1) Has anyone put their JK on a DYNO before and after a super-chip re-flash. (Not Superchips but an independent consumer, i.e. one of us).

If so, i'd like to see that data, not "butt-o-meter". There is no way you can tell 10% HP delta by seat of the pants.

2) For the first time ever, my MPGs state 24.1-25 MPG on the highway. If there is no claim to tweaking MPGs, then why are the numbers so optimistally better but no better when calculated. They should've been the same.

 

With my driveline (e.g. gears, wheels, suspension) being stock, maybe that makes the difference, but my "computer" shows me getting around 17 mpg when I'm running the 93 Performance Tune and that's with "spirited" driving patterns. Now maybe the computer's MPG isn't exact, so I also go on the fact that I used to get around 290 miles per tank, and when running the 93 Tune I usually get around 325 miles per tank. I guess I'm putting snake oil in the tank.

 

A 24 MPG claim on dash when the truth is still the same (~20 mpg) highway implies either the flashpaq has got a bug in it which then shows up as higher implied MPGs or is happy showing favorable but unreal numbers. I don't want to say this is intentional, however, i let the math speak for itself.

 

How about you run 93 Octane with the tune set to stock ? If you get 325 miles per gallon, you've got snake-oil. If you don't get it and still get 290, then by all means.

But do an apples to apples comparison. You've changed 2 variables (tuning + octane) but are attributing the delta just to the tuning.

 

I agree fully, letting the math speak for itself, that's why I added that I'm now getting 325 per tank (on average). I've been running the 93 Tune since April.

Maybe the differences you are seeing are due to tire size not being accurate. While my wheels and tires are stock, I have seen discussions on how to properly measure the tire size for inputting the data into the Flashpaq. Does your speedometer seem to be correct? Otherwise, it seems that you have only been running that tune for a week or so. Maybe running it longer will allow the ECM to fully re-adjust itself. Not that that should affect the MPG reading, but just trying to help.

 

Hmmm, If I run 93 Octane on a Stock Tune, I won't get 325 MPG, but instead I will get a Hole Blown In My Piston, as the stock engine can't handle that Octane and will Ping like the dickens until something breaks. No thanks, I think I will pass on that experiment.

 

I am still sitting on stock 32s, about to be upgraded to 35s (hence the --> in my signature). Apologies if it was misleading.
So my suspension and tire size is still stock for the next 2 weeks.

The only performance deltas i have from stock are :

MBRP exhaust
Snorkel (RAM).

Don't get me wrong, i'd love to be able to run leaner like i do an airplane engine. But what we have here are highly subjective interpretations of performance.

I would love to get DYNO data for performance.
EGT data for leaner tune (and hence hotter).

If someone went to the trouble of doing that, it would be great to see the data.

For the Auto-transmission, i have no experience but wouldn't disagree if the shift-point RPMS come down a notch, ending up with higher MPGs.

 

Running 91 performance tune with 91 ocatane gas and I get slight pinging when I accelerate. 91 Octane is the highest I can get here, so I guess I will try th 87 tune and see what happens.

 

Actually quite the opposite - the higher the octane number the MORE resistant to detonation the fuel is - 93 octane on a stock tune will be fine, however you won't be getting any of the benefit of the higher octane fuel as there is not enough compression in the stock engine and not enough timing advance to take advantage of it.

I've run "chips" and "tuners" on other vehicles and had always seen the computers calculate a little high to REALLY high MPG claims - that's why I always want to see a couple tanks of good old-fashioned miles driven divided by gallons consumed - with 3-4 tankfuls that's enough to reduce the 'fill' error if there is one...

 

Thanks for the correction. I thought I used to know how that all worked, but I've lost way too many brain cells since then.

Either way, I'm still not going to run a few tanks of 93 Octane on a Stock Tune, letting most of it go out the exhaust pipe unused. I pass.

The whole idea behind the SC 93 Tune is adjusting the ECM to allow timing advances to take advantage of running 93. So, naturally, I did both at the same time, otherwise it would be a waste.