the computer milleage has never been acurate even if you dont have a flashpaq. If you want to know real mpgs use a little math and do it yourself. Its just a waste of time for you to argue about a computer that has never been accurate.

also, even when measuring your tires properly you need to check your mph with a gps unit. that will help you dial in your tire size. this will help the computer but not make it perfect.

 

I tried the 91 for a couple of weeks. Made sure all the 87 gas was burned and had a full tank of 91 to start. At first I thot it added significant pickup and freeway speed. My mpg per the dash went down and stayed down. Yesterday I went back to the 87 tune at 21 cents per gallon cheaper. My mpg went back up, but I didn't really notice any significant drop in performance. And most of the first tank was back to 87. I drove freeway and mountains most of the day.

I may give it another try, but most of my experience is that the 87 tune is the best bang for your buck.

BTW if SC is screwing with our mpg computers to make them look good, they forgot to do mine since my displayed mph went DOWN with the higher tune, not up.

 

Check to see what version of the software you are running. Many people have had smoother low rpm acceleration with the newer v1.18.07.

 

To my knowledge and at least on this forum I am unaware of anyone having placed their JK on a Dyno for an SC test. As I've stated several times before, a dyno is a useful tuning tool but doesn't tell the whole story. One example is the throttle position restriction in lower gears with a stock vehicle and that restriction being removed with the Superchips tune. If you do a dyno run as prescribed and in the 1:1 gear you never see that difference.

Asfor seat of the pants and butt-o-meter, I can tell when my Chevelle or Malibu pick up a tenth in ET drag racing before I ever collect a time slip. My JK with a stock to 93 tune test picked up 7/10ths in 0-60 times and I didn't need the data acquisition to tell me it was quicker.

My on board computer seems to exaggerate my mileage just the same as before the Flashpaq. On my Dodge Ram it seems to always come up short of actual mileage with the SC just as it did stock. From my assessment, throttle blade position seems to play a large role in what the computer thinks is going on and more advance with the SC is a probable cause to reducing the throttle position while still providing the same amount of power.

I don't believe SC does anything to manipulate the computer, but they do change the input data by adjusting things like advance, throttle position and the calculated tables by which the vehicle operates. It's nothing sinister or trying to mislead people, just that it works equally poor and unreliable as it did before.

I have tons and tons of hand calculated mpg data ranging from stock, various Octanes, a Hypertech programmer and my current SC programmer. Mileage from the Hypertech to the SC varied little but both were an improvement over stock running the apples to apples 87 octane. With both the Hypertech and the SC with higher octane I had better mileage and no reason to do the same with the stock vehicle that wasn't designed to run above 87 octane.

As someone who has battled lean conditions since I installed headers I have no desire to run lean. If anything I would like my A/F ratios to be a little on the fat side to protect my engine from pre-ignition, pinging and potentially dangerously high cylinder temperatures.

 

So essentially there is no scientific data anyone can produce.

I would really be pleased if someone did.
I really want to believe my $300 turned into something tangible.

 

I do have the latest software version 1.18.07. I just don't want to damage the engine. A slight pinging under load in the 2500 to 4000 rpm range scares me a little bit.

 

I agree! At what elevation are you and you should certainly send that information to SC.

 

Yes there is scientific data done by a few members here.

0-60 performance tests ran by more than a few members before and after an SC Tune reveal dramatic increases. My 0-60 time went from 9.84 seconds stock to 9.14 seconds with an SC Tune. AlmightyCrash had even better results although he ended up with a similar 0-60 time after his tests. Those would both be scientific tests, but if you want dyno results you should go log some time on one.

 

I'll run it on 93 this week with stock tuning.
Then i'll run 93 with 93 tuning.

Dyno - if results don't exist, that's where i end up. I was hoping they do. If they don't that's ok. I 'll end up doing them.

 

I am at around 2500 ft.

I am also submitting my problem on the flashpaq forums. I will submit what Ron tells me here.