Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
I have an extremely difficult time believing that he was able to boost his fuel economy by 13.3mpg (a 37.4% increase) by ONLY flashing his tune on his car, driving in exactly the same way, with exactly the same route in exactly the same conditions, making full round trips.

There isn't enough information in that first post to determine whether or not his tests were even valid. ****, I averaged over 50mpg with my Cruze over the weekend (DIC said 55mpg), no Trifecta tune, but that was mostly highway driving. I can guarantee you that you won't get a 37% increase by JUST flashing a tune.

A 37% increase is massive in general, but a claim of 37% increase on top of 35.4mpg (which is already high for a non-hybrid) should start raising some eyebrows on even the most avid believers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
From the dealer I ordered from, it was said to be non-refundable since its locked to your VIN. And with the transparency mode there are a number that say they've gone to the dealership with it and it didn't show up on a scan.

Xtreme you also have the stick. That was with the automatic. The gains with the stick probably are far less. I will report back in 2 weeks on my fuel economy with the Eco mode tune on my car. Since thats about how long a tank lasts. So far according to the DIC its already reading higher on the average with the same driving style. I will say when driving though and looking at the instant mpg reading, it almost seems to read lower though. So I'll just have to wait and see when I fill up.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
From the dealer I ordered from, it was said to be non-refundable since its locked to your VIN. And with the transparency mode there are a number that say they've gone to the dealership with it and it didn't show up on a scan.

Xtreme you also have the stick. That was with the automatic. The gains with the stick probably are far less. I will report back in 2 weeks on my fuel economy with the Eco mode tune on my car. Since thats about how long a tank lasts. So far according to the DIC its already reading higher on the average with the same driving style. I will say when driving though and looking at the instant mpg reading, it almost seems to read lower though. So I'll just have to wait and see when I fill up.
Even so, he noted 48.9mpg, which is off the scale of what anyone has been getting with the Auto. I'm going to guess this was all highway driving according to the DIC and every effort made to achieve the best fuel economy possible. In any case, I'm looking forward to your results. Try removing the tune afterward and running another tank of gas to quantify your results.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,339 Posts
The Carl Sagan "reality" test: "...Extreme claims demand extreme evidence..."
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
Xtreme... Buy the tune and debunk it with your experiences and data... Not with conjectures of plausibility
And what happens when I get it and it doesn't live up to the differences Vince claimed in that post? I'm out $300 and I just swallow the cost? No thanks.

How about if someone makes a claim that their product can do something, and as 77AARCUDA very well noted is an extreme claim, then that same person making the claim should provide an extreme evidence to back it up. It shouldn't be my job to back up someone else's extreme claims for their tune at my own expense. That said, I'd be glad to give him an entire Saturday of my life to test out the tune for him and provide some real results if he gives me the tune. I'm sure if my results correspond with his claims, it would get him more business than I would care to mention, but I'm not going to buy it just to find out. My last tank was a few decimals over 42mpg at the pump with at least 70% city driving, which is consistent with the 41.3mpg before that. My experience tuning is limited, I will certainly admit to that, and I don't personally use the Trifecta tune, but I know enough from when I was tuning that you aren't going to boost over 37% when you're already pulling mid 30s with JUST a tune in a 3100lb car with an auto trans.

Anyone who thinks critically about this would demand more information and proof before believing those claims.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
Vince just posted someone else's claims, he doesn't claim any hard numbers for obvious reasons...
I can understand that. I simply had the impression that he was supporting those claims by sharing them openly. It doesn't make a difference to me. I still recommend the tune to people who have an Auto transmission for the obvious benefits there, but I'm still a little uncertain about the fuel economy benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Even so, he noted 48.9mpg, which is off the scale of what anyone has been getting with the Auto. I'm going to guess this was all highway driving according to the DIC and every effort made to achieve the best fuel economy possible. In any case, I'm looking forward to your results. Try removing the tune afterward and running another tank of gas to quantify your results.
I agree. If a tune was that effective in gaining that kind of fuel mileage, GM engineers would have put it on the car in the first place. Call me a doubter, but I seriously do not think an automatic Cruze Eco can do better that the manual trans, no matter the tune job. Man, if it does that much for an automatic, I can get 60+ with a tune on my 6-speed!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,849 Posts
If you want to argue it, call Steve at Insane Speed and argue his claimed numbers. That's who the quote is from.
I'm not arguing it, I'm saying there's more to it than just the tune. There's no doubt in my mind.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,351 Posts
I dont have much opinion on the gas mileage quoted by this tune, however, the Auto ECO states 38 on the window sticker, if Im not mistaken. The 6MT lists 42. Now owning and tuning over a dozen forced induction cars. I will tell you that there is a lot to be had when you start tuning the ECU. The factory sets the ECU up for extreme longevity. Most tuning can be gained by leaning the fuel mixture out from what the factory sets it at. All cars run on the rich side from the factory, on purpose, so you can drive them at all elevations and the air fuel mixture is still at a safe level. Driving a car at 6,000 feet with thinner air makes a hige difference in the way the engine performs.

