I'm wondering if anyone is going to read these posts because they are so friggin' long!!!

Why did the magazine article report the negative/poor performance of the tuner companies that advertise in that same magazine? Not all of them got passing grades. I was actually shocked I thought they would be carefull to keep the advertising $$$. But on the other hand I have seen many other magazines post reviews of other products labelling it as the lowest rating: "Sucks" ("Maximum PC" mag), even when a few pages ealier you find the ad for that same product.

And we shouldn't forget either, that tuners have come a long way since they were introduced. Since then there have been many revisions, and yes, unfortunately many revisions were probably made off the engines/transmissions that were pushed too far from the tuner. But today is today.

And if one has so much faith in the manufacturers, I have to ask: why did my ball joints fail on such low miles, on my stock tires before I went to aftermarket tires? I wasn't towing and I was following the maintenance schedule in my manual. I found out through these forums that the ball joints on these trucks fail a lot. So if stock is so great, why didn't dodge address this common issue yet? Not wanting the same problem down the road, I replaced my ball joints with what appears to be a better aftermarket design. Well just have to wait and see if they are. And when I have to have them serviced, I'll post so people know if they might be worth the investment.

What about my ***** steering? Dodge is notoriously bad for poor steering on trucks...my 98 was horrible! That's almost 8 years to get a better design. So why do I have to replace steering components on my 2006 so my truck doesn't drive like a grain truck?

What about the stupid lift pump problem/design that it fails prematurely? My injectors are now starting to fail because of it. I put in an aftermarket pump/filter too late. Now, my injectors are causing poor economy, and to replace them will be a $3000 fix - all that on highway and city driving, hardly any towing. Premium Shell diesel all the way, quality the manual requests.

What about my brother's EGR that carboned up his turbo on his 6.7? Oh yeah, his ball joints just failed too. His truck is a completely stock 2008. Thank-you Dodge engineers.

I also wonder, why doesn't Cummins cryo treat all their engine parts? Why don't they moly-coat the piston skirts and ceramic coat the piston heads? Money. Where would the company be if their engines were bulletproof?

And one can't put every enthusiast into one group. I for one rarely, if ever, push my truck as hard as it can be pushed. My EGT's never break 1000 F. I only have to tow around 5000 lbs. I drive in a place where it is flat as hell. So is a tuner right for me for milage? Yes. Maybe the guy who started this post is in the same group. Who knows.

And those guys who want to push their trucks hard on tuners? They know the game. And they're not after milage. And like you, I have no respect for guys who blame the manufacturers for problems that they are well aware were created by abuse.

So a couple of points I'd like to make...

1. I don't trust the manufacturers to do what is best, but what is cheapest for them. From what I've experienced, this carries through not only diesel tuning, but years of gas engine tuning I have been doing since 1995. I've seen it over and over...something the manufacturers could have done much better but choose not to. And when it comes to tuners, if we had ones like the gas community have (and we will someday when we catch up), we'll be able to tune with much less blindness, ensuring premature wear isn't going to be a problem. Right now we have to put our trust in the tuning manufactures...but they don't want lawsuits either, so I'll trust they're doing their best now. Furthering this, I have seen engines that have been torn down, ones "on the tune" being rebuilt for better performance, and you can easily see the difference between abused tune and non abused tune. The non-abused tunes are the same as stock with the same milage.

2. Even so, that's what we are here for...to find ways of making the trucks better: be it performance, economy, steering, etc. And this community helps us figure out what we can do that's right and what is risky or flat-out wrong - the stuff that causes premature wear so we don't all continue to make the mistakes. Unfortunately, there is poor advice given that is without basis or trial and error, it's just opinion. But people are passionate about their trucks, so I can't blame them too much. I trust that there are people here smart enough not to take blind advice from a single person. But I for one will give enough credit to a person who's looking at a tuner for better milage that he's not so stupid as to think the tuner is going to make his refueling life peaches and cream while continuing to drive like a bat out of hell, that he will in conjunction with the tuner use good driving habits because he wants to refuel less.

