Ok Mike... I performed a search in the Computer Chips thread and found MANY others complaining of WORSE mileage.
----------------------
Since you like to dig up the past....

QUOTE FROM YOU MIKE:

"If you have that data, and especially which brands, etc., (if you did that kind of comparison as well) in your area produced
exactly which results, that would be very interesting data to see. Your gas mileage is the best informal indicator of actual
energy content in your fuel supply (BTU's per lb. or gallon of gas), as a higher energy content will generally yield higher mileage results, so if you've got results for different brands, that is good data to have for your area! "

https://www.f150online.com/f150board...ML/001301.html


Sounds like you have gone against what you first posted?
------------------------------------------

I know your upset that this data simply shows that I do not get any REAL decreases in fuel consumption.

Sure it would be great if we ALL drove the exact same route using the exact same gas with the exact same formulation with the exact same weather ALL THE TIME. That is NOT the real world PERIOD! Most of my data is from driving the SAME ROUTE every week.

You obviously want to RE-COUNT until you like the outcome...You know what I mean?

---------------------------------------------
Furthermore, I use thread names that draw attention. You have to! I've seen to many GOOD threads go to waste because no one bothers to read them!

---------------------------------------------

You can say all you want about any of my posts. My goal is to inspire people to question the statements about products and motivate people to get involved. Learn something!

I have never once attempted to set-up any real scientific tests. Who has the time?

I can NOT to see the relevence of scientific testing with the Superchip and its fuel consumption. I want to know what it can do for me on the road! Obviously NOTHING!

So who's got the problem here? The person who spends very little spare time reading some threads and posting some findings about some products.... OR... Making a living by selling a product which appears on the outside to decrease fuel consumption but really only does this in the "scientific" labratory. Snake oil?

I know you have a LARGE following on this site and might just be the nicest guy on Earth! But I still want to know why I AND OTHERS are not seeing this gain. I beleive that the people who say they are getting this increase are really NOT.
Why you ask?

1. They are driving it differently and WANT to see these gains.

2. They used a different fuel.

3. The fuel's been reformulated.

4. The sun was too high in the sky.....


THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE SUPERSHIP!

I have shown my results and so have others. I have NOT seen ONE "Scientific" or Non-Scientific long-term test that shows the Superchip DOES in fact decrease fuel consumption!!!!!!!

What I have seen is a random Superchip advertisement which boasts "INCREASE IN MPG" and a few people SAY they've seen an increase....


HERE'S a simple example of the difference in a fuels energy content. CITY HIGHWAY where Driven EXACTLY the same both times... SAME ROUTE!

CITY NO CHIP
8/9/00 mobile 87 313 24.6 12.72
8/19/00 Texaco 87 315 24.5 12.86

CITY AND HIGHWAY NO CHIP
11/10/00 citgo 87 364 24.7 14.74
11/14/00 citgo 87 331 24.7 13.40

CITY AND HIGHWAY CHIP
9/15/00 exxon 93 338 25 13.52
9/22/00 sunoco 93 350 26 13.46

CITY CHIP
10/6/00 citgo 93 314 23.6 13.31
10/10/00 exxon 93 316 24.5 12.90

There is NO WAY I get that huge of a difference.

So now I ask you, was this SMALL increase due to the CHIP or the Fuel? OR was it the way I drove?

Actually, the fact that the best numbers come on 87 octane in Novembers "Re-formulated" gas goes against the "THEORY?"

The CITY HIGHWAY CHIP shows NO GAINS over the CITY HIGHWAY NO CHIP. The chip was using the better summer gas! From what you've said, we should se a decrease in the winter? I didn't.

There's your "apples to apples!"

If I was in fact getting 2 MPG better with the chip, we should see number that show (2 x 25 gallons = 50 miles) 50 miles per tank BETTER with the chip, PERIOD! I have NEVER SEEN THIS! Even 1 MPG better should show 25 miles??

