5 3.8
1988 BMW 735i SE
1989 Ford Sierra XR4x4 2.9i
1981 Ford Fiesta Supersport

garyRR, did you try the TDI-Tuning Box? Seems interesting, but can't find any info about what these 7 modes do... Also my thinking is, that it can't be comparable with proper ECU remap, all it can do is simply fooling the ecu with inputs.

Ffrr-lover wrote:

I wait with baited breath on what you get from Celtic tuning…

kokamagi wrote:

garyRR, did you try the TDI-Tuning Box? Seems interesting, but can't find any info about what these 7 modes do... Also my thinking is, that it can't be comparable with proper ECU remap, all it can do is simply fooling the ecu with inputs.

Which is pretty much what most run-of-the-mill remaps do - they have an offset programmed in to lower the fuel pressure sensor value and the IAT which causes the 'proper' maps to over-fuel and adjust the pre/post injection strategy.

I know an ex-employee of the LR development & test department and he's pretty scathing about remaps, EGR delete etc. etc. - but he would be, wouldn't he?.

Coincidentally, I had to look at a boy-racers car today with an active rear differential fault, aside from having missed an oil change in it by nearly a year, a Milltech exhaust that was far too close to the rear diff (which probably contributed to it's overheating, the protective coating inside shedding and contaminating the oil) it was clearly remapped - just looking at the live values for boost pressure, IAT and a couple of other inputs at key on engine off and idle confirmed it enough to ask 'and how do you want to pay, sir?' despite having extended warranty - oh, and the GPF was blatantly removed and the car had a three month old MoT on it, that's gong to be interesting

I decided not to proceed with a box or remap.

The reason? Well, after having a brand new L494 for a few months, which also has the ZF 8HP70 box and then hopping back into mine, I had the opportunity to compare them back to back, and two things stood out:
1. The power delivery is smoother from the 4.4 TDV8 L322 compared to the 3.0 SDV6, so I wouldn't want that to be altered
2. There is an even bigger delay on the L494 between putting your foot down and delivery of power, so it's clearly how these engine and transmission combinations are designed, with economy in mind

I deduced that to achieve what I wanted to (which wasn't more power or torque but an early delivery of power lower down), it would be a custom map, which done properly can be around £1,000, so decided to leave it all well alone.

I think JayGee has a point about getting the TCM software, PCM and BCM updated via GAP, but compared to the L494, it made me think there's really not much to complain about. 2015 Range Rover Autobiography 4.4 SDV8

There's a couple of things that can affect drive away response, the first one (on the L494) is how hard you press the brake whilst at a stop, too hard and the transmission won't be primed for action. Secondly, and one I've used for years, is left-foot braking - rather than having the delay going from stop to go, you can get the revs moving up as you're coming off the brake, it also gives a smoother drive as opposed to stabbing at the throttle once you've released the brake, it takes a bit of practice, but once you get the hang of it, it's a much more responsive way to control the vehicle.