I like to experiment and try to make things better. I am a man of science, a forenisc scientist to be exact, for the past 10 years. I have six aftermarket gauge readings in my truck. I keep track of numbers, including every odometer reading between fillups. And so far, from what I have seen and from my experments so far, my tuner makes a huge benefit for the better - every tank. I've even tossed some performance parts for others, because the newer tested better with the monitoring I have.

On the flip side, from what I have experienced with my truck manufacturer, they've produced a vehicle that is not of the upmost quality. Every time I have been into a repair shop it has been the fault of the manufacturer's design, not my tuner or other modifications. And if I was working for a dealership or repair shop, I'm sure I would have seen not only the common problems that are to be expected over time, but all the idiots come in that have abused performance and tuning. So of course, what would be my opinion of the tuners when I am only seeing the dummies? People who have it right don't come into a repair shop because there is no need.

And that's what we are all here for, is to try and get it right the first time...

 

(No such thing as too-long posts except for the semi-literate). I admire your post, the philosophical stance. Little different than mine over the decades.

It still comes down to numbers, hedging bets: Will the initial extra expense of the diesel engine prove out in both reduced fuel usage and longer truck life? A gasser may still be okay solo at 200k, but combustion blowby can be a problem when asked to do work, let's say. Ostensibly, a CTD is just past the half-way point in at that mileage. If, indeed, it can still do "work" economically (more than haul itself around) past 200k (up to 350k) then it has been a good choice.

Q: How many original owners keep their CTD trucks 15-years or 350k miles? That's a generous 20k-plus miles annually.

A: The answer seems easy enough: Next to none. So where is the motivation for DODGE to re-tune the engine, or, for CUMMINS to upgrade the internals? The engine already outlasts the truck with factory tuning.

The wider point being made about reliability (ball joints, steering, HVAC, etc) are part of the equation of ownership costs, but dirt cheap compared to the engine/transmission. (Learning of them, correcting early if possible, is the reason I frequent these boards). I need to keep up the rest of the truck to make the CTD a cost-effective choice, so early replacement of components (be it alternators, starters, the complete HVAC system, etc) should be on a schedule, that I may ease my way out in a predictable manner. (Cost control).

The point about poor fuel delivery/fuel filtration is more central (tuners for mpg), it/they should enable component life above 300k when maintained (as failure here is expensive).

Like many, I would -- in my dreams, now -- wish I could have started the truck with better fuel components, and I would add to that spin on/off filtration of coolant & PSF.

But the idea that adding a $500 component to the electronic engine controls for better fuel economy -- without knowing or being able to quantify trade-offs, externally -- is still pretty dumb, IMO, as changing driver habits is proven effective. It's a given in the big truck industry (and tested) that the difference between drivers is 30% when all other factors are controlled.

Some things are better left alone.

 

Well, I must admit you make a pretty good arguement. In fact, you've given me quite an insite:

I think that maybe I don't like how much money I've spent purchasing a heavy duty truck that has turned out to be not really "heavy duty". You see, I still have to spend so much money on maintenance like you said...and that pisses me off.

You go to the dealership and they knock the price down $10,000 to get your sale. Well then, how much is the truck really worth? I would glady pay that extra $10,000 to have the truck run for 10 years with very little maintenance. I don't like bad news at the dealership. Who does?

So what do we do to save money? We use tuners in an attempt to "feel" that we are saving more money. Are we? You're right, we don't know until years down the road. But it does make me feel like I have some control. (How's that for psychology?!! )

And in the end, instead of being mad about the breakdowns, I now see them as learning opportunities, at an expense for a diesel education, and as an opportunity to improve Dodge's original truck design they sold me. It's a grande experiment that will run a number of years, one that I enjoy. Thankfully, for me, I can write off all my expenses in my side business so I can feel less of the cost.