[This message has been edited by Rand (edited 12-12-2000).]

 

For starts, there's to much arguing and not enough analyzing in this thread. The data that Rand provided does vary, but shouldn't be discredited. You guys can't come off having a negative attitude in your post. Avoid reply's that are arguementative and more analytical, and this will avoid confrontations like this. I had this problem with my topic called "I'm a little sketical of the Superchip".

Hats off to Rand for showing some dedication to his truck and questioning the value of aftermarket parts in which he does have the right to do since he is a consumer.

I think it's safe to say that the Superchip does provide the performance that it was originally intended for. Atleast most of the people here have found the performance increase, and the rest either have a bad connection or faulty part. The increase in mpg that they state is just a possible by product of what could happen if the circumstances are right. The chances of those circumstances actually happening are fairly remote, atleast what I've heard, but non the less can happen. The possibility of "false advertising" is always a question in the minds of the consumer, considering they are the most "penny pinching" people, and want to get the most out of there dollar as possible. I know I do! . I think it's also safe to say that by using premium fuel with a high energy content, your going to gain mpg without the use of the Superchip or any chip for that matter. I think it basically comes down to that your paying for the increase in performance and not for the gain in mpg.

In my topic, I was some what questioning the value of the Superchip, not so much about the increase in mpg that it will provide, but the extra expense of using premium fuel to see any benefits from the chip. And considering most other aftermarket parts state an increase in performance and a slight (in certain circumstances) increase in mpg by using a low grade fuel.

The truth is, it's fairly impossible to see a gain without duplicating the same test. There's to many inconsistant variables. One problem that I had with analyzing my fuel consumption was over filling and under filling the tank. Unless you use the same pump, and the same number of clicks after the auto shut-off, that is only way of getting an accurate amount of fuel in consistantly. Here's my log:
12.95
15.17
15.37
12.84
10.85
18.20
14.86
13.53
16.06
12.57
14.11
15.05
The 4 12's were from city driving, and the 10 was going from city to highway and then overfilling. Pretty inconsistent.

------------------
~'98 F-150 XLT Reg. Cab Flareside 4x4, Black, 5.4L, 3.55LS, tow package, 285/75/r16 Mud Terrain BFG's,K&N, GTS headlight covers, Alpine changer w/FM mod, Clifford alarm system w/keyless entry & starter disable // Future considerations: Bed mat, tonneau cover, 4" suspension lift or 3" body lift.

~'71 F-100 Sport Custom Reg.Cab
-390FE w/Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, 780cfm Holley, ported & polished cylinder heads,
Hydraulic Crane Cam, 10.5:1 CR, Black Jack headers, true double roller timing chain, and high volume oil pump
-C6 transmision w/B&M 2600rpm stall
-9" Ford Rearend w/4.10 Richmond Gears & 31 spline axles
-215/65/r15 Yokohama's for the front & 28"x13.5"x15" Mickey Thompson ET Street slicks for the back
Best 1/4 mile time @ 3500ft altitude 14.69secs @ 92mph

~2000 Suzuki RM125 Dirt Bike
-no need for any modifications! (yet)

 

Ok,

All that data is nice, but, since the superchip and other mods, I can travel from way south Miami to brunswick, GA on a single tank of 22 gallons of mobil super premium.

Before the mods I would have to stop in Jacksonville for a fill up. These are turnpike and freeway miles, @1750 rpm with th TQ locked up.

I can't give you real numbers because I have 31 inch tires with 3.08:1 gears, and the speedo doesent know it, yet.

Now traffic sucks. I can't seem to keep my right foot out of the fun pedal. Before the mods, I would take 1 tank per week. After the mods I have a quarter tank left over. And these are Miami rush hour stop and go traffic miles.

Just thought I would throw in some real world stats.

Dats a fact, Jack.