In this tune, it seems that most, if not all of the tuning has been done by datalogging the car at various levels while leaning out the fuel mixture. The other is done by simultaneously raising the boost level to 20PSI. Data logging the runs, you can add and remove fuel at certain RPM points to tune for optimum performance. This car has a long way to go with tuning. Turbo charged cars from the factory are very easy to tune and no one has even cracked the surface of this car. It hasnt really caught on yet. I emailed a few turbo builders that I know, and they have nothing on the drawing board for this car. I dont know how easy its going to be to get turbo builders to do something with this turbo. They are used to messing with Garrett and Mitsubishi turbos. Honeywell is one of the biggest manufacturers of turbos, so I have no doubt that there will be options eventually. I just dont see this car going dead in the water anytime soon.

Now, depending on just how lean this car really runs from the factory may mean a few things. Chevy has purposely detuned the vehicle to allow the vehicle to grow in its class. If they come out with the 2013 Cruze and it gets 46MPG, they dont have to do anything except tune the ecu a little. A manual getting 42 MPG and a Trifecta tuned Eco getting 48, isnt that much of a change. With the boost turned up, the car is going to be making much more power, which is also easier for the engine to get up to speed. So with that, I think its possible with the right tuning. Not all cars are the same from the factory. This is why the EPA gives you an average. The factory would be getting hammered advertising a car getting 50MPG when thats the theoretical max. Cars simply will not get the same gas mileage as they did in the mid 1990s and 2000s. Cars today are so much safer than cars from 10 years ago. Cars back then had no airbags, today this one has 10. 5 Star crash safety rating across the board with the exception of roll over. most didnt have ABS, traction control, or anything like that. So things have changed. With the safety standards of the mid 90s, this car would get 60MPG all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
..... depending on just how lean this car really runs from the factory may mean a few things. Chevy has purposely detuned the vehicle to allow the vehicle to grow in its class. If they come out with the 2013 Cruze and it gets 46MPG, they dont have to do anything except tune the ecu a little. A manual getting 42 MPG and a Trifecta tuned Eco getting 48, isnt that much of a change. With the boost turned up, the car is going to be making much more power, which is also easier for the engine to get up to speed. So with that, I think its possible with the right tuning. Not all cars are the same from the factory. This is why the EPA gives you an average. The factory would be getting hammered advertising a car getting 50MPG when thats the theoretical max. Cars simply will not get the same gas mileage as they did in the mid 1990s and 2000s. Cars today are so much safer than cars from 10 years ago. Cars back then had no airbags, today this one has 10. 5 Star crash safety rating across the board with the exception of roll over. most didnt have ABS, traction control, or anything like that. So things have changed. With the safety standards of the mid 90s, this car would get 60MPG all the time.
I certainly am in no position from a knowledge standpoint to argue with you on the reasons for manufacturers dealing with the EPA and/or marketing as they do. However, I am not sure I understand what you imply about cars "simply not getting the same mileage as cars of th '90s and '00s". Many of those cars had airbags, which apart from weight considerations has little effect on mileage, and the same goes for brake systems and traction control etc. Those do not, IMO, appreciably affect fuel mileage. I would agree the the air quality standards imposed upon the auto manufacturers has had an effect on mileage. Some cars today with similar engine displacement get less mpgs than my old '92 subaru (@ 28-29 mpg) 2.0L. That is with an all-wheel drive system which has to weigh more than front wheel drive. I simply do not think the improved safety of the cars today has anything to do with mileage considerations for meeting the fleet average required by the EPA.

Secondly, it is well known that if you lean the mixture on any engine you can increase the fuel efficiency, but cylinder head temperatures running much higher than designed values will certaily shorten the life of the engine. I'm not trying to pick a fight here. It just seems that agressively altering the timing and fuel charge will change some things that may not be as beneficial as the increased mileage from an after-market tune.

And finally, cars today get better fuel economy mostly by reducing displacement. At some point they have to turbo these small engines to get enough torque to run the car adequately for most operators. You have to admit, 1.4L is pretty tiny, even motorcycle size displacement, attempting to push a 3000# car.
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top