ECUFlash Tune Milage and Mods
Jan 8, 2008, 07:47 AM
#107
I wondered about the 5% I posted above from the change in AFR but felt it was at least a conservative estimate in raw fuel usage. (And yes, AFRs are measured with a wideband. Veta is right that trying to estimate 15.5 with a narrowband would not work well.) What I know for sure is that I've seen a good 10% mileage improvement and I thought that was a pretty good result.
Jan 8, 2008, 11:29 AM
#108
I always see some pseudo "tuners" trying tune car using narrow band, and they cant hear me until they kill engine.
So sorry if i am too hard by trying to help, trying to explain that narrow band lambda cant be use for tuning another value else 14.7:1 what is she designed for.
So sorry if i am too hard by trying to help, trying to explain that narrow band lambda cant be use for tuning another value else 14.7:1 what is she designed for.
What is it with people on this board that immediately think everyone is a "pseudo tuner" but themselves?
Jan 8, 2008, 12:04 PM
#109
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,228
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.
The best I have done so far was getting about 315 miles out of a tank, but that was crusing with a tailwind going downhill in slightly colder weather mst of the way from Asheboro, NC to Charleston, SC. I logged 243 miles on the trip, then the rest was city driving, but I still hit 315 before the gas light came on.
This mod with my 05 only was of marginal help. If I average it all out, I probably went from roughly 220 to 240 miles a tank. Yuck.
Jan 8, 2008, 05:25 PM
#111
the thread turned into lean cruise too. but there may be an answer for you there.
Jan 12, 2008, 12:04 PM
#112
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cypress
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I just did my first tank of fuel since the changes and I went from 16 mph to just under 20 mpg. My driving is mixed cycle but with a lot of short hop drives.
I set both of my load maps to 40 and also advanced my low load timing by around 4 degrees filling up some odd holes and dips in the map that I think are there for emmissions reasons. The total timing doesnt exceed 40 degrees.
I havent logged any knock count either and noticed more manifold vacume under light load.
I am pretty pleased, I have gone from a super lame 12 mpg bone stock to nearly 20. Not bad.
I have a 2006 IX.
I set both of my load maps to 40 and also advanced my low load timing by around 4 degrees filling up some odd holes and dips in the map that I think are there for emmissions reasons. The total timing doesnt exceed 40 degrees.
I havent logged any knock count either and noticed more manifold vacume under light load.
I am pretty pleased, I have gone from a super lame 12 mpg bone stock to nearly 20. Not bad.
I have a 2006 IX.
Feb 17, 2008, 12:01 PM
#113
I finally got around to tuning in the low load for nearly constant open loop.
A couple of observations , that many of you have already noticed, 1, even though my open loop was set in the forties (and the zeros, just as JB's posted map)it had the effect all the way into the high twenties. It did very briefly bounce around but for the most part kept steady. 2, This has the effect of totally overriding closed loop. My short and mid trims did not budge for about an hours worth of driving.
I have just now lowered the open loop into the twenties. From what I saw with the other map, it will be one less variable that needs to be tuned too without the closed loop budding in.
Has anyone who has had success with this alteration since decided it was not such a good idea?
A couple of observations , that many of you have already noticed, 1, even though my open loop was set in the forties (and the zeros, just as JB's posted map)it had the effect all the way into the high twenties. It did very briefly bounce around but for the most part kept steady. 2, This has the effect of totally overriding closed loop. My short and mid trims did not budge for about an hours worth of driving.
I have just now lowered the open loop into the twenties. From what I saw with the other map, it will be one less variable that needs to be tuned too without the closed loop budding in.
Has anyone who has had success with this alteration since decided it was not such a good idea?
Feb 17, 2008, 12:12 PM
#114
Still works for me. I get an average of 18 around town driving in a fairly sane manner, 15 when I dont, and 26-28 on the highway if its flat open cruising. The worst I have seen recently was 25 over fairly uneven terrain where it required some boost while cruising. YRMV 
?
Apr 3, 2008, 11:20 PM
#118
Certain emissions do go up...NOx being one of them I believe. I dont think that its a significant increase but its still gases. The hydrocarbons drop obviously.
And for UCB, I missed your question the first time around but I am running FIC750's
And for UCB, I missed your question the first time around but I am running FIC750's