 

I would glady pay that extra $10,000 to have the truck run for 10 years with very little maintenance (or repairs).

In effect, we will, but it isn't "extra", it's the normal cost of ownership of a light duty truck:

maintenance
repairs
tires
insurance
taxes/fees
fuel
driver upgrades
finance charges
depreciation

The only way to reduce cost is smart ownership which starts prior to purchase. Driver upgrades are only paid for in reduction of costs prior to the purchase of toys, never afterwards.

The EDMUNDS site has several pages on True Cost of Ownership for those new to figuring costs in a Cents-Per-Mile format (the industry standard). It is worth clicking on every little item to understand how these are arrived at; the industry methods of calculating costs.

Your average American "thinks" (figure of speech) that the "cost" of the vehicle is monthly finance note payment and fuel. Which is why they all panic when fuel costs rise; there has never been an understanding of the role of fuel in ownership costs; or budgeting an appropriate vehicle. If it is a tipping point then the wrong vehicle was chosen.

The average American household now loses 17% of aftertax income to transportation.

Below is a cpm of .61. This is based on a 2005 3500 2WD with man trans bought used, today, for $17,359.



Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-yr Total
Depreciation $2,020 $1,772 $1,559 $1,382 $1,240 $7,973

Taxes & Fees $1,278 $62 $64 $64 $54 $1,522

Fuel $2,976 $3,065 $3,157 $3,252 $3,350 $15,800

Maintenance $152 $1,441 $433 $2,178 $1,437 $5,641

Repairs $558 $648 $750 $872 $1,011 $3,839

Financing $1,027 $828 $615 $386 $140 $2,996

Insurance $1,467 $1,518 $1,571 $1,626 $1,683 $7,865
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yearly Totals $9,478 $9,334 $8,149 $9,760 $8,915 $45,636



(Move it up to a 2007 model 4WD DRW and we're at 81/cpm, or, nearly $60,000 for five years/60,000-miles of ownership; $12,000 annually)

Note that all costs besides fuel exceed the cost of fuel. The fuel cost, above, appears to be (at $2.80/gl) for a truck averaging -- all miles -- 14 mpg; or. 20/cpm.

My fuel cost (at my current average) is 12/cpm. Or, $1825 versus the nearly $3000 of the example. If I mix back in 5,000-miles towing my 34' TT at 14 mpg average, then my fuel bill rises to $2217; or, 15/cpm give-or-take.

Either way, by having no finance charges and a lower fuel bill, my total cost is reduced by over $7000 over five years. At $2.80/gl.
If fuel rises to $5 gal . . . ?


Best tuner for mpg?

The one between the drivers ears . . . as it is the ONLY proven way of increasing fuel economy (to the maximum that vehicle is capable) where longest engine life is paramount.

As to control I see that as being two part: One, that the lowest cost per mile is best use of all resources (individual and societal); Two, that remaining lane-centered under all conditions is the path to number one. Safety always trumps economy, and economy is about never having to use brakes or abuse tires. (Speed reduction on all roads is most of it; running all miles at 1700-1900 is the other part).

And a CTD that is getting less than 80,000 from brakes/tires (actually, 100-120,000; I'm on track to get a quarter-million miles from the first two sets of tires) is doing a below average job for most owners. And that this remains constant over 300k or 15-years. That is the guy who "wins" (who has need, not ego desire, of truck ownership) if you want to look at it that way.

That others claim otherwise, well, it's their money.

 

I flat out loved that exchange!!!!! I am sure that the guy who originally posted the tuner/milage question had know idea what was going to come his way.

THANK YOU!!!! It has been a pleasure reading the exchange.

