Bama 87 Performance Tune Loaded
03-27-2011, 11:58 AM
#11
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canada, Quebec
Posts: 3
Hogasswild, could you please post fuel economy numbers. Thanks in advance for your assistance
03-28-2011, 09:05 AM
#12
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 720
Okay, please bear in mind that I like to average at least five tanks of gas to kind of get a good baseline and have not gotten that many with the 93P tune. All these numbers are based on the same kind of driving, same road loop etc, so your numbers will vary. Also since I have noticed a big spike in mpgs just from going from 87 to 93 octane, I haven't tried a 87 tune yet. If you guys want me to, I will after I complete my sample for the 93P tune. I run a 360 mile commute twice a week which is how I am able to compile such large numbers lol. Based on a 75/25 highway/city mix of driving:
87 stock 26.1mpg
87 intake only 27.8mpg
93 stock 27.4mpg
93 intake only 29.1mpg
93P tune and intake 29.6mpg
So you can see a couple things here. Switching up octane from 87 to 93 alone gives you about 1.5mpg increase. Just adding an intake (I have a JLT) using either 87 or 93 octane gives you at least 1.5mpg increase and looks fairly consistent regardless of octane. The performance tune gives me another 0.5mpg, but like I said I consider that preliminary data. Give me a couple weeks and I'll be able to give you all a better number.
I'm sure others may get different numbers because they drive differently, but these are my numbers based on almost 13,000 miles of data. I trust the numbers because I can count on the route I take to have consistent traffic and I set my cruise control at the same speeds for each particular stretch of road. The only real difference would be weather (temps, wind, humidity). Also, please bear in mind I have a six speed manual with 3.31 gears, so I imagine those with the 2.73 automatic will have more impressive numbers than me. However, I'm very happy with the numbers I'm getting.
87 stock 26.1mpg
87 intake only 27.8mpg
93 stock 27.4mpg
93 intake only 29.1mpg
93P tune and intake 29.6mpg
So you can see a couple things here. Switching up octane from 87 to 93 alone gives you about 1.5mpg increase. Just adding an intake (I have a JLT) using either 87 or 93 octane gives you at least 1.5mpg increase and looks fairly consistent regardless of octane. The performance tune gives me another 0.5mpg, but like I said I consider that preliminary data. Give me a couple weeks and I'll be able to give you all a better number.
I'm sure others may get different numbers because they drive differently, but these are my numbers based on almost 13,000 miles of data. I trust the numbers because I can count on the route I take to have consistent traffic and I set my cruise control at the same speeds for each particular stretch of road. The only real difference would be weather (temps, wind, humidity). Also, please bear in mind I have a six speed manual with 3.31 gears, so I imagine those with the 2.73 automatic will have more impressive numbers than me. However, I'm very happy with the numbers I'm getting.
Last edited by hogasswild; 03-28-2011 at 09:17 AM.
03-28-2011, 12:10 PM
#13
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington
Posts: 192
Okay, please bear in mind that I like to average at least five tanks of gas to kind of get a good baseline and have not gotten that many with the 93P tune. All these numbers are based on the same kind of driving, same road loop etc, so your numbers will vary. Also since I have noticed a big spike in mpgs just from going from 87 to 93 octane, I haven't tried a 87 tune yet. If you guys want me to, I will after I complete my sample for the 93P tune. I run a 360 mile commute twice a week which is how I am able to compile such large numbers lol. Based on a 75/25 highway/city mix of driving:
87 stock 26.1mpg
87 intake only 27.8mpg
93 stock 27.4mpg
93 intake only 29.1mpg
93P tune and intake 29.6mpg
So you can see a couple things here. Switching up octane from 87 to 93 alone gives you about 1.5mpg increase. Just adding an intake (I have a JLT) using either 87 or 93 octane gives you at least 1.5mpg increase and looks fairly consistent regardless of octane. The performance tune gives me another 0.5mpg, but like I said I consider that preliminary data. Give me a couple weeks and I'll be able to give you all a better number.
I'm sure others may get different numbers because they drive differently, but these are my numbers based on almost 13,000 miles of data. I trust the numbers because I can count on the route I take to have consistent traffic and I set my cruise control at the same speeds for each particular stretch of road. The only real difference would be weather (temps, wind, humidity). Also, please bear in mind I have a six speed manual with 3.31 gears, so I imagine those with the 2.73 automatic will have more impressive numbers than me. However, I'm very happy with the numbers I'm getting.
87 stock 26.1mpg
87 intake only 27.8mpg
93 stock 27.4mpg
93 intake only 29.1mpg
93P tune and intake 29.6mpg
So you can see a couple things here. Switching up octane from 87 to 93 alone gives you about 1.5mpg increase. Just adding an intake (I have a JLT) using either 87 or 93 octane gives you at least 1.5mpg increase and looks fairly consistent regardless of octane. The performance tune gives me another 0.5mpg, but like I said I consider that preliminary data. Give me a couple weeks and I'll be able to give you all a better number.
I'm sure others may get different numbers because they drive differently, but these are my numbers based on almost 13,000 miles of data. I trust the numbers because I can count on the route I take to have consistent traffic and I set my cruise control at the same speeds for each particular stretch of road. The only real difference would be weather (temps, wind, humidity). Also, please bear in mind I have a six speed manual with 3.31 gears, so I imagine those with the 2.73 automatic will have more impressive numbers than me. However, I'm very happy with the numbers I'm getting.
