Msl78

I'm thinking about buying one probably off eBay. But I have a hard time believing these little chips do what they say. I've seen all kinds of horsepower/mpg ratios but I'm not sure. Anyone have any proof? Thanks

Robar

Superchips Flashpaq for JK, Initial Impressions


Installed Hypertech Max Energy 2010 JK Review

Calypso

Are you serious? Just search Superchips and read over 1000 replys about it. I can't speak for other chips, but the SC is worth the $ !

rubican!

he is talking about the flood of Jet chips you can grab for $100 because everyone switch's to the super chips. Im pretty sure the jet chips improve HP and gas milaeage as advertised, you jsut get more control out of a tuner. If you can pick up a jet for 100 bucks i say go for it. I would. I have a pro cal already so i could save some money juet gettigna chips. But from lurking aorund here for a while most people sell the chips off to get super chips programmers.

Mark Doiron

If you believe that the programmers work, then you have to believe that the Jeep engineers left horsepower, torque and gas mileage laying on the engineering table. Then, you surely must ask the question, why? Why did they not go for every ounce of horsepower and torque? Why, in a CAFE United States where switching from a steel alternator bracket to a graphite bracket has become economically feasible, did the Jeep engineers not choose to wring every bit out of the Jeep's engine? After all, unlike a graphite bracket (and I'm not saying Jeep has them--I'm saying saving ounces defines the lengths that manufacturers will go to to improve gas mileage), a software mod is easily and cheaply deployed. So, were the Jeep engineers incompetent? Did they purposefully leave these improvements laying on the table because they know that Jeepers love to mod things? Or, is there some negative to this new-found horsepower/torque/mileage (such as shortened engine life, etc)?

I know what the dyno tests say: They document that the improvements are marginal but real. I know what people who spend their money on these products say: Overwhelming, the response is positive. And, I have a Hypertech and I'm glad I do because it fixed the tire size such that my computer gives correct speed, gas mileage, etc. However, I truly believe that with any of these programmers/chips, if installed in one JK, then driven side-by-side with a second, unmodified JK, it would be very difficult for most drivers to tell which was which. I think that programmers that adjust shift points would stand out, but that's not a factor for me and my six speed. But, other than that, I think most folks could not tell the difference. And, anyone who claims gas mileage improvements is clueless, because the business of determining gas mileage is a very exact science requiring strictly controlled conditions and fuel (fuel which is not available to the general public, I might add).

Bottom line: Get one of these to correct your tire size. If you can't afford a full programmer, then get one that just takes care of the basics. If you can afford a hundred or two extra, go ahead and get a full programmer. But, if you sense any amazing improvement in performance, that's just your wallet trying to justify to your brain why you spent the money.

JMHO. YMMV.

JPop

I can say that I can feel a seat of the pants performance increase with the Superchips Flashpaq. I can feel it even more so when I need to return to stock for whatever reason. The results are real and measurable just as both Crash's and my 0-60 times decreased by 7/10ths, one in an automatic and one in a 6 speed. I didn't have the same results with the Hypertech that I owned for a year previously.

There are several reasons why these improvements to the PCM don't come from the factory. They have the responsibility not only to the lowest common denominator in terms of fuel/altitude performance, but also torque management for smoothness in acceleration and ride comfort. The shift points from the factory are loose and sloppy, and that again comes from ride comfort despite being tougher on the transmission.

Chrysler designed their PCM to provide a smooth idle again for comfort reasons, not performance. Being right at the edge of pre-ignition and pinging is where you make the most power, and certainly Chrysler isn't going there because despite what many may believe, the soccer Mom with perhaps a taste for the outdoors doesn't care if she gets to the next stop light quicker but would certainly care if her idle is a little rough.

The suggestion that fuel mileage can't be affected is also out of bounds. While I certainly don't believe the numbers I have seen posted by some people, I have tons of tests and tens of thousands of miles with and without a programmer that provide me with empirical data of efficiency gains. If I can make more power per stroke by advancing timing and removing some torque management, then the ratio between what makes power and what is parasitic is increased. Now add in the ability to adjust the advance for other octanes, offering even more power per stroke and the efficiency gains can climb even more.

So to suggest that my observations makes me clueless and I'm rubbed a little the wrong way. I will say that my experience with the Hypertech is more in line with what you described, and I could never convince myself that I had any performance increase, and only very nominal efficiency gains. My experience with the Flashpaq was vastly different and from the first stomp on the throttle I knew there was a seat of the pants performance increase and later verified by hard numbers in 0-60 acceleration times.

The end result is Chrysler isn't all knowing and has objectives that are outside what's the right fit for a performance enthusiast. The objective for Superchips or any of the other Tuner companies are quite different and push the envelope a bit more. In some fairly rare cases, pushing the envelope as Superchips does may present the need for an octane bump beyond there tune, where as Chrysler retards the timing enough that it becomes the elastic pants that fits everyone no matter where they're pumping in their 87 octane or what they're going to do with it after they throw it in gear.

GoodysGotaCuda

Do not buy a cheap 'chip' off ebay. Absolute hoax, always has and will be. Buy a name brand unit, not just one sold on ebay.

Calypso

My bad. It was really early whenever I read that......

NorthRiver

Chrysler absolutely leaves power "on the engineering table".

All the auto manufacturers do it. As an example,Dodge comes out with a 300HP engine. Chevy bumps their HP to 305. Dodge wants to claim their trucks have the most available HP,so the next model year rolls around and they raise their HP to 308. Do you think Chrysler totally re-designed their engine to come up with that extra 8 HP?

A software tweak here or there and the Dodge magically makes another 8 HP.

Mark Doiron

The manufacturer published dyno numbers just do not support this "seat of the pants performance increase" between the Hypertech and the SC. I've looked at those charts in the past and it's just not there. And I should point out that when Hypertech was the only game in town, everyone swore what great increases they were seeing in power and gas mileage. It wasn't until SC came on the scene that they became the new darling. I'm sorry, I just don't accept your analysis of why Chrysler doesn't simply buy out one of these companies and deploy their remarkable devices. I reject it because no one has described the downsides that you say deter them from doing that: Rough idle, harsh shifting, not suitable for soccer moms (and presumably the wife), etc.

Clueless: Perhaps too harsh a word. But, your anecdotal data doesn't hold a lot of value. For example, was the age of the motor (thus the break in) identical? Obviously not, since you ran the Hypertech first, then the SC. Older motors tend to have better gas mileage (up to a point). Are you certain you ran exactly the same formulation of gas, and that you ran the tests in virtually identical environmental conditions? Or is it possible that more of your Hypertech usage occurred in the winter, using winter blended gasoline (or vice versa)? Are you certain that the temperature of the fuel during your tests was the same, since colder fuel is denser and heavier, and therefore packs more potential horsepower? So, while clueless may be too harsh a word, the truth is that I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this forum has the requisite technical knowledge to ascertain whether these programmers are truly increasing gas mileage. I believe that it's possible we may be getting a tenth or two of improvement--but there's no way that you or I or anyone short of a testing laboratory can truly determine that.