 

A large part of the equation that we are missing here is that many people use trucks to make money, as a requirement that is necessary to do business. In my case, paying that $10,000 in maintenance periodically is far more costly than paying it up front:

I having to:
- book the truck in and wait for my appointment
- wait for the diagnosis
- usually wait another day for the actual repair
- waste time with courtesy shuttles (although I appreciate them greatly)

During this time I'm not able to make money. So paying the $10,000 up front for a more robust truck is MUCH better for someone like me, and maybe others.

What about saving time with having to fuel up less often? It takes time to go to the station, pay the bill, etc. It might sound like a stretch, but when we're analyzing this down to the smallest of driving habits...

Heck, I can tell you I bought a Shell SpeedPass card so I don't waste time (read: money) in having to wait for the station computer, typing in all the numbers, air miles card etc.

But what about non-monetary reasons? What about the stress of having to deal with these frequent occurances which happen unexpectedly? How much does that affect one's peace of mind and health? That is a far greater cost than money.

So I'd rather pay $500 for high-end ball joints and service them once after the first 100,000 miles rather than replace them three times in the same time period - which is far more costly, especially when considering the above listed reasons.

Best tuner for mpg (or any other aftermarket upgrades)?

...completely dependent on who you are and what you do with your truck - there is no simple answer that applies to everyone.

 

I'll throw in my 2 cents since a few points have not been discussed that are relevant. This is based on my experience as an Engine Research Engineer at CAT '81 - '85, Cummins, '86, and manager of a CAT truck engine facility '99 - '02. Also owned a 96 CTD and now just bought an '06 CTD.

1. Emissions requirements are the main reason our engines cannot get better mileage. The manufactures have to meet very tight emissions standards that involve EPA certification by demonstrating complex simulation of driving conditions on an engine dyno in the lab. Required smoke and particulates are so low that even doubling or tripling those emissions would not be visible to the naked eye. NOx emissions are also very tight. The tuners can advance the timing to a degree increasing NOx and giving better fuel consumption. allowing an increase in initial fuel upon accelerating creates more smoke but this fuel burn allows the turbo to spool much faster which in turn supplies more air quicker to support even more fuel. A lot of gain in responsivness can be had with still little to no visible smoke. Modifications within reason have virtually no effect on reliability. Much is economy determined by how it is driven but a tuner can definately help and if driven sensibly and will increase mileage with no downside other than cost.

2. The life of a properly maintained engine is greatly dependant upon duty cycle. You can have a lot of output for a short time or low output for a long time but you will not have a lot of output for a long time. Of course statistically there will be some variation and there is always a few examples of someone beating the statistics. Starting creates wear, idling is bad as are other factors. That is why there are different maintenance schdeules and oil analysis to help figure out appropriate schedules.

It is interesting that for the '06's I was looking at, the NADA book adder for the CTD was pretty much the same or even a hundred dollars more in the used vehicle than the original adder on the window stickers (which I found on several of the trucks I looked at).

Just my two cents. Love this common rail '06!

 

EdmontonCanada & Rednax, thank you. Phew, finally waded thru all those words, but it was worth it. Nice to read a sane technical "argument' like this one. Thumbs up to both of you.

 

A lot of gain in responsiveness can be had with still little to no visible smoke.

I drove OTR with some DD 60-series in the '90's that had a lot more "pep" than I expected . . and better fuel mileage as well considering their ratings/engine-hours against the loads we were carrying . . . and then the EPA stepped in to tell us why! (Detroit Diesel had some, uh, "tuners" on their engines).

I also had to install air filters over the cab HVAC inlet to get breathable air while stuck at truckstops in sweltering heat. Visible or not, I'm glad to see changes, here.

Modifications within reason have virtually no effect on reliability.

I have used oil analysis on several vehicles. It can start to add to expense when one uses a certified tribologist as we individuals can't create economies of scale with but one truck (even a handful). Labs, such as Blackstone see a lot of trucks, but analysts (such as Terry Dyson of DYSON ANALYSIS) take science and make it artistic as well in helping one define areas of concern. ("Wisdom of the Internet" is an apt joke when asking others online to understand a UOA). $500 here is cheap spread over several years.

