Does more power mean "better gas mileage"?

I'm a gas mileage freek. Right now I am trying to "Free-Up: some ponies by installing a Mark VIII fan and Cobra R water pump to free up about 20 HP. I have a non-restrictive air-intake and great Cat-Back Exhaust that is just awesome.

Now, I am looking to "Create" better gas mileage through more natural horsepower .... like with a SUPERCHIP. One reason I have hesitated prior to this is ... I read a thread a while back where someone said,"To get the additional performance out of a SUPERCHIP, you have to go to premium fuel." In my opinion, that defeats the purpose of installing the chip right there.

But, now I understand that the newer SUPERCHIP does not require premium fuel. So, which way is it? Mike Troyer should answer this question for us. Or maybe someone has already asked this question.

My question to Mike is: Will I get better gas mileage along with more HP? This will make or break the deal for me.

Thanks to anyone who can help....

BillVoyles
LowRedRyder

 

Hi Bill,

Nothing has really changed, Bill, but since it's Christmas, perhaps it is a good idea to take some extra time & clear this up a bit for those who haven't seen us discuss this many times over the years..........................

First, to get right to the heart of it: you still aren't going to get a "significant" improvement in mileage or power via tuning on 87 octane in these vehicles. That's never been possible and that hasn't changed, it isn't possible now. End of story.

The entire purpose of a performance chip is to increase power by providing a better state of tune for the engine, it's purpose is NOT to increase mpg, even though that does happen most of the time, that is NOT the design purpose of any performance chip. A performance chip's design purpose is to IMPROVE PERFORMANCE, no more, no less. You may or may not see an actual increase in mpg, even though the *potential* for more mpg is there in our performance tuning for premium gas, that's not what it was designd for and is icing on the cake even on premium gas, forget about it on 87 octane, you'd be very lucky if that happened tuning for 87.

From the factory, these motors are tuned *very* conservatively (traditionally, viatually all but the best "performance" vehicles have always been tuned very conservatively), so that they can run on fuels as poor as 85 octane swill. Ford tunes these vehicles for the absolute lowest common denominator in terms of fuel supply across the continent. And the kicker in all this is, these days, anything less than the best 91 octane fuels are basically just that, swill. When you compare the octane level & energy content (BTU's) of today's unleaded gasolines to what many of us grew up with (like Sunoco 260 at 110+ RON, roughly equal to about 98 octane R+M/2), there's quite a difference, and the biggest reason why most of today's engines (Gm's reverse-flow cooling motors aside) have so much less static compression. Everything from the octane level to fuel formulation to even the manner in which octane is calculated in this country have changed *radically.* Add to that the additional rapid changes in formulations over just the past 4 years that the politicians have handed us in their efforts to improve air quality, and you have a situation where overall, fuel quality is down significantly, so the engines have to be tuned just that much more conservatively along with using lower compression ratios, all of which kills power, driveability, and mileage. They've made some of that up in other ways such as better ignition systems than we had 20 years ago (althought they still need a lot of improvement & pwoer & mpg can still be gained there), fuel injection, overhead cams, changes in metalurgy, lubricants & assembly techniques, etc.

The first step in getting better performance from these vehicles, the single best bang for the buck mod in terms of performance improvement, is to optimize the powertrain program. Give these poor motors some tune & feed them decently, along with fixing deficits, etc., that's always been true historically as well, not just in this day of computer controlled vehicles.

So, with all of that in mind.................

If we then try to improve power via tuning, which is basically optimizing the timing and fuel delivery along with fixing any deficits in the factory program, you quickly find that you can't add much timing, and thus can't make much power gain on 87 octane, which also eliminates the potential for fuel mileage gain that you have in our tuning for premium gas. Just exactly as everyone has seen us tell the public here for years, and that hasn't changed.

What *has* changed is simply the fact that here at Performance (this is not something Superchips is doing directly for anyone), we are offering "performance" programs for 87 octane in the single program Superchip, in *addition* to always having done that in the 2-program Flip Chip. Nothing more. The fact that we offer that has not changed the results we get, either.

So that is really the only change, Bill, the fact that you don't have to buy a 2-program Flip Chip to get a "performance" program for 87 octane from us. You still have to use premium gas in any "normal" Superchip, and in the newer Micro Tuner.

