The difference on the ECO tune from May and November could be winterized fuel
| LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/ |
|
| Latest Dyno Results http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=48009 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | DOC4444 [ Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Latest Dyno Results |
For those of you following this story, you may recall that the last trip to the dyno compared the InMotion Stage II with the GDE ECO tune, resulting in: ECO: 168.3HP @ 3500 307.8 lb/ft @ 2500 IM SII: 180.8 HP @ 3500 328.7 lb/ft @ 2530 This time, it was GDE vs. GDE: HOT: 180 HP @ 3600 RPM 320 lbs/ft @ 2700 RPM ECO: 160 HP @ 3600 RPM 293 lbs/ft @ 2600 RPM Check my previous posts for testing details (same dyno/same operator/same method). The only difference in the vehicle this time was the addition of a "euro" JK TC. These are all SAE corrected numbers. The ambient was about 58 compared to 80 in June. The correction factor added power in June and took away power in Nov. All runs made in June were with the SEGR enabled. The latest runs were made with it both enabled and disabled. There was no meaurable difference either way, as one would expect with GDE ECUs. Given that the "reference" ECU (GDE ECO) was down 8 HP and 15 lbs/ft from the last runs, it would make sense to add those numbers to the current HOT ECU numbers if you want to try to get a sense of how the GDE HOT tune might compare to the IM SII. However, the current numbers should be a very precise comparison of the two tunes GDE currently offers because this was same day, back-to-back. (BTW, I strongly suggest the ECO unless you have a TC that can handle the additional torque of either the HOT or the IM SII.) It is unclear what all was involved with the power being down somewhat this time with the same ECU that had previously been tested in June. However, the sllghtly higher RPM of the torque numbers accounts for some of it. The only known change to the test vehicle was the replacement of the TC. Please carefully review all my previous dyno test threads before posting questions about these results. Don't mean to be rude, but I'm moving my office and am really pressed for time for a while. I'm happy to respond to questions that have not previously been posed, though. On the subjective side, when driven conservatively, the HOT tune seems to me to produce the same remarkable MPG numbers as the ECO. DOC |
|
| Author: | Pablo [ Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Awesome info. I am holding off on the hot tune and keeping the eco for now. Waiting for the turbo... |
|
| Author: | CRD Joe [ Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have the IM S2. I'd like to know general driveablity and MPG differences between the IMS2 and HOT GDE tunes. |
|
| Author: | Joe Romas [ Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The difference on the ECO tune from May and November could be winterized fuel
|
|
| Author: | DOC4444 [ Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting thought, Joe R. Does anyone know if antigel additives lower the energy value of a gallon of diesel the way increasing the alcohol content of gasoline does? CRD Joe, GDE offers a seemingly always increasing array of neat little features that nobody else does, but if you already have SEGR installed, the only reason I would consider dumping the IM SII (which I bought first) is mileage. My wife drives the Jeep everyday in a very conservative, consistent pattern of 50/50 local/highway. She never got better than 23 MPG (hand calculated) with the stock ECU. This jumped to 26 with the addition of BOTH SEGR and IM SII (at the same time). Addition of the GDE ECO bumped it to a consistent 30 over the summer, with a long straight highway trip yielding almost 34. 4 tanks with the GDE HOT seem to be yielding similar mileage. It's been a long time since I have driven with the IM SII, so my memory for the real subtlties has faded. The main difference is the vastly better throttle response of the IM when you first touch the pedal. I really liked that, but cutting back on that is probably where GDE gains a good part of their MPG advantage. As you can see from the dyno numbers, as long as you get into the pedal, the power is there when you really want it with the GDE. An important part of the most recent runs is that there seems to be no difference (at least at WOT) in performance with/without SEGR with GDE ECUs. Some people have been skeptical about GDE's claim to be able to fully control the EGR with the ECU in the face of IM's claim that this is "impossible". While these dyno results are far from "proof", they do add to the mounting data that GDE's claims in this area may well be true. Personally, I have been running SEGR disabled for over 6 months now and at 6K oil change intervals the oil finally stays translucent for at least 500 miles following and the MAF sensor is only slightly "colored" with literally no "gunk" when I take it out to clean it. Prior to SEGR, the MAF would be "caked" in 1000 miles (maybe sooner, I never checked more often) and the oil would be opaque after a change and just having idled for a minute. I have not had a chance to try the viscous heater "early off" feature yet GDE has just added. BTW, if you remove the VH relay, you will pick up a minimum of 2-3 MPG in the winter. This is no joke. It consumes a huge a mount of power. In New England, last winter we ran without it, but with a FIA blanket and warmup was not much different than the previous winter with the VH operational and no grill cover. The new programming turns it off at a much lower coolant temp. The idea is for it to turn off after about the first 5 minutes from cold. In summary, it looks like the GDE HOT may make just a little more HP and torque than the IM SII, but probably not enough that anyone could really feel. However, for anyone who does not already have SEGR actually installed and clearly working properly, the dramatically lower overall cost of the GDE tunes make them the obvious choice. BTW, the "euro" JK TC (with GDE HOT) has shown absolutely no signs of shudder, so far, even under the most brutal towing conditions I could throw at it (5K tall horse trailer up long highway hills). (The IM SII with the F37 converter would literally blur my vision.) Since this is now the "standard" replacement TC for our US CRDs, I see it as the only thing to consider now. It will not void any factory warranty coverage for the trans, TC or related parts. The price is a fraction of Suncoast ($225 @ MPA) and several people have had shudder problems with Suncoast. DOC |
|
| Author: | Joe Romas [ Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DOC4444 wrote: Interesting thought, Joe R. Does anyone know if antigel additives lower the energy value of a gallon of diesel the way increasing the alcohol content of gasoline does?
DOC Most if not all fuel is winterized by additng kerosene and it has less btu's per gallon  I was talking to a tank truck driver for a local respected distributor and he said they added 30% kero
I got my first diesel car in the fall of 1978 and have noticed decreased MPG every year starting in early fall
|
|
| Author: | TDIwyse [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Latest Dyno Results |
Quick question on dynoing the CRD . . . Do you use the OD off button on the tranny to keep it in 1:1 and the TC locked up? If so, do you have to be careful when applying the fuel pedal to keep it from unlocking? I've dyno'd a manual tranny vehicle but not an automatic. |
|
| Author: | CATCRD [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Latest Dyno Results |
Yes, you take O/D off, slowly accel up to about 38mph when it shifts, hold there then roll into the throttle as fast as you can without unlocking the TC. It may take a few tries. |
|
| Author: | TDIwyse [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Latest Dyno Results |
Thanks. |
|
| Author: | Sir Sam [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Latest Dyno Results |
OP: Would you mind posting the DXF file of your dyno runs? |
|
| Author: | CRDMiller [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Latest Dyno Results |
I have the imII and have had it for a long time, and i love it, however, i do have a cel for p0401 because i removed the fcv butterfly and plated off the egr. California is soon to start smogging diesels, and you can not pass with a cel. In the future I will NEED a hot tune, and i would like it to have more power than the imII For the price of the SEGR i could just about have a gde hot, if only it had more power. |
|
| Author: | CRD Joe [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Latest Dyno Results |
Great info. thanks Doc. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|