Rand,
I agree about the advertised MPG gain (if if doesn't do it, dont advertise it). I have never looked at all the information about what the chip is said to offer but I have seen the banner add. I choose a joacbs ignition because they have a 30 day trial period and you can send if back if you are not happy about the increases.


In the past I have done data for electric fan mod and Jacobs Ignition. I have considered doing with and without tonneau cover. (so many permutations, so little time)

I am currently logging the data on different stations and how their blend affects MPG.

My next data will be different octane rating and how that affects MPG.

Most of this if for my personal benefit and others may never have the same results or agree with what I am doing, but I am an engineer and I feel that efficiency is very important no matter what you drive (you all bought the best truck, now why not have the best power and MPG you can?)

 

This has gone on much too long but here is my 2 cents.
I would definitely buy a Superchip based on all of Mike's info and all of the Users feedback. Just about everyone that has one loves it. I believe even Rand likes his chip for performance but was hoping for a bit better gas mileage. I would buy it for the performance and better shifts. I would not buy it to increase my mileage because I am smart enough to realize that most PERFORMANCE mods do not help gas mileage.

Octane is not energy content and higher octane gas will not improve mileage. There has been some studies that show this. Do a search and you will find this. If your engine and ECU are tuned for 87 nothing is gained by running 93. In years past you may have gotten better detergent packages but not anymore.
As Mike explained in some of his other threads there are variations from ECU to ECU that will allow for some changes due to higher or lower octane use but in general if you use gas other than the recommended you are just wasting money.
Mike has never guaranteed an increase in mileage and neither has SuperChips. The banner is not a guarantee, it is an advertisement. Yes it may be misleading if in fact there is no increased mileage and this should be looked at.
The bottom line though is that the majority of users that purchased the chip did so to improve performance and Superchip delivers that.
Can we move on please?

------------------
01 Black XLT 4x2 Screw Gen I, 5.4, Moonroof, 3.55LS, Cloth Captains, Slider, Extender, ClassIII towing, 6 Disc etc.
Mods planned:
Gibson Single Sweptside, AirRaid, Superchip, Line-X bed liner, Fog/driving lights, Tint, Speed grill.

 

Rand, I'm with you. I have nothing against mike but what you say is true. Mike might be a good guy but a salesman is a salesman, I don't like em. I have yet to see a graph of actual gains of a superchip in a 5.4, Im very leary of the gains they state.

------------------
01 supercrew XLT,4x2,all black,5.4,captains chairs,355 ltd slip,trailer tow grp,remote keyless entry.
(MODS)gibson supertruck,K&N generation II air intake,expy console,lund intercepter,A.R.E LSII hard tonneau,tinted windows,E&G classics mesh speed grill,mud gaurds,ford seat covers, bed liner,ventvisor's,westin chrome nerf bars,smittybuilt outland sport bumper guard,KC daylighters, Hella fogs, Jensen flip down 6.8 TV, santeca 4" TV in passenger sunvisor,DVD player,panosonic cdqf800 fm-cd,pioneer 6865 speakers,keypad, lightning tails & brake light,hellwig rear swaybarics at http://www.f150world.com/4DOOR/

 

Rand:
Rand i couldnt agree more......!

------------------
97 F150 Longbed V8 4.6
K&N air filter
K&N FIPK tech MOD & removed elbow silencer
Tires: Yokohama 265/75/16 Geolander AT+
Hyper white xenon bulbs
Bedliner and raven shell
6 disc cd changer
Oil & filter used

Gasoline used

My Truck

 

The promise of increased mpg, ads and Mike's 'suggestions' have probably brought quite a few people from fence riding to purchaser, but isnt that a salesman's job? No way in the long term will the chip increase mpg all being equal.
Though I've never seen a promise of gains myself, I think the truth needs to be told.

 

I have real world long term data. It is not for the superchip, but if someone wants to provide me one I can try it out. My data can be seen at

http://www.photoisland.com/servlet/c...ries&WHO=guest

Click the f150 gallery on the left, then click one of the two images, then click to view it origianl size.
One image is my MPG for each fillup compares to total avg MPG, the other graph is my total AVG MPG since the first fillup (1.5 years worth of data). My mods have been for MPG and I am pretty happy with them (see sig). I also am smart enough to realize that conditions can affect my MPG and I know which data can be ignored (but added to overall total).


Rand,
I looked at your data from your old post. The way you present it, you did loose MPG. The problem is that you have a towing MPG and two offroad MPG's included that should be thrown out (unless you did the same without the chip). After throwing these three fillups out (with the data you gave) I see that your MPG was not improved (13.3).

I thought about getting a chip because of the "claimed" MPG increases. Afer reading about others expriences I choose another mod that was going to give me what I was looking for. I know the advertisment says better MPG, but Mike T has explained time and time again that it is strictly a power mod and any MPG gains are secondary.

------------------
My first Baby:
2000 SC XLT Bright Red, 4.2L
5speed
K&N air filter
3" intake mod
16" perma cool electric fan
Jacobs DIS
best 1/4 mile: 17.1 @ 81.53 MPH
total MPG average to date 19.22

My Second (but most important) Baby:
Hailey Jean, born April 9, 2000



[This message has been edited by broken (edited 06-27-2001).]

 

Hey thanks for the open minds. I just wish this thread could have taken a better tone in the begining.

Mike Troyer might be the greatest guy in the world. He does have a slight problem with his dimeanor and tone at times (defensiveness). NONE of us are perfect. Certainly not me!

However, this is business and some of us spent what I consider to be a fair amount of money on this Superchip.