------------------
Drive it like ya stole it,

Terry Deaton
99 F150 XLT, Bright Red, 2WD, 4.6, S/C, S/B, Superchip, K&N FIPK, FMS 9mm, +4s, Nerfs, Leer Top, Cow Catcher W/Bright A$$ Lights, True Duals with hi flow cats and Magnaflow Lightning Style, 275 Dunlops with 3.08 gears, fat swaybars, Steeda front and Hellwig rear, 3.5" Fabtech spindles with 2" blocks, B/E Performance Shift kit with B&M Cast Deep Pan, Steeda Billit Pedals.
Coming Soon: 4.10s and Auburn Diff, Eibach Front Coils and Add a Leafs, Underdrive Pullies and Kick A$$ Shocks.
96 SVT COBRA (almost stock)
98 AERO black w/lotsa chrome
Speed Kills, drive a Chevy and live forever.
http://www.geocities.com/terrydeaton.geo/index7.htm

 

fordification: Very nice post! I appreciate your input. You're right, we should take a more diplomatic approach. I usually start that way, but end up getting a little ticked. I'm human....
I also agree that you can't discount my findings.

I think for the most part the Chip is with out a doubt the best way to increase performance for the money. I also think Mike T gives his customers GREAT service!

On the other hand, I personally dont think Mike T has any business in a thread like this one! He's quite obviously bias and can always come up with an answer to any negative response. Thats the job of the salesman. ALWAYS turn the negative to a positive!

I think the Superchip advertisement is fine becuase it just might give the benifit of increased mileage. BUT, the way Mike T pumps this arguement he makes it sound like we're all going to get this benifit. If you dont see any increase then he blames it on fuel.

I say the fuels' energy contents are NOT that much different! Texaco might be .05% over Exxon.... I dont know the exact numbers but I'll be willing to bet its NOT that much of a difference to yeild 50 miles difference within a tank.

 

Here something more interesting. If you throw out the worst numbers:

7/15/00 noname 93 265 25.5 10.39 off-road

9/29/00 sunoco 93 300 26 11.54 towing 5000#

11/20/00 shell 87 323 27 11.96

NO CHIP

3691 miles
276.1 gal
13.37 MPG

WITH CHIP

3323 miles
249.9 gal
13.29 MPG

ROUGHLY THE SAME!!!

 

I'd say that's fairly accurate data. Figuring that your "breaking even" mpg wise, and I'm assuming your seeing the increase in performance, I'd say your sitting in pretty good shape. You still should expect a drop in mpg every now and then, since you do want to test her out once in awhile. That one variable that doesn't sit with me quite yet, is that extra cost of using premium everytime you fill up just to get that boost in performance. Not to question anybody else's discision on purchasing a Superchip, but for me, I think I'll hold off on the chip for now, and pick up some of the other performance parts that don't require the use of premium, and still provide the performance increase that I'm looking for. Maybe if fuel prices drop 10 cents a look into one.

Skipping over your data, I do notice a difference from using the lower octane fuel and the chip, using mobile and texaco, the mpg sits around the 12mpg mark. And by using the higher octane fuel, same brands, they sit around 13mpg to mid 15mpg, which is a remarkable difference. By excluding the lower numbers, and curving out the graph line (if you were to graph it) you can see a difference.

 

Just to show you that your not the only one getting the low mpg numbers, I've been keeping an eye on my mpg situation, and found that I've only been getting around 350 to 400km per tank with my truck! That's only maybe high 11's to 12mpg for god sake! But it's to be expected considering the crappy winter fuel I've been using, and very frigid cold weather we've been having lately. Like -20 degrees celius without wind chill, and -36 with wind chill! A chinook's blowing in on the weekend though, and SUPPOSE to hit +6.

 

You Guys make me laugh and cry!

WHO CARES about fuel mileage anyways, when you buy a Ford / Chev or Dodge...concern's about fuel mileage should not be on the top of your list....Go buy a Mazda, Nissan or Suzuki if your looking for fuel mileage!!!