Trending UOA's is great for any vehicle once duty cycle is understood. That is the sticking point of "within reason" as I see it (I in no way disagree with the statement) for reason demands proofs. Some proofs come too late, on the one hand, and there are not available tables for the individual to consult . . or does anyone have BSFC charts on the CTD? Reason would seem to demand I be able to make A-B comparisons on the other hand.

If I know the lowest cost (highest mpg) of my particular combination then I can be a stickler about the other variable costs (tires, brakes, etc) in ameliorating the other expenses (as irks Ed-Canada, above): unscheduled repairs that takes the truck OOS (out-of-service). That is, I'm afraid, the problem of any vehicle be it light-duty or heavy duty. Catastrophic failure simply comes earlier to the light duty truck (ours). The purchase price reflects this, but then so do all other associated costs.

 

I think big part of the problem is that the tuners in combination with the very nature of a diesel engine is an issue, which raises the emissions issue etn550 brings up:

- one can add fuel and air in general sweeping gestures and the engine still runs. Throw on bigger injectors and you get some black smoke. Throw on a bigger turbo to make the black smoke go away. Simplistic. IMO...mindless.

Throw bigger injectors into gas engine and it either backfires or doesn't run at all. Throw a bigger turbo on and you run lean, either melting your pistons or throwing one of them out the side of your block. Throw both on and you get a really wonky running car. Tap into the fuel and timing computer, put it on a dyno, monitor the air/fuel ratio, and adjust...and perfection.

The closer you get to that continual balance, the better fuel economy you get and the better power you get. Why? Chemistry. You're reacting every molecule of fuel with every molecule of air. In tuning a gas engine, you have to be smarter and have good monitoring to ensure the process is in balance.

But in diesel, we have no diesel particulate monitor to show us what we are wasting. Eyeballing your tail pipe for black smoke is a caveman method. Throwing on a tuner that is some other companies idea of a tune? Also mindless. But it's what everyone uses because it's all we have. And it sucks. My guess is that Banks Engineering has a DP monitor, that they use on their Sidewinder to properly tune, to create huge power without smoke.

If we did have better computers & appropriate monitoring - those more in line with the gassers, we could have better economy, power, and meet emission requirements, all simultaneously.

On on the other note, look, Dodge sells a new "loaded" diesel truck for what? Over $60,000 - from what Dodge.ca is telling me?! I don't think they really put anywhere close to that value in it. You pay $60K for a Lexus and you get amazing quality. You pay $60K for a Dodge Ram, and really take a good look at it...the only "quality" I see is the engine. The catastropic failures don't happen in the engine or tranny with a basic tuner, because Cummins can handle a work load and diesels are designed to work hard, not idle, not drive around and get groceries. Everything else on the truck is a catastrophy, from the cheap interior, to the poor steering, to the bad lift pump design, to the missing fender well liners, to the cheap ball joints, to the rusting chrome bumpers after 3 years. They can't even put friggin' HID's in the thing so our safety on the highway is better!!!

So again, maybe people are trying to save money because we got ripped off. (I'm very glad I bought mine used for half the price)

It's no wonder why people buy imports.

And if meddling with the engine tuning only a little bit is any kind of an issue, then I argue the Cummins engine is garbage too. If it can't handle some basic tuning changes...

And now I'm going to go look up the meaning of "ameliorating"...

 

I have had the 4.4 beta program in and out 4 times and no matter how, I drove the stock truck, there is a quite notacible gain in mpg and miles per tank. Knowing that the same engine is in marine apps., laying down alot more power than the stock Dodge, and running a LONG time, I am not concerned about wearing out my engine a few thousand miles too soon. Just because I can make 100 h.p. more does not mean that I am using it for more than a few seconds a day.

 

We started the whole mileage thing and Edge tried to copy along.

