How about modifying the program so the TC locks up quicker/harder from a 4th gear to 3rd gear downshift. Lockup takes several seconds and cant be good for the tranny. Thanks!

Flash

 

nah, those 2010 guys have a nice new jeep to play around with, don't worry about them. i had to wait for the flashpaq for the JK, they can sit tight.

kidding - i'm just jealous. on a serious note, the update process seems very tempermental. i'm not sure if this is on the user side or if there can be enhancements made to the flashpaq or the sc site to help this.

make no mistake though, i'm a proud supporter of the product - just offering my observations.

 

I have never had any problems updating mine or tuning the jeep, it's been flawless every time.

 

Thanks for the feedback. You may want to try giving them a call as this (updating) should be pretty seamless and not give you any issues. You may be able to give them your serial number and see if they can tell you if there is an issue specific to your programmer.

 

Flash - I shot your input to the engineering group. Thanks for your feedback.

 

Installed the mileageXS tune last week (3 tanks ago) and havent noticed a difference in power from the 91 tune I was running for over a month.

Shift points appear to be the same, pops out of gear at the same hill and speed, and whats most odd is that my gas mileage is roughly the same (as measured by my scangauge).

 

How does the fuel consupmtion from your Scangauge compare to the built-in MPG indicator?

 

If I reset the built in at the same time I do the scangauge, then theyre pretty close, +/- 1 mpg. I use the built in for multiple tank, or what most call 'lifetime' MPG's, and the scangauge for tank-by-tank monitoring.

 

i used the fuel saver mileage x tune for several tanks and did not notice much difference, however, two points are of interest:

1. the mpg indicator on the dash was as high as 24 mpg's (at roughly 55 mph) when it was in mileage x mode. that is at least one mpg higher than what I have received in the other tunes. problem is, i have not taken any long road trips to see if this actually is validated by a manual fuel mpg calculation at the pump. also, i think that my readings with the mileage x program were not great because under acceleration, the loss of power in this tune is compensated by dumping more fuel into the cylinders. no proof of this, but just a theory.

2. Jpop, who is a demi-god on this site, claims good success with the mileage x saver program (1-1.5 better mpg's). he knows a hell of a lot more than i do.

 

The 1-1.5 mpg improvement I mentioned was comparing the 87 tune to the Mileage XS tune. I get virtually the same mileage gain moving from the 87 tune to the 93 tune.

For me, I'd prefer not to give up the power gains for the added economy. On a long trip and rolling through the hills, I'd much rather limit my downshifts than save a couple bucks on fuel. I also like having that extra bit of power when I need to pass someone on a two lane highway.

My findings on the JK didn't vary at all from what I found on my Ram and I don't use the Mileage XS on either of them. That's not to say that it doesn't work, but there are consequences and performance levels closer to stock. If I'm spending 20-30 hours behind the wheel on a trip, the last thing I want to do is take away drivability.