Best tuner for MPG?
02-24-2010, 11:30 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best tuner for MPG?
I just bought a 2003 3500. It is all stock but would like to try to get better mileage. What tuner or chip would be good for strickly MPG. I do pull a 35ft fifth wheel and a livestock trailer ocasionally. How much would it cost?
02-24-2010, 11:36 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a Smarty Sr and run it on the MPG tune. It seems to give me about 4-5 MPG better than stock. I do take it off MPG mode when towing though. the MPG is one thing but the biggest is that it runs great, but the fuel savings helps justify the cost.
02-24-2010, 12:46 PM
#4
Registered User
My vote is for the Smarty Jr. You should see a milage gain if you don't use the added power too much. $495 with a code reader and adjusts tire size. Makes your truck run so much better with lower than stock egt. Best mod on my truck. Is your truck a 6sp? I would run on tow all the time.
02-24-2010, 01:14 PM
#6
Registered User
Mikeed - just a suggestion, update your signature to include 2wd or 4x4, auto, stock or any mods, etc. When asking questions, eveyone wants to know what you have.
Also, you are a lucky one with an 03 - I wish I had an 03 since my 04.5 gets about 1 to 2 mpg worse than a friends 03.
Also, you are a lucky one with an 03 - I wish I had an 03 since my 04.5 gets about 1 to 2 mpg worse than a friends 03.
Trending Topics
02-24-2010, 05:45 PM
#8
Mikeed - just a suggestion, update your signature to include 2wd or 4x4, auto, stock or any mods, etc. When asking questions, eveyone wants to know what you have.
Also, you are a lucky one with an 03 - I wish I had an 03 since my 04.5 gets about 1 to 2 mpg worse than a friends 03.
Also, you are a lucky one with an 03 - I wish I had an 03 since my 04.5 gets about 1 to 2 mpg worse than a friends 03.
02-25-2010, 06:23 AM
#9
Registered User
If it is an auto is your truck a 305hp then. I don't know much about auto except that most guys do a valvebody and torque coverter before any mods because they will have to do something later. The Jr on economy should be safe for your auto but use your head when towing.
02-25-2010, 09:32 PM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a 4 speed auto and yes I believe it is a 305 hp. I am out of town till friday so I can't go look at any of the specs. I am in my other diesel-a Volkswagon Jetta TDI-(49 mpg). Anyway I don't want to do any transmission mods, I stricly want better mpg's not a buncho of power. I think I may end up going with the edge mileage max.
02-25-2010, 10:09 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw an article in Diesel Tech magazine a few month back that tested Edge, DiabloSport, Banks, etc. on the 5.9 Dodge. They tested the economy of each power setting for each tuner. They DID NOT test the Smarty however (so smarty guys, don't jump on me here!!!).
DiabloSport came out on top of everyone for mileage when using the Extreme setting (not Extreme RKL).
DiabloSport came out on top of everyone for mileage when using the Extreme setting (not Extreme RKL).
02-26-2010, 10:31 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Best tuner for MPG?
The one between the drivers ears . . add-ons are never a free lunch.
The CTD sites are full of "performance" threads, but few useful ones on fuel economy. So, if the OP is already doing this, my apologies:
Learn to adjust your driving style as nothing else will come close to that (and fresh fuel/air filters). Got to keep records as well and look for highest average mph. If you keep that high, then mpg will follow:
Drive the big road at about 10-under, around town at 5-under, never stop, and never idle.
Search around for others with your same truck, find a basis for comparison. My numbers are high, but the same as some others with the same (basic) truck.
I find that if all miles are traveled at 1700-1900 rpm AND at 27 or higher average mph (calculated), then fuel economy is outstanding.
And this would be true for any CTD.
If you know actual fuel costs -- per annum -- then you can do the math to see ($500 is probably four years at 15k annually $3/gl at 15-mpg; at an increase of .8 mpg/year) where actual "savings" may not be until 2015 after break even.
