Just wanted to give you preliminary PG report........

first tank on 93 ..... with lots of heavy foot --- 16.01mpg

second tank.... with over 200 miles towing my 4000 pound popup trailer (loaded) ------------ 17.1mpg
( this trip was done in FL so basically flat.... and nice
weather so no AC on)

I am very pleased.....this is up from a pre chip high of 15.6 mpg.... when I was really easy on the gas pedal....

mike

 

Hi Mike,

Wow, getting over 17 mpg on that tank, with 200 miles of that being driven while towing 4000 lbs., is nothing short of amazing for that Super Crew, fantastic!

It will be interesting to see what the best mpg turns out to be on the highway when not towing.

Thanks for your post!

 

I drove 325.9 miles and it took 17.7 gallons and that works out to
18.4 mpg

other factors
I filled up at the same station and same pump
nice weather no AC
easy driving with only several stomps on the pedal
florida .... so relatively flat


I am very pleased............ fast when I need it and ecconomical when I want it.... WOW

 

Excellent numbers. We had a visitor over this weekend, who has an '01 Super Crew, a 2WD model, and he's routinely getting 18-19 mpg on the highly like you are. Great!

 

I'm thinking I may have a problem, maybe not with the chip....Since installing the chip, my mileage has tanked.....i was getting a steady 14-15...i'm now down to 11. something.....any guesses? I'll say for the record, i don't really pound on it....a few quick starts after the chip went in but I get way more enjoyment out of the shift rather than the power....I have tried Exxon/Mobil......Texaco.....Sunoco......no difference.........

 

Possibly the difference in the 4x4 and 4x2.

 

Hi S'Crewloose,

Your problem is most likely just the winterized gasoline, that happens every year, and then the mileage goes back up when the Summer fuels are in use again. The use of winter fuels starts anywhere from September 1 to November depending on climate/lattitude.

The Superchip alone is never going to cause a vehicle to drop mpg, that can only happen from using a low energy fuel or driving it harder.

You're going to find that Exxon is usually the lowest mpg of any of the major name brands. Exxon is reformulated year round all across the country. That lowers the energy content, even Harley Davidson told their owners a few years ago to not use Exxon because of this. Exxon is a good clean fuel, but low in energy. Mobil, though the same company, has a higher energy content usually, but not quite as clean. Texaco, out of all you listed, is generally the best fuel to use. Excellent detergent additives, and usually among, if not the highest in enetrgy content (BTU's)

If you really want to identify which fuel has the highest energy content, you need to burn 3-5 tanks of each different brand/source, making sure to clear your ECU to start off with, and clear it again each time yoyu change brands. This needs to be done at the same time of year so that you don't have formulation changes skewing the results. The fuel showing the highest mileage under the same driving conditions is the fuel with the highest energy content.

We've seen places where overall fuel quality across the board was down, but there wwrer still the same basic pattern of the better fuels (Texaco, Amoco) doing a better job. I've never seen any areas where every brand delivered the exact same mpg.

Good luck, & let us know if you find anything!

 

Thanks Mike,

I will stick with Texaco for the time being, It may be the winterized fuel but I'm not sure. I put the first tank of 93 in on 12/24......the fuel should already have winter blend...i only noticed the lower mpg at that point....I have not done any scientific testing though, so I will hold my comments until I go through 4 tanks of texaco from the same station.

Ed

 

Hi S'Crewloose,

Thanks for your response!

It's entirely possible that the premium gas you went to in December, when you starting running on that 93 octane, just has a lower energy content compared to the 87 octane fuel you were running.

One other point is, on the 2001's & up, we've seen that it takes longer for the ECU to accept/adapt to certain changes. That can affect mpg as well, as it takes longer for adaptive strategy to do any adjustments it might effect for differences in fuel formulations, etc.

Your mileage shouldn't just drop off 3 to 4 mpg like that, obviously, and I've never once seen that happen using good quality fuel when installing the Superchip, unless the vehicle was drivien harder, or, once again, the energy content of teh premium fuel is down by comparison to the previous fuels being used. One aggravating factor is that we never know when a formulation change is goign to happen that will affect energy content, they just happen. We know about the seasonal changes that happen each year now of course, but that's about it, everything else is a surprise that just shows up in mpg. A 3-4 mpg drop is a big difference, but one that can easily happen in these heavy vehicles with lower energy fuel and/or a bit more aggressive throttle use, as we've seen in our own F-150's here at Performance. The weight & aerodynamic profile exaggerates anything negatively impacting mileage.

It would be interesting to see what your mpg does with a few tanks of the Texaco, and then take the Superchip out, clear the ECU and run at least 3-5 tanks of that same Texaco but going back to 87 octane, and compare those 2 results. Obviously, the vehicle needs to see the same basic driving conditions for comparison, and that is usually easy with daily drivers, as work routes are generally set & stable, and most of your driving is routine & repetitive. What do you think, would you like to perhaps give that a try, in an effort to play with this a bit and see where the data takes us?