And virtually nobody wants this 87 octane tune in the single program Superchip, *precisely* because the benefits are so limited. The power gains via tuning for 87 octane on a 5.4 are maybe 5-8 HP at best, on average it's about 5. Along with little to no real potential for better mileage because there is hardly any more timing. It's the increased spark advance used on part-throttle specifically that provides the *potential* for improving fuel mileage, it's up to the driver & fuel used as to whether or not the real world mpg actually comes up, it's not the job of any performance chip to increase fuel mileage, nor should they be viewed in that vein, that's not what they're designed for. With more spark advance, yes, there is the potential for improving mpg, by a small amount, but that is a *by-product* of the design purpose of the Superchip.

The Superchip is a *performance* part, now and forever, it was never designed to increase mpg, even though that does happen in many cases, that doesn't change the fact that it's a performance part that was never designed (and can't be) to guarantee improved mpg.

As can clearly be seen by how many people use them and post clear dyno & track improvements in their performance here as a direct result, the Superchip is indeed doing exactly what it's designed to do, improve *performance.*

People use it and don't worry about the increase in fuels costs because that increase is miniscule. Worst case scenario, $100 per 10,000 miles driven (and for many it's even less), and for anyone looking for more performance, it really doesn't matter that they might spend as little as maybe $2-$3 a week more for gas to get a 1/2 to over a full second off their 0-60 & 1/4 mile times, along with all the other benefits. But then, they're looking for *performance*, which is what the Superchip is about, not mpg.

Trying to reduce fuel costs via a performance chip or expecting that to occur via tuning on low-grade fuel is a mistake. Performance tuning is for more *performance*, not for mpg increase.

Now, with all that having been said, if anyone wants us to make them a Superchip for use on 87 octane gas, we'll be more than happy to do that, we're happy to try to accommodate anyone the best we possibly can; that was really the whole point of offering that in the single program Superchip as a special order product from us. But please don't expect any more fuel mileage via tuning for 87 octane, as that may or may not happen, and probably won't.

I hope that clears things up about us offering a performance program for 87 octane in the single program Superchip for you Bill, & Merry Christmas!

 

Well Im pissed. Ever since I installed the Superchips program my mileage has gone down and my damn rear tires are wearing out like crazy!!

 

Mr. SuperChips Distributor,
I've heard that installing a SuperChip voids the warranty on your vehicle engine--Is that the case????

 

Hey all, check the SEARCH tab at the top and you can get A LOT of your questions answered. Check the thread below for your question on WARRANTIES being voided.
I spend a lot of time getting my primary questions answered with the SEARCH feature.
Hope this helps.
Merry Christmas all....

https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...voids+warranty

ALSO, I'll be tracking my tank for tank mileage since I installed my MicroTuner program on Saturday, 21 Dec. More to come (see link below). Initial 150mile figures show about a 2mpg increase. Only other mod is an Air Force One intake. MagnaFlow w/ "Y" pipe should be here soon.

https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...hreadid=100577

 

Bill,

Here's a owner perspective "hands on" of Mikes comments. I have a '95 and can still crank the distributor. No chip for now, but I have found the timing limits of 87 octane gas, and tried some changes with higher octanes as well.

Regardless of timing, I can see nothing worth working towards in mileage using 87 octane. On my truck I get slightly better mileage using 93 octane even if timing is at a stock setting. The gain is very minimal and doesn't even come close to paying the cost difference in the gas.


With my mods I almost always break 15 around town and highway is about 20 if I stick close to the speed limits. Not bad for an extended cab 4x4 with a 302. When the truck was stock I was lucky to see over 13 around town.

The mods that did it in my case were a full multi spark CD ignition (Jacobs), underdrive pulleys, and my cat back. On the newer trucks I doubt the ingition mods will help much, the pulleys should help either way, and the cat back might depending on your choice.

Also FYI.... I have seen a lot of confusion on the Cobra water pumps, but the only dyno testing I have seen indicates that it takes more power to turn. It has a more efficient impeller, but driven at the same speed it would take more energy to turn. Increased water flow, which might help on a clutched fan by allowing the clutch to "free wheel" sooner, but likely a loss in an electric application like you are considering.

 

Hi jenksj,

No, that is in fact highly illegal. What they *can* do is to deny a particular warranty *claim* if you have done a modification that actually *damaged* your vehicle, but that is the ONLY way that can be done, by law. Specifically, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which gives us vehicles owners the right to do whatever we want to our vehicles and have the warranty remain intact by law, as long as we do not DAMAGE our vehicles with our modifications.