If Dodge could have gotten better mpg then they would have. As your truck has the best engine (but the worst configuration: dually, automatic, 4WD), your numbers ought to start out okay compared to 2004.5 and later. What are they so far, over how many miles?
All of it is irrelevant without records of every single fillup. Without a baseline for the stock truck, any mods are money out the window.
http://mopar.mopar1973man.com/tips/c...etter-mpgs.htm
I use a WILSON-JONES 12-line entry book to record: fuel used, $/gal, total/$ per tank; total miles/trip miles; engine hours/true average speed;
overhead mpg/true mpg; (notes about fill; additives, etc). I average it up about every dozen fills for a running total. All it needs is a solar calc and "costs" me about 3-minutes after every fill-up. As I have some tax-deductible miles every year, this fulfills the record-keeping.
More importantly, I record any changes (tire pressure experiments, other) and look for changes of 10% +/-. Along with engine oil analysis I am looking for trends.
$500 (for a kiddie toy) is better spent towards highway rib tires (the oem MICHELIN is perfect, and lasts up to or beyond 100k) or BILSTEIN shocks or fixing steering shaft play, etc. Lot's of ways -- maintenance alone -- to retain or improve indirect effects that add up cumulatively to lowest cost of ownership (of which fuel is only one part).
Rich Taylor -- GMC Truck Division guru -- says that a grille-block, partial bellypan, and tonneau are good for pickup truck fuel economy.
Same with those trailers: get the axles aligned, keep new shocks and balance the tire/wheel combo; make the trailer brake electrics perfect. Set the trailer and the truck barely, barely nose-down while hitched. Etc.
The simplest rules on a CTD:
The #1 factor in getting better fuel mileage is to REDUCE HORSEPOWER DEMAND.
This is a combination of vehicle configuration,
condition, load and DRIVER OPERATION.
Keep your pyrometer under 600°F and keep your boost pressure under 5 PSI when solo.
LEARN THE COMBO FOR TOWING!
The #2 factor in getting better fuel mileage is
AVOID RUNNING THE ENGINE WHEN YOU ARE NOT MOVING.
I've been driving -- and driving for economy -- longer than most Americans have been alive. I have fixed miles to cover, but the fuel cost is variable. Some simple tools and discipline make most of the difference. And, if it involves "work" my impression is that most Americans are too lazy to get over the hump and establish new habits (ask me about smoking, ha!).
With a 2WD I paid many thousands less on my used truck. I pay out thousands less in fuel alone over only a few years of driving. The past 13,000-miles -- with multiple 700-mile roundtrips in Gulf Coast Texas -- my average for ALL miles is 23 mpg at 43-mph. Plenty of cold starts and short city miles in that (at either end of the trip).
And no one is required to pay for more fuel than what their truck is capable of. Learn what that is and stick with it. These trucks are big, heavy and slow. The kiddie car drivers think they should -- like sheeple -- "keep up with traffic" (what, a joke?) driving 7-9000-lb CTD's. Take 'er easy and the "work" is almost done.
.
Best tuner for MPG?
The one between the drivers ears . . add-ons are never a free lunch.
The CTD sites are full of "performance" threads, but few useful ones on fuel economy. So, if the OP is already doing this, my apologies:
Learn to adjust your driving style as nothing else will come close to that (and fresh fuel/air filters). Got to keep records as well and look for highest average mph. If you keep that high, then mpg will follow:
Search around for others with your same truck, find a basis for comparison. My numbers are high, but the same as some others with the same (basic) truck.
And this would be true for any CTD.
If you know actual fuel costs -- per annum -- then you can do the math to see ($500 is probably four years at 15k annually $3/gl at 15-mpg; at an increase of .8 mpg/year) where actual "savings" may not be until 2015 after break even.
If Dodge could have gotten better mpg then they would have. As your truck has the best engine (but the worst configuration: dually, automatic, 4WD), your numbers ought to start out okay compared to 2004.5 and later. What are they so far, over how many miles?