Great data! ...I think a sample of 5 tanks per scenario is pretty darned good. If you don't mind, since you already have a great base-line, yes, perhaps a sampling of the 87s, as well as the 93s. I know I'd appreciate it. Really interesting stuff. Thanks Hogasswild.
03-28-2011, 01:46 PM
#15
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington
Posts: 192
Hey whatever works for you. I think any kind of info like this is good. and no rush on my side. ...I'm not going anywhere.
03-28-2011, 03:30 PM
#16
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canada, Quebec
Posts: 3
Okay, please bear in mind that I like to average at least five tanks of gas to kind of get a good baseline and have not gotten that many with the 93P tune. All these numbers are based on the same kind of driving, same road loop etc, so your numbers will vary. Also since I have noticed a big spike in mpgs just from going from 87 to 93 octane, I haven't tried a 87 tune yet. If you guys want me to, I will after I complete my sample for the 93P tune. I run a 360 mile commute twice a week which is how I am able to compile such large numbers lol. Based on a 75/25 highway/city mix of driving:
87 stock 26.1mpg
87 intake only 27.8mpg
93 stock 27.4mpg
93 intake only 29.1mpg
93P tune and intake 29.6mpg
So you can see a couple things here. Switching up octane from 87 to 93 alone gives you about 1.5mpg increase. Just adding an intake (I have a JLT) using either 87 or 93 octane gives you at least 1.5mpg increase and looks fairly consistent regardless of octane. The performance tune gives me another 0.5mpg, but like I said I consider that preliminary data. Give me a couple weeks and I'll be able to give you all a better number.
I'm sure others may get different numbers because they drive differently, but these are my numbers based on almost 13,000 miles of data. I trust the numbers because I can count on the route I take to have consistent traffic and I set my cruise control at the same speeds for each particular stretch of road. The only real difference would be weather (temps, wind, humidity). Also, please bear in mind I have a six speed manual with 3.31 gears, so I imagine those with the 2.73 automatic will have more impressive numbers than me. However, I'm very happy with the numbers I'm getting.
87 stock 26.1mpg
87 intake only 27.8mpg
93 stock 27.4mpg
93 intake only 29.1mpg
93P tune and intake 29.6mpg
So you can see a couple things here. Switching up octane from 87 to 93 alone gives you about 1.5mpg increase. Just adding an intake (I have a JLT) using either 87 or 93 octane gives you at least 1.5mpg increase and looks fairly consistent regardless of octane. The performance tune gives me another 0.5mpg, but like I said I consider that preliminary data. Give me a couple weeks and I'll be able to give you all a better number.
I'm sure others may get different numbers because they drive differently, but these are my numbers based on almost 13,000 miles of data. I trust the numbers because I can count on the route I take to have consistent traffic and I set my cruise control at the same speeds for each particular stretch of road. The only real difference would be weather (temps, wind, humidity). Also, please bear in mind I have a six speed manual with 3.31 gears, so I imagine those with the 2.73 automatic will have more impressive numbers than me. However, I'm very happy with the numbers I'm getting.
Excellent data. I converted your numbers to the Canadian equivalent which is liters per 100 km and I was able to find the cost break even point between 87 and 93 octane. The extra mileage per tank pays for the additional cost of the 93 octane gas. Conclusion: A more enjoyable car at 93 without additional cost.
Many thanks for your information
PS: my car is also M/T with 3.31 gears
03-28-2011, 03:31 PM
#17
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Livin in NC, from Michigan...Yooper
Posts: 2,008
So just from the numbers and I run intake only, I'm better off with the price of gas sticking w/ 87 cause the cost in 93 will buy you $5 more gas staying with 87, which= to 40 miles, filling up with 93 nets you about 20 miles more Miles per tank...quick figuring...yes...no?
03-28-2011, 04:01 PM
#18
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 720
That's too confusing for me. This is how I would figure it:
Based on 10,000 miles a year
87 intake @ $3.50 gal would cost $1,259 (10,000/27.8=359.7*3.5=1259)
93 intake @ $3.75 gal would cost $1,288 (10,000/29.1=343.6*3.75=1289)
So cost wise I guess the difference would be $30 over a year based on that calculation, and only 16 gallons of fuel. To me that is really negligible. I'd rather get the extra ponies for $2.50 a month and use a little less gas and help the environment lol. The other reason for me to use 93 octane is that I can make the complete trip from Raleigh to Norfolk and back without needing to fill up. We are really lucky that our cars can adjust to the different fuels where other high performance cars require 93 and some economy cars run best on 87. We get the best of both worlds.
Based on 10,000 miles a year
87 intake @ $3.50 gal would cost $1,259 (10,000/27.8=359.7*3.5=1259)
93 intake @ $3.75 gal would cost $1,288 (10,000/29.1=343.6*3.75=1289)
So cost wise I guess the difference would be $30 over a year based on that calculation, and only 16 gallons of fuel. To me that is really negligible. I'd rather get the extra ponies for $2.50 a month and use a little less gas and help the environment lol. The other reason for me to use 93 octane is that I can make the complete trip from Raleigh to Norfolk and back without needing to fill up. We are really lucky that our cars can adjust to the different fuels where other high performance cars require 93 and some economy cars run best on 87. We get the best of both worlds.
Last edited by hogasswild; 03-28-2011 at 04:03 PM. Reason: clarity
03-28-2011, 06:54 PM
#19
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Livin in NC, from Michigan...Yooper
Posts: 2,008
tree hugger lmao.....ok do yourself, or I will do myself a one time fillup at the bp on 70 & 50 hyw...105 octance 6.00 a gal...we'll see what ponies and mpg's I get then..80 $ fill up.