Next...if your throwing out money on performance parts, such as Superchips, exhaust systems and air intakes, then performance is your number one goal and fuel mileage is not. I will sacrifice if needed to gain a bit of performance if the price is right and this is why I have the above mods on my truck....cheap $$ and I get a really big bang of performace out of them!

Again...if fuel mileage is a real concern, then maybe a Subaru Outback is more your style!

Sorry guys but quite your whining!!

 

Hi 2001,

Don't let it bother you, the soap opera continues.


------------------
Mike Troyer
Performance Products, Inc.
National Distributor of Superchips
(540) 862-9515
Email: mtroyer@compuserve.com
Performance Products F150Online Superchip ordering system: F150Online Superchip Ordering System
First National F-150 Online Rally Event Organizer

 

2001 you right why should someone be that concerned about saving a few bucks over the long haul? Your probably like most other Americans who have about $1000 in savings on average... Good for you! Or your so damn rich it doesn't matter... I doubt that becuase most self-made millionares did NOT get that way by using your spending logic!

One of the biggest reasons I bought the chip was the "increased in MPG!" I figured that would be a good investment. Spend $250, get longer life out of trans, increase HP/TQ, and WOW it will increase my mileage!!!

At the cost of .20 cents per gallon more for 93 octane its about a wash anyways....

The REAL issue is the fact that MANY people get sucked-in by this boasting of increase HP and increase MPG... The two usually dont go hand and hand!

I simply wanted to know if we are REALLY seeing this increase or is it something that only occurs in the LAB?

Apparently, its the Lab!

I have not seen any proof otherwise!

Going to continue to track mileage and do "apples to apples" testing....

 

Hi Rand,

You're still taking this all out of proportion, and trying to claim that the Superchip should be doing something that nobody can absolutely guarantee, and using flawed "comparions" to try and prove your point, as you've done here numerous times in different sections, good grief!

As I have said here forever, the improvement in gas mileage that most people get from the Superchip on gasoline engines is merely a by-product of the increased spark advance used on part-throttle, and will depend on how the vehicle is driven, and the energy content of the gasoline being used. We only post here *exactly* what gets reported back to us by the very people using it. We have *never* said that everyone is always going to get more mileage no matter how they drive and no matter what fuel they burn. And whether you want to realize and admit it or not, as you've been told numerous times, energy content among fuels does in fact vary widely. Heck, it even varies in the exact same brand and grade from one batch to the next, which is why it's so important to make sure you're using the highest energy fuels possible if fuel mileage is your primary concern, as we have been making people aware of for a very long time, yourself included. But don't take my word for it, do some *real* research for a change, and talk directly to a few oil companies themselves about the energy content (expressed in terms of the number of BTU's per lb. or gallon of gasoline), and see what they tell you. You'll quickly find that they usually won't even tell you what their energy content is for any given refinery run, just that it varies, etc., etc.

Another point you should be aware of, as we've been discussing here for the past couple of years, is that starting in mid-September, and continuing throughout roughly the 1st week of December, most areas of the country phase in the use of winterized (reformulated) fuels, to improve air quality. And what happens as a result?? Energy content is reduced, and mileage goes down *every* time that changeover is made, and so when you do mileage comparions, it needs to be done at the same basic time of year as well, meaning comparing mileage on winter fuel to mileage on winter fuels, and summer fuels to summer fuels, etc. Every year this time, some people who just got their Superchips make the mistake of trying to compare the mileage with the Superchip on the winterized fuels most of us are running on right now to the mileage they were getting in the summer, and think that they've dropped mileage because of the Superchip, when in fact its energy content.

We have spent much time here informing people of the Federal air qualuty monitoring campaign that is the root of these fuel formulation changes of the past 2-3 years, due to it's effect, just so people will know what to expect and why. Any area that does not reach "attainment" status has to immediately implement changes to effect improvement in air quality, or risk loosing their Federal highway funds. And of course the easiest thing for those localities to do is to mandate the use of reformulated gasolines, first in the winter, and then if that doesn't get air quality up, year-round. And that has quite an effect on energy content, I guess you still want to deny all that too?!? Pull your head out of the sand, Rand.

