ECUFlash Tune Milage and Mods
Dec 28, 2007, 10:36 AM
#62
Evolved Member
iTrader: (90)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Roselle, IL
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got 340miles to a tank after this mod. Amazing, usually the maximum I get is 260miles to a tank. This was cruising at 65mph, zero boost, RPMs pretty much right under 3k in my 5spd.
Dec 28, 2007, 12:21 PM
#63
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJ, CA
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are in the loads that this effects you shouldn't be making any boost whatsoever, no matter what boost controller. If you are in boost you are already in higher load cells which would most likely make the car richer than stoic. ymmv depending on tune.
I had a chance to do another road trip down the long 5 freeway this week, the same trip I took earlier this year with the open loop trick that netted 25mpg. Without this open loop trick I averaged 24mpg.
Not really worth it to me. Others might have better results.
I had a chance to do another road trip down the long 5 freeway this week, the same trip I took earlier this year with the open loop trick that netted 25mpg. Without this open loop trick I averaged 24mpg.
Not really worth it to me. Others might have better results.
. Perhaps I shoulda waited until the flat part to try it out 
Dec 28, 2007, 02:08 PM
#64
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJ, CA
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was out playing around some more...with changing only open loop load table #2....I see no change at all compared to closed loop in terms of load and IDC, and my afrs stayed at 14.7. When I was playing around yesterday I changed both table 1 and 2 to 45% and thats when I was able to go leaner.
I'm stumped why others only change table #2 and see an improvment, but I dont even see the afr change at all with just editing that table
I'm stumped why others only change table #2 and see an improvment, but I dont even see the afr change at all with just editing that table
Dec 28, 2007, 02:14 PM
#65
Evolving Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was out playing around some more...with changing only open loop load table #2....I see no change at all compared to closed loop in terms of load and IDC, and my afrs stayed at 14.7. When I was playing around yesterday I changed both table 1 and 2 to 45% and thats when I was able to go leaner.
I'm stumped why others only change table #2 and see an improvment, but I dont even see the afr change at all with just editing that table
I'm stumped why others only change table #2 and see an improvment, but I dont even see the afr change at all with just editing that table
Dec 28, 2007, 11:25 PM
#66
Evolved Member
iTrader: (90)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Roselle, IL
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much did the IDC's change after adjusting both tables in compared to just table #1?
I was out playing around some more...with changing only open loop load table #2....I see no change at all compared to closed loop in terms of load and IDC, and my afrs stayed at 14.7. When I was playing around yesterday I changed both table 1 and 2 to 45% and thats when I was able to go leaner.
I'm stumped why others only change table #2 and see an improvment, but I dont even see the afr change at all with just editing that table
I'm stumped why others only change table #2 and see an improvment, but I dont even see the afr change at all with just editing that table
Dec 29, 2007, 01:04 AM
#67
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJ, CA
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With just #2 changed, I saw no difference in IDCs vs closed loop (7.5-8% IDC@70-71mph, ~55 load)
Dec 29, 2007, 10:28 AM
#68
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cypress
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I set my open loop load tables to 40 figuring it could go into open loop a little sooner. I noticed some minor driveabilty changes. When starting from cold soak and driving off right away, the engine needs a little more throttle to get speed or the engine is a little less senstive to small incremental changes in throttle position. Its not a flat spot, but a very minor noticable change. It goes away within a minute of driving or so.
The other thing I noticed is that the car makes a slightly more sudden and slightly later transition to boost, the transient is a little less smooth.
These thing are so minor that most people probably would not notice, I can just tell because its my car and I am used to it.
I'll log mileage and report later.
The other thing I noticed is that the car makes a slightly more sudden and slightly later transition to boost, the transient is a little less smooth.
These thing are so minor that most people probably would not notice, I can just tell because its my car and I am used to it.
I'll log mileage and report later.
Dec 29, 2007, 02:04 PM
#70
Evolved Member
iTrader: (90)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Roselle, IL
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
typical basic mods (TBE/mbc/fp), 93octane, nothing abnormal. Just driving very lightly on throttle cruising 65mph. Barely at -15 on the factory boost gauge.
Dec 29, 2007, 07:40 PM
#71
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cypress
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something I noticed is that the low and mid LTFT's won't set. I kinda figured that the mid LTFT would probably not trip but I can see the car is still in closed loop at idle but the low LTFT won't set no matter how long it idles.
Dec 29, 2007, 08:03 PM
#72
Evolved Member
iTrader: (90)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Roselle, IL
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something to take note, NJ1266 actually made a post about some IX's having issues setting fuel trims on stock 513 scaled injectors and how setting the injector scaling to on a stock injector'd car helped set the STFT/LTFT's closer to 0. Try it out...