I think you miss the point somewhat. If you use the increased power by putting the foot down all the time of course you will have worse fuel consumption. But fuel consumption is not a fixed number.
It depends entirely on the load you are putting on the engine. Times of increased consumption are times of increased load.
The fuel figures for stop start city driving are always worse that HWY cruising because of having to continuously accelerate from a standstill, which uses five or six times more fuel over a short period than constant speed cruising.


An engine is most efficient at its torque peak where the engine is at it's least stress in carrying its loads. If you can broaden the spread of torque and increase it, then you are lowering the stresses on the engine over a broader plane, so it is operating more efficiently over a wider plane.
This means you are using the engine less in inefficient parts of the rev range (like lugging an engine up a hill in a high gear) where fuel consumption is at its worst.

Overall fuel consumption with a more torquey and less peaky engine can indeed be less.

And I totally disagree with your point about modern tuning boxes being crap. After all a remap is just 'fooling' the engine electronically, just as a tuning box does. There's plenty of evidence around that shows they can work, and work well.

 

I take issue with the statement that you can't get more power with more mpg. I have significantly more power after my tune than I did stock and can also get about 1 mpg more on the freeway. What you are missing is that I'm not getting better gas mileage while I'm "using" more power.

 

Any idea how this was achieved?

 

'I take issue with the statement that you can't get more power with more mpg. I have significantly more power after my tune than I did stock and can also get about 1 mpg more on the freeway. What you are missing is that I'm not getting better gas mileage while I'm "using" more power.'

Are you for real? 1 MPG difference? Just look at what you are using to measure that, the display on the dasboard. Something that is at best an indication only, was never even calibrated even when it left the factory. Is about 10-20% accurate at best(or inaccurate?), does not take into account driving conditions, atmospheric pressure, density, humidity, temperature, need I go on? and you crow about a 1MPG improvement????? You really do epitomise the mentality of the people who stick up for these boxes and let face it, keep those sharks in business

 

Not being facetious Mikey. Got an ECU tune. Drove 75-80 mph on the freeway on multiple occasions. Looked at the display and it said numbers that I was unable to achieve before the tune.

 

mmm, I get a variance of +/-3 mpg every day without a tune, any idea how that is achieved?????

 

I think you're the one not being real. In science class we learned that you minimize the variables when performing an experiment. If I used the trip computer for the control, then used the same instrumentation for the experimental measurements, then that variable should not be a factor. Same spotty measuring system for both groups. And that I can consistently get the higher number says it's accurate enough for these purposes.

And...I understand that 1 mpg is not worth tuning a car to achieve. Never said it was, nor was I "crowing" about anything. But YOU said you couldn't have both more power and better MPG. I gave you an example of doing so (do a search for my posts showing the dyno runs to prove I'm making 520 rwhp) and you lost your mind.

Then you rip the way I came to that conclusion because of atmospheric conditions, etc??? I'm not the fricken car companies that have sophisticated measuring devices and scientists and engineers to do peer reviewed, published studies for scientific journals. I can fire back at you and ask where your clean room rolling road studies are to prove that you CAN'T do it???

You're the one with the ax to grind. I'm just pointing out anecdotal evidence that it can be done. In situations other than freeway cruising on cruise control (as much as possible due to traffic) on flat road, I have no idea how it would come out. That adds way too many variables to make any conclusive statements.

But I do know my car is really fast, something yours will not be if you don't tune it !!!!

 

And I didn't say all of these things work the same either (or at all). I just pointed out your blanket statement was incorrect.

 

'And I totally disagree with your point about modern tuning boxes being crap. After all a remap is just 'fooling' the engine electronically, just as a tuning box does. There's plenty of evidence around that shows they can work, and work well.[/QUOTE]'

Well that just shows that you do not understand what a remap does and what a tuning box does. A tuning box can only modify inputs into the ECU so are a DUMB addition. A remap is a change in how the inputs are processed so is an intelligent (although not necessarily better) addition. As for evidence, yes there are dynometer traces that show increases in power and as I've said, any geek can get the engine to inject more fuel and get more power. What no one can show proof of is the claimed reduction in fuel consumption. Please don't go about what the dashboard computer says because that is nothing more than an indication. At least the dynamometers have been calibrated and is reasonably accurate, the dash computer is about 10-20% accurate. A cold clear day will give you a 5% improvement in fuel consumption over a rainy day without any tune.

 

'I think you're the one not being real. In science class we learned that you minimize the variables when performing an experiment. If I used the trip computer for the control, then used the same instrumentation for the experimental measurements, then that variable should not be a factor. Same spotty measuring system for both groups. And that I can consistently get the higher number says it's accurate enough for these purposes.'

Really? so you carried out the test beforehand in all weather conditions taking measurements of all variables , then did the same with the tune in exactly the same weather conditions? Set it up on a rolling road with a burette to measure the fuel consumption then i might believe , but claiming it improves fuel consumption with a claimed 1 mpg measured by the dash computer is just ridiculous.You can get a 5% difference between a cold dry day and a warm wet day with no tune, thats how much atmospheric conditions can affect MPG

 

I recognize the part atmospheric conditions play. I checked the mileage on various days over a season or two stock, on most of the same roads as after. I've since watched the mileage over a few years and it's higher. You also have to factor in that I live in the Los Angeles area and "seasons" don't really apply here and you are just as likely to have the exact same atmospheric conditions in June and January as not.