We have gone out of our way to tell people that the potential improvements in gas mileage from the Superchip are just a by-product of this tuning, and that their results will depend primarily on how the vehicle is driven, and the energy content of the fuel being used. So many times that I've literally lost count. We have *never*, contrary to one of your claims in this thread, said that everyone is going to see improved mileage no matter what; never have, and never will.

The bottom line here is that the Superchip is a *performance* chip. That doesn't change the fact that most people do see an improvement in mileage when they do a real direct comparison. It is also true that there will always be some people that do not see an increase in gas mileage, for whatever reason. It is also true that for many people, when they first put it in, their mileage will go down due to checking out the new performance levels (driving it harder), all of these are facts, and nothing you post is going to change that.

You and I have talked about this over the phone months ago, for example, we specifically discussed Exxon gasoline being one of the lowest energy-content fuels available among the "brand names", I have gone all the way back and checked my notes of our conversations on this, and we clearly went over which brands tend to have higher energy contents more often than not. We discussed the fact that Texaco, Amoco, and Citgo tend to have higher energy contents, and we specifically discussed Exxon having such a low energy content, you were told that months ago, by me personally. And at some point given these facts, you have to wonder could that be why you used so much Exxon, but only for your premium mileage numbers, and never it's 87 octane in your so-called "MPG CHALLENGE"? Hmmm....

The gist of all this is that you seem to be operating on some new assumption that the Superchip is somehow supposed to magically pay for itself with increased mileage, something that we never tell people to expect, won't happen, can't happen, end of story.

It's a *performance* chip, Rand. I think that us being here everyday, making people aware of all these facts, answering any and all questions, responding to anything and everything that comes up here, and reporting exactly what gets reported back to us shows just how open and above board we operate and in fact are. If that isn't good enough my friend, then that's just the way it will have to be.

You know, it's funny, but not one of the vehicles we've had over the past 8 years, all of which have been Superchipped, has ever shown anything but an increase in mileage from the Superchip. Not once, even though there are indeed some people who do not see a mileage gain, have we failed to see a mileage increase, not in any truck, SUV, or passenger car we've had here, from Corvettes to Mark 8's to Explores to F-150's to Rangers to vans, etc., etc., not one single time. If we had, we'd examine why and we'd share that information too, that's what we do. We report back that there are some people that don't see a gain, and that most people do, which are the facts. Frankly, I don't see how we could be any more candid, but there's always somebody with an imaginary axe to grind.

I wish you well,

------------------
Mike Troyer
Performance Products, Inc.
National Distributor of Superchips
(540) 862-9515
Email: mtroyer@compuserve.com
Performance Products F150Online Superchip ordering system: F150Online Superchip Ordering System
First National F-150 Online Rally Event Organizer

[This message has been edited by Superchips_Distributor (edited 12-13-2000).]

 

I know where your coming from Rand, but I don't quite understand how this is soap box preaching. Just because somebody shows some concern and lists some facts to explain where he's coming from doesn't mean he's full of it. It's only when opinion and not facts are stated, in which they think there opinion is the right one and only one, which places them higher then the rest, hence the soap box placement.

2001, what's wrong with keeping the same or even increasing your mpg if it's a possiblity? Were not talking about a race car here, it's full size truck. Some people use these trucks for recreational or commercial use, and use it for utilitarian reasons. So why make your fuel mileage worse if you don't need to? Sure, I would sacrifice fuel efficiency for power anyday, but it has to be proportional. I find that the Superchip carries a fairly balanced proportion of fuel consumption v.s. power gain, just from what I've been reading in other posts and what it's advertised to do. But some do not, and they want to understand why.