All of it is irrelevant without records of every single fillup. Without a baseline for the stock truck, any mods are money out the window.
http://mopar.mopar1973man.com/tips/c...etter-mpgs.htm
I use a WILSON-JONES 12-line entry book to record: fuel used, $/gal, total/$ per tank; total miles/trip miles; engine hours/true average speed;
overhead mpg/true mpg; (notes about fill; additives, etc). I average it up about every dozen fills for a running total. All it needs is a solar calc and "costs" me about 3-minutes after every fill-up. As I have some tax-deductible miles every year, this fulfills the record-keeping.
More importantly, I record any changes (tire pressure experiments, other) and look for changes of 10% +/-. Along with engine oil analysis I am looking for trends.
$500 (for a kiddie toy) is better spent towards highway rib tires (the oem MICHELIN is perfect, and lasts up to or beyond 100k) or BILSTEIN shocks or fixing steering shaft play, etc. Lot's of ways -- maintenance alone -- to retain or improve indirect effects that add up cumulatively to lowest cost of ownership (of which fuel is only one part).
Same with those trailers: get the axles aligned, keep new shocks and balance the tire/wheel combo; make the trailer brake electrics perfect. Set the trailer and the truck barely, barely nose-down while hitched. Etc.
The simplest rules on a CTD:
This is a combination of vehicle configuration,
condition, load and DRIVER OPERATION.
Keep your pyrometer under 600°F and keep your boost pressure under 5 PSI when solo.
LEARN THE COMBO FOR TOWING!
The #2 factor in getting better fuel mileage is
AVOID RUNNING THE ENGINE WHEN YOU ARE NOT MOVING.
I've been driving -- and driving for economy -- longer than most Americans have been alive. I have fixed miles to cover, but the fuel cost is variable. Some simple tools and discipline make most of the difference. And, if it involves "work" my impression is that most Americans are too lazy to get over the hump and establish new habits (ask me about smoking, ha!).
With a 2WD I paid many thousands less on my used truck. I pay out thousands less in fuel alone over only a few years of driving. The past 13,000-miles -- with multiple 700-mile roundtrips in Gulf Coast Texas -- my average for ALL miles is 23 mpg at 43-mph. Plenty of cold starts and short city miles in that (at either end of the trip).
And no one is required to pay for more fuel than what their truck is capable of. Learn what that is and stick with it. These trucks are big, heavy and slow. The kiddie car drivers think they should -- like sheeple -- "keep up with traffic" (what, a joke?) driving 7-9000-lb CTD's. Take 'er easy and the "work" is almost done.
.
02-26-2010, 11:39 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rednax your statement: "If Dodge could have gotten better mpg then they would have" is incorrect.
All vehicle manufacturers tune their engines for best safety of the engine, not the best economy. They are tuned to work at all altitudes, for all different types of customers, with the least risk to the engine. In other words, a stock vehicle's tuning is a comprimise that lowers the risk of burning out the engine.
The manufacturers want to make money by minimizing any risk to the engine they might have to repair under warranty. They have to balance this against the value of advertising a better fuel economy to sell more vehicles.
Tuners and many of their programs optimize the air:fuel ratio and timing so that fuel is not wasted, is turned into energy, in turn producing more power, and also producing better fuel economy - and yes, that's also dependent on how you drive.
In the article in the magazine, they took the same truck, drove it the exact same route, testing baseline mpg against each different tune of each programmer, using a tank of fuel for each tune. They designed the experiment very well. I wish the mags would do more testing like this
And they estimated that it would take between 1 - 3 years to get a return on the $$$ spent for the programmer, depending on how much you drive.
Me, I get an extra 50 - 100 miles per tank highway driving with my programmer. But if I drive like an ape, that all goes out the window, like you said.