We are the ONLY ones that back our claims up with money back guarantees. In some cases we have to honor them and we do.

Bottom line is we stand behind what we say so if you are going that route you need to look at our M3, not to mention it is way less expensive than the edge.

Oh and we are also the only ones that offer an upgrade later on if you want for more towing power.

http://www.quadzillapower.com/produc...e-Module-Dodge

Also check your local dealer for actual pricing, website has retail pricing shown.

 

Here's the sort of post that always gets my attention as to "tuners" as well as useable truck life:

I say your mpg are right on compared to our trucks. Im basing this on our 05's, 3500, 6spd, 4wd. Of course, our trucks are a little bit heavier as we run them with a flatbed and hayspear on the back. We've run some of these trucks with programmers and some without. The ones we run with programmers really didn't get any better fuel mileage over the life of the truck. 300,000-miles is what we consider the maximum life and sell them for salvage. Keeping them after this point, there was too much wrong with them and too much cost to repair, cheaper to sell them and buy a new truck. What we found with programers you get melted pistons at about 180,000 miles and injector problems about the same time. Without the programers, little to no difference in fuel mileage, no piston problems and injector life about 240,000 and then injectors down again around 300,000. We have not had to replace any front end parts on any of our trucks which is pretty good considering they are off the road 2 to 3 times a week in fields pulling cattle trailers, etc. Have one for sale now for salvage on the classifieds, fixing to update with pictures. I guess what I'm trying to say is that my opinion is that you can spend a lot of money on all of these fancy gizmos trying to get better fuel mileage for these trucks, and all you'll do is advance the timing and shorten your engine life. These programers are probably good for the hot rodders and the people driving their truck back and forth to public jobs pulling a load occasionally. We regularly pull 15,000 to 20,000 pounds not counting the trailer, but what do I know, we just haul our ranch related items. Some of these guys running the highways, swear by them. Good luck and I hope you enjoy your truck and get great service out of it.

http://www.cumminsforum.com/forum/2755115-post16.html


THIS IS A HIGH PERFORMANCE PRODUCT. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!

.

 

True!

When I was looking for a truck I really only had a few wants, mainly a QCSB 6 speed and I wanted it to have under 50000 miles. I found tons of trucks, some 04's and a few 03's that fit the bill. I remember some of the 03's were listing at about 25k to 27k, the 05's and 06's were at 30~33k. I bought my brand new 07 for 32k!



For what its worth, I have trended my mileage since the second tank. I have a spreadsheet and all of my calculations are done pretty much the same way, for all my vehicles. I'm very consistent, I usually fill up at the same pump, fill to the same point.., etc.

I originally went straight to level 1 and gained about 1.5 mpg. I went to level 3 sometime thereafter and didn't have a loss if I didn't have any fun.

FYI don't believe the overhead meter, it lies. I trend it too and usually see about a 10% high reading, no matter the Smarty setting. I've tried to reset it after each fill up but it doesn't matter.

So far my average calculated mileage is 18.7 mpg. My high is just about 20.8 mpg, I did this driving to a reunion on 11W between Kingsport, Tn and Blaine, Tn. Its a decent level road (for around here) and I did about 45 the whole way. My low is about 15 mpg, I got this on a trip to St. Simons Is. Ga from Kingsport. Did the whole trip unrefueled. We left Kingsport at about 8 pm and had a lot of time running hard when it got real late. I'd never do that again! We were bucking a big headwind and running pretty fast. The overhead was saying 13 mpg.

 

Below is a series of quotes from a number of threads, where:

I have edited for clarity

I have combined quotes which support one another

The sequence is about wanting better fuel economy; the problems of tuning for such; the problem of actually being able to monitor fuel use; the ultimate problem of not knowing what stock parameters are being exceeded as a trade-off.

Qzilla quotes are in one typeface, those by others in a second (and italicized), and mine in this third. I hope that I have not muddled anything for it is not in the least my intention to be critical of an aftermarket supplier in this.