Not everyone cares about the same things, so it's hard to understand the reasoning of another. I understood from the very beginning that the 5.4L sucks back the fuel like there's no tommorrow, so I purchased the vehicle knowing full well of that, but also knew I was getting that much more. Another reason fuel mileage is a concern with me is that I've been finding that the older vehicles from 10 to even 20 years ago are getting better fuel mileage with the same amount of power! Mostly due to emission control, but non the less, are still better. That kind of aggrevates me a little.

P.S. If you feel that this post seems like I'm ranting or whining, please ignore.

 

Try this for science guys...

I've done extensive testing while monitoring the following kinds of information through a multi channel
Opto22 digital I/O system hooked to a
Gateway laptop computer running a self written data acquisition application that sits on the front seat of my truck. I have recorded temerature, barametric pressure, humidity, wind direction, wind speed, gas consumption with a precision inline flow meter, engine RPM, acceleration, velocity, tire pressure, up and down shift points.

This was done driving the same road coarse every day to and from work for 4 weeks this summer. All driving was done non rush hour so there was little change in driving conditions every day from taht point of view.
I accumulated 2000 miles during each test period and waited 1000 miles after installation of the chip to start that data
acquisition to allow the computer to stableize. Same fuel and drivign habits
for entire tests.

Then I did the same thing with a Superchip installed.

I sorted the data, grouping similar conditions and then correlated that information with fuel consumption.

The answer back is NO increase and actually
a .13mpg decrease.

Is this test rittled with "inconsitencies"?
sure it is, every test ever invented has uncontrollable parameters, you hope though that you control the most critcal
variables, I think I have.

Mike T. I truely believe you have a biased
tone on the message board and actually cause
much of the flare up. You are strongly negative towards negative comments and curiously promotional towards the good stuff.

The bottom line is no one can say for sure one way or the other what will happen, I dyno test is no more realistic and accurate than
the next test.

Superchip should say you may see an INCREASE
or DECREASE in fuel consumption dependant on
many many variables. How opportunistic to
latch on to the "possible" positive side of the great fuel consumption debate.

I like the chip, it PERFORMS well, Superchip
should get off the mileage thing and only promote it for what it is. This would be the most ethical position of all, you too Mike T..

In my book, clear thumbs up are a "yes"
Sideways thumbs (Superchip mileage improvement) are a say nothing and thumbs down are a no, this is a say nothing deal.

My feelings are better than yours, you guys
are all trying to quantify something to a level of precision that is not consistent
with thelevel of random error.

Buy it for shifting and acceleration, leave the mileage thing out of the decision because
its a wash at best and costs 20 cents a mile.

 

Let's all calm down a little.....

First off, I have NEVER seen Mike make statements of guaranteed mileage improvements. He always makes it clear that the chip is sold as a PERFORMANCE product, and that any mileage improvements would be a by product of the tuning. When I asked specific questions about this Mike responded that I may see a fuel cost increase, possibly in the $150 dollar range per year.


BUT, if mileage increases are advertised, they should be the norm rather than the exception.

Worst case you get the performance benefits for about 1.25 cents per mile.

If you're really looking for mileage go with pulleys, ignition upgrades, electric fans, or things of that nature.

I've seen mixed reviews on mileage with the chip, but I certainly don't think Mike has ever misrepresented the product he sells.

 

First off, I dont want to hear ANY more about the increased HP and TQ. We ALL know about those benifits. This discussion is about the little "pop-up" advertisements that boast "INCREASED MPG."

------------------------

Secondly, I am soooooo glad to see someone finally used a... Flux Capacitor??? Whatever that thing was, to analyze the chip. WOW! Sounded very interesting. I wish I could have seen this thing!

Funny thing is, as un-scientific as my experiment was I saw just about the SAME results! I know it should have been done on my truck!

---------------------------------------

Mike, I DID in fact use PLENTY of 87 octane Exxon gas. Is not Mobile the same as Exxon?