I personbally felt it was going to decrease my fuel consumption. "Increased MPG" was one of the leading factors in my decision. I figure others feel the same.

I'm not saying the Superchip DOES or DOES NOT improve MPG. I'm saying we've seen 2 people who've displayed results refuting any increases in MPG. Both were from long term logging. And yes I know I had 1 or 2 curve ***** in the data (beech and towing) but take those out and you still have the same result.

If more people would participate in accurate long term logging. We could start to see some averages.

THEN we might be able to make a determination one way or the other OR figure out why some of us are not seeing good results.

If you think about it, Mike T could benifit tremendously. If we collectively figured out why some of us do and some dont get the same results we might ultimately solve the problem. Then Mike T could help out his old and new customers.

What bothers me is Mike's tone, defensive and offensive. Which says to me, he has something to hide and does NOT want the truth to be found. The more ignorant we are and the more doubt he can cast on people like me, the better off he is.

Please post any long term data showing with ad without chip data. I know, this takes a LONGGggggg time!

But aren't we all curious?

Thanks for the support!

 

I chimed in on an older thread on this and feel I need to toss in another perspective. I don't have a superchip so I hold no special affinity for Mike (he has been very helpful with lots of information, and generally a nice guy in his emails). And I don't feel any malice or illwill to Rand for speaking his mind. I do have some questions to Rand...
1. What's your standard dev. for all these averaged points? If you talk long term data you need to show the deviation of the points around the average (thought you could get away from those student T tests and bell curves, didn't ya ).
2. What do you think your experimental error is? 5%, 10%?
3. If data was not included (eg. off roading or towing) what was the statistical criteria for tossing the data?

I'm just trying to get a grip on all this data flying around and see if it's statistically sound, in my own mind. Not anybody elses, so please don't take this as an attack on your math skills or your thought process.

All in all, these MPG threads have been entertaining and there are some valid nuggets of fact sprinkled around, so reading them has no been a total waste of time.



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

-----------------------
E.T. 15.728 @ 85.865 mph
2000 2W F150 (Flareside Black ExCab) 5.4L (3.55LS) with K&N FIPK,Crazyabout150's JetChip *thanks*,Custom phenolic TB spacer, Flowmaster Delta 40, Twin dual 3" pipes out the back, BioLight Xenon Lamps (cool blue), Blazer 55W projector fog lamps, Clear Corners and Stock Ford Sport 17" Rims. Check out the site for spacers that I'm making and other install pictures. http://communities.msn.com/EnvironmentalDamageInc

 

ALL
i think that if this goes on for the next 2 years -RAND will still keep to his dislike for the chip. no matter what is said or data is produced. i dont need the scientific stuff to tell me that there are a lot of people that love the chip. if it did nothing other then in my head make me think i was getting better performance- then whats the problem. after all its what you think that counts. i havent ordered my chip yet- want to do exaust first. but just from what i have heard in here i believe it will make ME FEEL BETTER= and that is what counts. i think a red truck gets better gas milage and goes faster. so make my chip red.

 

I personally dont see how calculating the standard deviation will help us. When and if I get time I might feel like calculating the MODE, MEAN, RANGE, MEDIAN, well I guess I already provided the MEAN.

The reason I would throw out the 2 observations is because they are really not a fair comparison. Towing a 5250 lb boat and trailer AND driving on the beach in deep sand for many miles constitutes EXTREME conditions. These are NOT part of the norm and should not be considered when calculating the average MPG for the vehicle with and without the chip. I provided the data more or less for its informational purpose. If I remember correctly, I got an increase in fuel consumption using the chip if we use the 2 extreme cases. Without those cases I think it was something like .2 MPG better. Thats pretty close, but even if you find out what percentage of tanks fell inside or out of the standard deviation, I still think its going to be so close that you can blame it on error.

I can not say for certain the margin of error. Certainly there is a margin of error. By no means would it be a high margin. Something on the order of 5% or less I would think. However, this will require more time and thought.

I really dont have the time to do this right now. Feel free yourselves. Might do calculations for my data and the other guy who posted recently.

 

So you wasted your time ... replying to "wasted bandwidth"? Let's all waste time replying to wasted bandwidth.

 

You actually count his postings?

<rolls eyes>

 

Rand...
I just wanted to get an idea on the variability on the data set. I understand your reservations, and I promise I'm not just setting you up to use your own data against you. I don't play those games, I'm just truely curious about the variability from tank to tank. I've never paid much attention to it. But at $2/gallon ($2.30 when it was high for 92 octane) I started to pay attention.

As I've stated in a previous thread, my lab operates under an assumed 5-10% (instrument, glassware, analyst spilling some sample, you get the picture). So I would like to see if the variability in tanks is within the experimental error, that's all. Just plain ol' curiousity.

You keep on posting that data! It's your right, but it's also everyones right to give there opinion on it. Isn't America great

Have a good weekend everyone!

 

HI!... I'm with MIKE T on this 100%!!!!!!!!

 

I've lurked these boards for close to three years and am well aware of the discusions that have gone on here. The one thing that has always pissed me off is this guy Mike T the "DISTRIBUTER" who has to put in his two cents. This guy is a sales man at heart! If he wants to sell his product, go to the venders section and keep paying for those banners. "Advice" and "Knowledge" are fine when posted on the "free web" but this has gone on tooooo long. Let consumers argue the good and bad of a product and stay out of it! It's called business ETHICS! Nothing personal Mike but it's not right letting a FOX in the hen house!!! ( THAT's a complement Mike!) " "

[This message has been edited by Yankee (edited 06-30-2001).]