So far as I can tell the MMM box is more about "driveability", a problem of driver perception. Few drivers are willing to deal with problems beyond stab and steer. Judging by what I see on the big road weekly even this is in doubt . . this includes every CTD I have ever seen. And I live in Texas.

I have no associations with any aftermarket or original equipment supplier. I am, however, interested in the question[s] of fuel economy. Unlike screwing around with air filtration -- on which I have strong opinion -- yet while I think that tuners, in general, are a form of abuse, I hold out higher hope for what they might be in terms of engine longevity and commensurate lower fuel usage.

What is the best tuner for mpg?

I have no idea, as I have yet to see any substantiated claims AND none balanced against engine/component longevity.

BUT,

were I searching for that information on this board and specifically about the MMM and Quadzilla products this is how I read it.


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

I got an XZT half a year ago w/ hopes of getting better mpg. I drive for fuel mileage - engine never above 2000-rpm, hwy speeds between 65 & 70, etc. After 10,000 miles, there was no improvement in fuel economy. I have kept a fuel log since the truck was new so no fillup error here. My truck is stock except for minor timing changes (tone ring mod). It gets good mileage (22-hwy, 18-city), but I want better.

What does the Mileage Module do differently than the XZT? If it really does improve mpg I would consider its' purchase.

'04.5 Ram, 600/325 CTD, 4X4, NV5600, 3.73LS

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

This man's truck is burdened by 4WD and higher horsepower than mine, yet in percentage increase I do little better than he. Neither of us are alone as there are others out there doing as well. We have the same questions.

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

The average truck gets in the 15mpg range . . there is not a truck on the market that going to get 18-20mpg in stop & go city traffic . . . from a survey we did polling over [500] 2003-07 Dodge CTD owners.

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

No, we may be rare, but we exist. I eked out 19 mpg, city, for over two years. My lowest tank was 17-mpg. Some of us do not crank the engine before deciding a trip plan.

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

. . The [competitors] box makes an empty truck fun to drive with rapid acceleration from 1,400 to 2000 rpm being the main difference. MikeyB

https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...html?p=2161964

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

The CTD I drive has a definite flat part in the curve, and above 1700-rpm I occasionally find myself holding the throttle both open too far and too long prior to shifting; that is, I am better off shifting at 1800 or so under lightest load [solo]. Letting the engine hang is a fuel waster.

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

(Not the MMM):

After testing . . we had a small percentage of people not seeing gains. I polled [them] and they were kind enough to respond.

What we came up with is that some of these people . . are driving so easily that the module was not . . doing anything. To counter this we made the new program . . work at super low RPM's [where] no boost is required. This allows these guys to drive as normal and see improvements.

The downside to this is . . a potential to use more fuel than the regular programming. If you drive "normal" you can probably feel a little extra boost in power with the city file that you do not have with the other file.

So for most people that standard file works best. We just put another option out there so that we could cover all bases.

https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...&highlight=mAX

( This makes perfect sense as I've noticed rail psi rises much faster w/ the city tune . . . . ) RIDGMAN

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


What is the MMM box actually doing to the motor to gain mpg's? That's the info I want to know....

You and every single one of our competitors!!!

I will say this, stock max rail pressure is not exceeded. No peak power gains. We do not do anything at idle. We do not do anything at WOT. In between those two things we do several things to make the engine run more efficiently

[As a guideline]: By increasing [combustion] efficiency an extra amount of fuel will allow the motor to gain more revs with advanced timing than with retarded timing to a point.

The MMM is not going to affect the truck at all if you are sitting in traffic. The truck would be 100% stock. It is not going to affect the timing in any way [that would] harm the truck.

If you floor the accelerator . . it will be in stock mode. We watch boost and rail pressure, and if you are flogging the truck it will remain in stock power settings.

