AU best fuel economy tune? - Page 2

Mr Hardware · 14-07-2008, 12:23 PM

just get a V8 on gas. faster and cheaper.

sly · 14-07-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T3man

Superchargers don't work that way mate - you pay for boost ALL the time with a supercharger because they are directly engine driven - which is why 90% of manufacturers go the turbo route - power/boost is on demand just like you want it.

You don't get boost ALL the time with a belt-driven SC, you only get boost when the bypass valve / BOV is closed, ie when you nail it. Sure it takes some power to turn the blower all the time, but a turbo isn't free power either due to backpressure. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

**Stav** · 14-07-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sox

Listen to Ratter and T3man, they're right, you're running to rich at part throttle.
Ditch the Haltech, your engine doesn't need it. You're making similar power to what my XH did and I used a standard XR ECU. AFR's were spot on all the time and I got over 100k more than you with well over 700k on the highway, and I never chased economy, that is, I drove it like I stole it.

A supercharger will use more fuel, no question, you can't have it both ways.
And you won't get 1000k's to a tank with your config, ever.

BTW, regarding the other thread, if you do end up going forced, a turbo is a much more elegant solution than a supercharger.

Without the haltech my car wont run.

Sox · 14-07-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stav

Without the haltech my car wont run.

Of course it will, you just don't know how to make it run.

**Stav** · 14-07-2008, 04:30 PM

Trust me it wont. If it does run at all it blows puffs of smoke like those american indian movies.Then..it cuts out.

Sox · 14-07-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stav

Trust me it wont. If it does run at all it blows puffs of smoke like those american indian movies.Then..it cuts out.

If it won't run without the Haltec, then you have some other fault.
Something else is wrong, your engine is nothing radical, it will run on a standard ECU, and it will run very well if you know what you're doing.
Trust me.

**Stav** · 15-07-2008, 05:56 PM

When the cam got sold to me the manufacturer told me the car will not run without additional engine management.

Back to the topic....

I got 400kays this time around only after removing a little fuel here and there

Maybe next week I will achieve 420km

Sox · 15-07-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stav

When the cam got sold to me the manufacturer told me the car will not run without additional engine management.

The manufacturers almost always say that. The AU's ECU is more friendly to big lift cams than the XH ECU was.
What are the cam specs?

Quote:

Back to the topic....

I got 400kays this time around only after removing a little fuel here and there

Maybe next week I will achieve 420km

Or maybe you'll roast a valve.

:

ayeyew · 15-07-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5.0whiteaughia

that is not necesarilly true that a supercharger will hurt your fuel economy

Yeah, i remember reading the stats for the VS Series II ages ago

v6 was 13.4L/100km

v6 supercharged was 13.5L/100km

But with the supercharged version, it was recommended to be run on PULP

sly · 16-07-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sox

The AU's ECU is more friendly to big lift cams than the XH ECU was.

My suspicion is that it doesn't atke well to mroe overlap. Whay ypou reckon?

5.0 ED · 17-07-2008, 01:41 AM

ayeyew - but what was the comp difference? Then find a non supercharged v6 with the same comp as a supercharged one and get the same economy.

You can't compare a forced induction motor with a na with different comps in reference to economy and then say they use more, cause a lower comp motor will always be less economical. And as i said earlier, i have done several with before and afters and have had better fuel economy from all of them from the forced induction setup's with the same comp as it was NA.

Stav's puffing vehicle sounds like its the result of a low reading on the maf due to low vacuum.

sly · 17-07-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5.0whiteaughia

Stav's puffing vehicle sounds like its the result of a low reading on the maf due to low vacuum.

The I6 doesn't have a MAF, TMAP on AU's. He probably has a heap more overlap than stock.

A workshop that ran diagnostics on my I6 some time ago (when I had an aftermarket cam in) told me that at idle the ECU reads the vacuum at a particular point in the cycle to determine how much fuel to supply. They were inclined to think that more overlap changed the vaccum enough at that point that the stock fuel map was way out. Low vacuum, as you said.

Sox's observation re the AU ECU and high-lift cams has legs I reckon, given JMM's approach to cam design... fairly small cams with high lift.

And I think ayeyew's point is that the SC engine used stuff-all more fuel than the NA one... agreeing with you.

5.0 ED · 18-07-2008, 01:55 AM

yeah maf was ment to be map. tmap is a map and Intake air temp sensor in one, so saying map is still technically correct, true?

Legs of Steel · 07-08-2008, 04:14 PM

I regulary get 530ks out of a tank in my AU SR. (round town) I put a K & N high flow air filter in it but showed no extra Ks out of a tank. Just replaced O2 sensor yesterday and feel better hope it shows at the pump. Best I got out of a tank was 785 on a trip and it was not empty. But I do drive like a granny round town.