And that's only fair, as if we damage our vehicles with a modification, then it's not fair to expect the automaker to stand good for that, so I like to call the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act a nice set of fair play rules, as it does in fact properly protect both the consumer and the automaker from each other.

Check our your rights under the law and then *enforce* them, that's the most important asset you can have, is correct information on what your rights really are and the willingness to do whatever it takes to enforce them. Check out this link:

www.sema.org/fedleg/warranty

We can thank primarily the good folks at SEMA (of whom this web site is a member) for helping us to have, know, and keep our rights to use good quality aftermarket parts chosen wisely.

Now, if you slap a nitrous kit on your truck, sure, you can usually kiss your powertrain warranty goodbye, as is only fair. But doing responsible mods like a good chip, intake kit, cat-back exhaust, electric fans, underdrive pulleys, etc., don't cause damage, and thus cannot legally be the source of a denied warranty claim.

Merry Christmas!

 

Signmaster makes a good point here................

On the so-called "Cobra-R" water pumps, which are basically the same as just about any other water pump Ford uses on their modular V-8's **that came with electric fans from the factory**............................

They are a waste of time & money on just about all F-150's except the Lightnings, by and large. For the Lightnings, which have a heavier and less efficient water pump (different from any other 5.4), you can gain as much as 3 to 4 HP from that switch (call it 3), and lose a tad over 3 lbs. of additional weight. So for a *Lightning*, and specifically the second generation Lightnings (1999 & up), that's a fine low-cost upgrade that'll net you a few more ponies. But in the "regular" F-150's, certainly by the 1999 model year, it's a waste of time & money, I'd do that only if the water pump has failed & needs replacement anyway, *and* you either have electric fans already or are going to install electric fans at the same time as the water pump change.

I've never seen the Ford electric fan modular motor V8 water pumps *cost* power as compared to the normal water pumps on these modular V-8's on F-150's (which do not come with electric fans from the factory), that's never been born out in any dyno comparison I've ever seen, but then I haven't seen the data that Signmaster is talking about, our R&D & testing is done on the F-150 platform primarily, not on Mustangs. That's interesting data to share with us (thanks, Signmaster). But I do think they're a waste as an "upgrade" on anything except the Lightning and perhaps a few '97 & '98 V8 F-150's. The so-called Cobra R water pump is really an "upgrade" primarily to the Lightnings, and only because the Lightnings have a heavier & less efficient impeller to begin with compared to other F-150 V8's.

Those looking for more power from the water pump can see "real" power gains by converting to an electric water pump. The new electric water pumps that are in fact capable of sustained long-term use on the street (Meziere) can gain as much as 18 HP @ 5400 rpm!

The other practical way to pull power out of the water pump is to just use an underdrive pulley set, and the 26% underdrive on the water pump pulley on these regular F-150 V8's, that particular part of it nets you about 3-3.5 HP out of the total 12 HP gain (rear wheel) from the underdrive pulley set (crank & water pump).

Just FYI..............

 

For anyone interested, here is one of the links that came up in the engines section recently. Cobra pumps/electric fan info

I believe some of the confusion came about when owners did the pump swap in conjuction with electric fans, so they assumed the fans weren't making much of a gain.


As for the Lightnings having a different pump, I was not aware of this, but will offer some speculation....... please keep in mind it is exactly that, but based on prior experience.

I've seen several instances where a slower water flow increases cooling. This was the case on putting underdrives on my 302, and has been around in boat circles for years. An extreme example of this is racing vehicles such as Baja type trucks that use no stat, but instead use a simple restrictor plate to prevent too high of a flow rate.

It could be possible that the L pump is less efficient at moving water, but more efficient at removing heat.


A modern cooling system can compensate for a lot of variables, which I found out recently when my fan clutch died completely. Even with underdrive pulleys, the otherwise stock system managed to keep the truck within the "normal" temp range, even around town. Granted, the temp wasn't up outside, but the truck was more or less operating without any fan.

 

Hi Signmaster,

Great post. I didn't look at the link, but I liked your point about removing heat as compared to raw impeller efficiency...........

Those old enough to have worked on older Ford flatheads know that one of the first things you do an a flathead water pump is to remove two of the impellers (nowadays aftermarket pumps are available already prepped), as those pumps moved too *much* coolant too rapidly, and that caused overheating in turn, due to the coolant not spending enough time in the radiator and receiving the basic benefit of the heat exchange going on via the radiator. An excellent example of your point, Signmaster, absolutely, that can indeed happen! And it's important to note that the cooling system is just that, a cooling *system,* all designed to work together to accomplish the task of maintaining proper engine coolant temperature.