By more than [straight] fuel mileage we went more off of how many miles you can get to a tank of fuel: most people reported anywhere from 40-75 miles.

It works . . or we would not offer it inexpensively AND offer a satisfaction guarantee . . . . it is tough for some people to evaluate mileage performance in a month which is why the Max Mileage box has a 90-day option. Something NO ONE else has done.

https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...&highlight=mAX

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

The 90-day return policy and low price (at present) make it attractive. Over 4,000-shipped from an old post (and without a significant amount of reporting. One assumes that the customers are satisfied).

If, indeed, it helped me up through the gears without letting the engine hang [brain dead driving] then it may pay for itself. At 40-75 miles farther per tank on a 33-gallon useable amount; at 15 mpg; at $3/gl fuel: the percentage increase is one-two years for payoff if my annual mpg actually went from 15 to either 16 or 17 AND if the self-reported 15 mpg is accurate in the first place. If, then . . . .

The question is whether I actually need the help, as shifts from one through fourth I am shifting early; only in fourth and fifth am I winding it past 1800-rpm on a regular basis and, when new to the truck, was irritated by the flat spot.

Solo, loaded or empty, I don't see the need as the truck is already grossly overpowered. At 9,000-lbs (GVWR) I have never needed WOT to make headway. Towing, I have used the complete throttle range as would be expected with a heavy load. In other words I found the compensation for the flat spot to be minor, though recurring, and never an impediment to power or to fuel mileage overall.

As in the above post, where "moderate changes" was indicated as being less than harmful, a bit of extra "zip" to overcome the "flat spot" is probably a good solution to offer where the minimum of parameters is changed.

Especially if it means that the driver spends less time accelerating and is in top gear sooner. This is the crucial point.

Had I that "zip" where the acceleration curve is constant versus flattening I might gear-climb more easily, say, from third onwards before dropping her into the big hole . . where I have come onto a frontage road from a dedicated turn lane (no stop), and am looking to get onto the Interstate; where the shifts are happening as soon as I care to make them; solo or towing, light or heavy. But this is not a constant of driving.

What is constant is that at steady-state highway cruise of 1,725/50 rpm I am averaging 24-mpg, wind or no wind. Traffic or no traffic. Weather or no weather. Loaded or empty. Etcetera. Yesterday, returning from New Orleans the overhead (corrected) was reading 30-mpg with a favorable wind for over 100-miles. Then I hit the front that brought snow to Dallas and Oklahoma City . . . Cummins and Dodge did a great job. And I got a good one, besides.

The cruise control programming is magnificent: not since a high compression 440 Chrysler (on real gasoline, not cat ****) have I experienced "flattened hills".

(Somewhere there is a post -- I can't find it now -- about Dodge tuning starting at 1700-rpm for economy. By inference may "explain" the flat spot).

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

The problem with a fuel economy number is that these engines do not have flow meters. The ones that do show that data, they get it by doing a calculation as defined by the OBD2 standards.

Basically they take a bunch of other readings and do some math and then tell you how much fuel they think you should be burning.

It does not work at all.

https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...26&postcount=8

(The ECM knows more accurately how much fuel is being burnt, but the ECM doesn't put that info thru the OBD2. The diesel Liberty was the same way and they were getting faulty emissions readings so Jeep had to reprogram the ECM (since it's a car not a truck) . . . and as we have trucks exempt from fuel mileage standards, unless and until the EPA mandates emissions readings there won't be an ECM fix.

I have had my Scan Gauge 2 on several rigs that don't actually have a flow meter, and the mileage is very accurate . . it's just that on these 3rd Gen diesel's it doesn't work . . in fact it works fine on the 2nd Gen CTD's.) AH64ID

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


Without accurate readings I can make no A-B testing. I have had a window of a few months making long roundtrips. That could change next week. In the meantime I can mentally calculate mileage from what the overhead is reading; it is consistent. But that is not the same as an accurate reading.


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