8/1/00 Mobile 87 331 26.9 12.30
8/9/00 mobile 87 313 24.6 12.72
11/26/00 mobile 87 314 25.6 12.27
9/3/00 Sheetz 87 350 24 14.58


Thats 4 tanks of 87 octane "low energy content" to 5 tanks of "low energy content" 93 octane....Thats not WAY off!

Hell, if you throw-out the "off-roading" tank thats 4 to 4...
-----------------------------

Doing a scientific study of fuel consupmtion is NOT that much different than doing a LONG TERM LOG! PERIOD! WHY BECAUSE OF THE MOVING AVERAGES!!!

The chip should come out on top over the long haul because all the anomalies will be in the average. The chip should still yeild 1-2 MPG better over the long term, right?
-----------------------------

So far we have seen:

1. MY data which shows NO DECREASE IN CONSUMPTION.

2. GONENORTH's opto-plasmic fluctuating doodle-ma-jiggy running at 4.5 Jigga-Watts!! Cool stuff! Which shows...Survey says.... NO GAINS!!!!

3. Mike T's sales pitch.

4. Y2K OffRoad's corroborating short-term data.

5. Tiron's .02

6. JMC's "Dyno Theory"

7. mike150's nice attempt but no REAL data!

8. fordification's team building spirit... Marginal data and nice input!

9. TREADMARKS's nice tires, gears, and lock up?? No data... More like hear-say. Good try from the other stand point though!

10. Poor 2001... Or was that Rich? Pissed he REALLY owns a Subaru!

11. signmaster's backing of Mike T. Of which, I think holds a bit of truth! Mike's not milking people for their money...

--------------------------

So far we only have 3 people doing any REAL help here. 2 have shown actual REAL WORLD data. Both have shown no change!

Mike has 8 years of mistery vehicles that ALL show MPG increases! Were these increases in the lab or on the road? What gas? What where ALL the variables!!! OR did he simply do a long-term log?
-----------------------------

Bernoulii's Theorem:

As the number of independent trials of an event of theoretical probability P is indefinitely increased, the observed
ratio of the actual occurrences of the event to the total trials approaches P as a limit.

The theoretical probability of the event of getting increased MPG is P=1 (100%).

Theorem says that as we "LOG" more and more tanks (n times), the ratio:

Number of increased MPG tanks / Number of tanks....

Should approach 1 as n increases.

Hence, the more tanks I fill up USING THE CHIP we should eventually see an increase in mileage.

THIS IS NOT HAPPENING! Although any increase, even .01 MPG is an increase, and over time the chip could in fact approach 1.
Even if P=.05 you still can't make the data fit!
--------------------------------------
A MOVING AVERAGE shows a trend.

I am looking for the propensity of the Chip giving us a decrease in fuel consumption or INCREASE IN MPG.

The moving average would mean that over time we woould see a TREND of the chip giving us better mileage. I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS TREND.

My data coupled with other data should compile and show A TREND. Where's the trend Mike?

My data showed a CONVERGENCE of fuel consumption with and without the chip. IF the chip was yeilding better MPG we would see a DIVERGENCE! Not happening! Or at least, not happening on a very large scale.

------------------------------
Averages take into account variables like:

-climate
-fuel type
-fuel energy content fluctuations
-miles driven
-fuel used
-pump click variations
-WOT

and so forth.... IF the chip was IN FACT providing better fuel economy AT ALL, we would see a SMOOTHING effect of the data when graphed that showed a propensity towards the chip giving an increase in mileage over no chip....

THIS IS ALL I'M SAYING.... WHERE IS THE PROPENSITY TOWARDS YEILDING BETTER RESULTS?

You DON'T need to do this in a lab people! That is a total FALLACY! Mike and others would like you to believe this... I'm sure we can MAKE the chip give us better MPG. Hell, I can probably MAKE Exxon give better MPG than Texaco in the lab OR OUT. This is NOT how REAL WORLD use and testing should be done in this situation.

Make no mistake about it, the averages given enough time DO NOT LIE!