All vehicle manufacturers tune their engines for best safety of the engine, not the best economy. They are tuned to work at all altitudes, for all different types of customers, with the least risk to the engine. In other words, a stock vehicle's tuning is a comprimise that lowers the risk of burning out the engine.
The manufacturers want to make money by minimizing any risk to the engine they might have to repair under warranty. They have to balance this against the value of advertising a better fuel economy to sell more vehicles.
Tuners and many of their programs optimize the air:fuel ratio and timing so that fuel is not wasted, is turned into energy, in turn producing more power, and also producing better fuel economy - and yes, that's also dependent on how you drive.
In the article in the magazine, they took the same truck, drove it the exact same route, testing baseline mpg against each different tune of each programmer, using a tank of fuel for each tune. They designed the experiment very well. I wish the mags would do more testing like this
And they estimated that it would take between 1 - 3 years to get a return on the $$$ spent for the programmer, depending on how much you drive.
Me, I get an extra 50 - 100 miles per tank highway driving with my programmer. But if I drive like an ape, that all goes out the window, like you said.
02-27-2010, 08:54 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rednax your statement: "If Dodge could have gotten better mpg then they would have" is incorrect.
All vehicle manufacturers tune their engines for best safety of the engine, not the best economy. They are tuned to work at all altitudes, for all different types of customers, with the least risk to the engine. In other words, a stock vehicle's tuning is a comprimise that lowers the risk of burning out the engine.
Gee, no kidding? I think that re-stated my argument that there is no free lunch. Can you, can any consumer much less the aftermarket supplier state unequivocally the point at which rapid wear begins? Is this on the tuner website: altitude, load, etc, etc, etc? They can't, they won't, they change the subject.
(And none of this is directed at Ed-Canada, but generally):
Maybe I can run around solo for years and miles. Maybe not. Maybe I can "tow heavy" (gosh, my EGT's are down), but for how long? Where and at what point is the compromise made? Because sure as shootin' engine degradation is going to happen somewhere. A tuner is evidence of abuse by it's mere presence because no one can accurately extrapolate the condition of the engine without a teardown as it has been operated OUTSIDE of known parameters.
I've seen the bent frames, broken leaf spring mounts, and welded brakes where a customer lied about "towing", I've seen grenaded engines & transmissions at a Texas dealership where I traded for years and knew men from parts, service and sales. And, as I wrote above, I've been driving for economy (knowing how to tune gassers) for nearly forty years. I KNOW that there are compromises when a motor is tuned to a narrow use AND is then subjected to use that violates that tuning.
It's a simple question for the tuner supplier: At what point am I increasing wear on the motor that it will not meet the 350k MTBO?
Not one of them can answer that. Dodge and Cummins already have.
So I'm afraid my statement is correct: That were it capable of higher mpg then DODGE would have supplied it. That they are the only ones capable of the testing -- and bear the liability -- and thus it behooves me to respect PhD engineers (and the lawyers) as the protocols are known.
Sure, maybe I can gain 2/10's with a louder exhaust system. Maybe I can gain another 2/10's with a CAI. But who will prove it?
Do you think that if I added a tuner I could go from my numerous-times-high of 27 mpg to 28, to 30 mpg? I've seen other men with trucks like mine with the same mileage I report. But none higher. Should I add a CAI? A 5" exhaust? Pump my tires to 80-psi? What should I do to get better numbers than I already do?
Because if those tuners worked I'd benefit as well, right?
Saying that one has gotten another 50-100 miles per tank is about the best I usually see. So what are the numbers, the annual "increase"? Where was the break-even point? Under what conditions of load, road, speed; metro or rural, climate, etc?
Same with the magazine "test". Enthusiast magazines are fun to read, cause if I buy the products I'll be smarter, have a bigger, and re-pay the cost of all my fuel in three years . . . right. They are in the business of collecting ad revenue. There is "negative motivation" to say that the products that pay their salary don't work as advertised. And their tests are a joke most of the time, ESPECIALLY on fuel economy. You read the magazines -- and then see EPA recommendations -- and that ol' big guvmint is just a real party pooper.