As I said, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement that it is always true to get more power and mileage with a box or tune. Was just stating that it is not impossible to do so at low rpm cruise on the highway with the same car pre and post tune. I'm done making that point, so have at it with any others who want to play.

 

'

Well that just shows that you do not understand what a remap does and what a tuning box does. A tuning box can only modify inputs into the ECU so are a DUMB addition. A remap is a change in how the inputs are processed so is an intelligent (although not necessarily better) addition. As for evidence, yes there are dynometer traces that show increases in power and as I've said, any geek can get the engine to inject more fuel and get more power. What no one can show proof of is the claimed reduction in fuel consumption. Please don't go about what the dashboard computer says because that is nothing more than an indication. At least the dynamometers have been calibrated and is reasonably accurate, the dash computer is about 10-20% accurate. A cold clear day will give you a 5% improvement in fuel consumption over a rainy day without any tune.[/QUOTE]





Did you even read my post? The part about driving in real conditions considering engine loading? Do you refute this is a factor in overall fuel consumption? We're not talking about engines on test beds here, we're talking about actual driving performance.

Piggybacked tuning systems have been around for years and have become much more sophisticated in interacting with the ECU. Ask any owner and modifier of high output motorcycles about the effectiveness of MOTEC, Power Commander, Tuneboy, ECM Spy etc. piggyback systems which allow reprogramming of every aspect of fuel curves, timing etc.- not just 'dumping more fuel in'.
The ones available for our cars aren't that sophisticated because they don't have to be for the average car owner who isn't after every available ounce of performance, but they do the job intended and do it well.
Even the ones available for our cars use the ECU's sensors to vary the inputs in real time, so they are not' dumb'.


Get with the times mate. Have you tried any of these systems or do you just have some sort of philosophical bias against them? Just repeating they're a rip off and don't work without offering any evidence experiential or otherwise just makes you sound like a ****.

 

Back on topic, there's still nothing here that addresses the OP's concerns.

 

Did you even read my post? The part about driving in real conditions considering engine loading? Do you refute this is a factor in overall fuel consumption? We're not talking about engines on test beds here, we're talking about actual driving performance.

Piggybacked tuning systems have been around for years and have become much more sophisticated in interacting with the ECU. Ask any owner and modifier of high output motorcycles about the effectiveness of MOTEC, Power Commander, Tuneboy, ECM Spy etc. piggyback systems which allow reprogramming of every aspect of fuel curves, timing etc.- not just 'dumping more fuel in'.

Get with the times mate. Have you tried any of these systems or do you just have some sort of philosophical bias against them? Just repeating they're a rip off and don't work without offering any evidence experiential or otherwise just makes you sound like a ****.
[/QUOTE]

Couldn't help myself...Madart is definitely correct on the benefit of boxes on motorcycles. Have a Power Commander V on my ZX-10 that was dyno tuned and the difference was dramatic. Overall throttle response was amazing afterward and power was increased. Have had it done for a few years and on Wednesday while riding was thinking to myself what a night and day difference it was compared to stock.

I make no claims about mileage on that one though.

 

Well I tried....

- Are you happy overall - how many stars? 1-5 (5= Excellent)

(on mate's car- which I know well and can compare to mine) yes he's very happy. I'd say 4 stars.

- Has it improve performance

Yes. a 20%performance improvement is great value.

- Has it improve gear changing - ie not staying in high gear at low
speeds and reducing droning/vibration/engine labouring.

It has made the standard gear ratios more flexible. Can't specifically answer the 'droning' question.

- Which make/model did you use

Bluespark Pro + Boost.

 

Just a suggestion for the OP.
This forum is heavily biased towards petrol engines and particularly V8s being mostly North American which didn't get the diesels (until recently), so you won't get much feedback from owners.
The English Jaginfo Forum is much more evenly weighted and theres a lot of discussion and owners reports about these boxes and tunes for diesels.

2.2d XF 190ps DTUK Tuning Box & Remap question

 

One thing to bear in mind is that Jaguar did not do this for some reasons. They might include keeping the car more reliable.

Jaguar would have wanted to get the max out of the car, consistent with things like reliability. (It helps sell cars.) So anything that gets more out has to be a trade-off. Generally sellers pretend this is not so. But they're sellers. Think about that before buying.

 

As I pointed out earlier, Jag made the 3.0 litre deiesel in two stock configurations- a standard and S version. Same engine exactly apart from the tune. Tuning the standard version only brings it closer to the S. So no loss in reliability.
I think the 2.2 litre can be had in two versions as well.A 187 and 197HP variation. It's very doubtful that a (say) 20% gain would compromise reliability.

Jaguar's prime reason for building the 2.2 diesel was economy- to meet stringent Euro emissions, and to make it more viable for fleet buyers and company cars which are given quite large tax breaks in Britain based on emissions. So not really a max performance design.

 

You may be right (or you may not) but a tuning chip or box is exceedingly unlikely to do what Jaguar do. Hope springs eternal, though.

 

No, fair enough. Most manufacturers do struggle these days to meet emissions though which put a real dampener on performance. Hence most engine outputs are well below their safe power potential, unless you have a Ferrari or a similar outright performance car (where high maintenance and fragility are the norm).

Diesels in particular a very overengineered to start with and the V8s are too. There's quite a lot of safe HP to be gained before you're going to overstress these engines.