Now in the case of the '99 & up Lightning, changing out for the Cobra R water pump actually does add a bit more power from what we've seen, actually does reduce weight, and does not change coolant temperatures "appreciably" with the use of a 170 degree thermostat. It maintains the same basic coolant temperatures (we've data-logged this many times) as you have with the stock water pump & thermostat (2nd Gen. L's use a 180 t-stat stock as compared to 192 for all 1997 & up "regular" F-150's), nor does it change the basic spread of coolant temps taken anywhere from right up top of the water pump to down low in the block, all of that remains basically the same, showing the same basic 20 degree spread, hotter on top & cooler on bottom, like you have on most water-cooling engines.

EDIT: I did go back and read that thread you referenced (it's the data hound in me), and thoroughly, and was glad I did. I noted with interest the results of the gentleman talking about the LOSS of power doing the water pump swap, and the subsequent post(s) regarding dynoing with the Cobra R water pump slowed down. It's very tough getting truly repeatable & accurate measurement of 2 & 3 HP gains, darn near impossible on readily accessible dynos, but I did read with interest that individual's comments, and found them very interesting. For example, we've never really seen any of the pumps that didn't have the ring on them. I do agree that the Meziere electric water pump is the way to go (it's also the first electric water pump really built for constant street use) for max power from that area, we've seen gains as high as 18 HP on the Lightning 5.4 motor from going electric on the water pump. Thanks for the link & your points!

 

Mike,

Interesting info.

I caught the comments on the ring myself, but the person that did the runs in the other thread said his did have the ring, and he gave a part number as well. I'm curious now if the design may have changed at some point, leading to inconsistencies in the data different people have.

I am also curious about what t-stat he might have used. This may seem like a small change, but could have a big effect on the dyno data.

Though I don't have any links to actual data to back it, I will give another example of the excess knowledge that the performance boat crowd seems to agree on.

Changing thermostat temp will obviously change the point at which the stat opens. You pointed out that your data shows that temps remained consistent. We must keep in mind, however, that by the stat opening at a different temp (and under heavy heat conditions open farther) that the flow path has changed, even though the pump rpm remains consistent.

Similar to exhaust, the path that the water takes must have an effect on the power the pump is using. It is possible that the pump in conjunction with the lower stat temp frees up a restriction in the water flow, which in turn frees up the HP.


The performance boat guys often deal with water to water heat exhangers, and seem to put a lot of work into flow through the exhanger. These guys tend to know a lot about water flow, so they must have some valid reason to go to such extremes. Those using raw water systems often change pulleys or impellers to compensate for different water densities as well.

It only seems logical that internal flow differences in an engine would make a difference, as the cooling system is really nothing more than a large intercooler.



Of course if Mike has tested the pumps with both stats and got consistent results all that theory goes to crap.

 

I tend to disagree that slower moving water through the system can improve cooling. You have to think of the system as a whole, in that how much heat over a period of time you are removing from the water.

The usual statement is that because the water stays in the radiator longer it has more of a chance to have its heat removed. While in the short term that is true, it will remove less heat over time than if it was flowing faster. Water at room temperature can absorb heat very quickly, but as temperature goes up, its ability to absorb more heat goes down. Therefore, in the scientific tests that I have read, keeping the water a little cooler by running it through the system faster, you have an overall more efficient system.

Of course, taken to the extreme you could have an extremely fast system cause cavitation of the water in the block, but I SERIOUSLY doubt anything we are talking about here will be doing any of that.

 

Mscott,

A valid point, but we must consider that we aren't looking for maximum heat removal. Instead we are looking to keep temps in the proper range for a specific application.

Under light load and daily driving conditions the thermostat isn't very far open in most cases. Though the water is flowing at a speed determined by the pump, only a portion of it is being cooled.

Personally everything I have seen indicates that most systems are larger than really needed. Even in the extreme cases such as Baja type race trucks they usually run no thermostat, but they do run a restrictor plate to control water flow.

This allows adequate flow when the rpms are down, yet restricts flow at higher revs.


In theory a variable speed pump not tied to engine rpm would be the best solution. This would allow flow based on cooling needs regardless of engine rpm. It could also allow quicker warm ups, and increased cooling when needed.

 

Good info