I think this whole mindset disrespects (to use a little ghetto) the Cummins TurboDiesel. If a guy wants to race it, fine. If another guy wants to violate GVWR and GCWR then potential criminal negligence is on him.
And we should feel sorry for the next owner of that truck having bought an abused vehicle. Because it was built with no relevant compromises, being capable of an incredible amount of work on an incredibly small amount of fuel for an incredible MTBO . . except the previous owner trashed that delicate balance.
All vehicle manufacturers tune their engines for best safety of the engine, not the best economy. They are tuned to work at all altitudes, for all different types of customers, with the least risk to the engine. In other words, a stock vehicle's tuning is a comprimise that lowers the risk of burning out the engine.
Gee, no kidding? I think that re-stated my argument that there is no free lunch. Can you, can any consumer much less the aftermarket supplier state unequivocally the point at which rapid wear begins? Is this on the tuner website: altitude, load, etc, etc, etc? They can't, they won't, they change the subject.
(And none of this is directed at Ed-Canada, but generally):
Maybe I can run around solo for years and miles. Maybe not. Maybe I can "tow heavy" (gosh, my EGT's are down), but for how long? Where and at what point is the compromise made? Because sure as shootin' engine degradation is going to happen somewhere. A tuner is evidence of abuse by it's mere presence because no one can accurately extrapolate the condition of the engine without a teardown as it has been operated OUTSIDE of known parameters.
I've seen the bent frames, broken leaf spring mounts, and welded brakes where a customer lied about "towing", I've seen grenaded engines & transmissions at a Texas dealership where I traded for years and knew men from parts, service and sales. And, as I wrote above, I've been driving for economy (knowing how to tune gassers) for nearly forty years. I KNOW that there are compromises when a motor is tuned to a narrow use AND is then subjected to use that violates that tuning.
It's a simple question for the tuner supplier: At what point am I increasing wear on the motor that it will not meet the 350k MTBO?
Not one of them can answer that. Dodge and Cummins already have.
So I'm afraid my statement is correct: That were it capable of higher mpg then DODGE would have supplied it. That they are the only ones capable of the testing -- and bear the liability -- and thus it behooves me to respect PhD engineers (and the lawyers) as the protocols are known.
Sure, maybe I can gain 2/10's with a louder exhaust system. Maybe I can gain another 2/10's with a CAI. But who will prove it?
Do you think that if I added a tuner I could go from my numerous-times-high of 27 mpg to 28, to 30 mpg? I've seen other men with trucks like mine with the same mileage I report. But none higher. Should I add a CAI? A 5" exhaust? Pump my tires to 80-psi? What should I do to get better numbers than I already do?
Because if those tuners worked I'd benefit as well, right?
Saying that one has gotten another 50-100 miles per tank is about the best I usually see. So what are the numbers, the annual "increase"? Where was the break-even point? Under what conditions of load, road, speed; metro or rural, climate, etc?
Same with the magazine "test". Enthusiast magazines are fun to read, cause if I buy the products I'll be smarter, have a bigger, and re-pay the cost of all my fuel in three years . . . right. They are in the business of collecting ad revenue. There is "negative motivation" to say that the products that pay their salary don't work as advertised. And their tests are a joke most of the time, ESPECIALLY on fuel economy. You read the magazines -- and then see EPA recommendations -- and that ol' big guvmint is just a real party pooper.
I think this whole mindset disrespects (to use a little ghetto) the Cummins TurboDiesel. If a guy wants to race it, fine. If another guy wants to violate GVWR and GCWR then potential criminal negligence is on him.
And we should feel sorry for the next owner of that truck having bought an abused vehicle. Because it was built with no relevant compromises, being capable of an incredible amount of work on an incredibly small amount of fuel for an incredible MTBO . . except the previous owner trashed that delicate balance.