Cruzinaround

So will you be ordering methyl alcohol? I used to run a water injection kit on my fox body. Loaded it with methyl alcohol. Used a spray nozzle over the carburetor and worked with a small pump that varied the amount of injection via a vacuum hose off the engine. I wouldn't mind doing that again with my current car.

JCON

When 93 was over $4/gal I switched to 87 and noticed a major difference in pull on my GT. I know years ago on my v6 the dyno'ed difference was about 9rwhp

whosniffedme

We're sort of jacking this thread, but it is still relevant. Yeah that's essentially what it is, gonna have it injected straight in the intake tube, run fluid line from the tank/pump in the trunk and set switch to activate it when I'm boosting at whatever level I decide. I still don't have a boost gauge though and I want to get the best nozzle for how much power I have, so I'm gonna wait awhile before I install it.

kevinmalec

I can definitely feel a performance difference with my 87 custom tune vs. 93 custom tune from Brenspeed. Ever since I made the switch to the 93 custom tune, I haven't even thought about going back to the 87. =)

wcgman

+1 here except in CO all I could find was 91, but I put the 91 tune on and never looked back. That being put out there, Im still stock tune on the 500. Sometimes that car still scares me. I dont think it needs any more juice right now until I get some other stuff lined up first.

Nuke

Like life insurance? A cemetery plot?

kevinmalec

I wish I had that problem.

13V6coupe

I have no idea what the horsepower difference really is, but;

I recently went to Arkansas towing the trailer with a single motorcycle on it and tried the tunes.
Stock ford tune I got 22.43 (initial cold start and hook up to trailer etc)then 21.64 (caught a 30 minute catnap and let the car idle to stay warm)
89 street tune I got 22.62 then 22.1(through the Ozarks)
91 performance tune I got 26.8 (through the Ozarks) then 28.65
93 race tune I have not even tried yet, towing or otherwise and won't get a chance this year

I filled up at the same 3 different gas stations going and coming back and always used the best gas they had which was always ethanol free 91/92 or 93 octane. Cruise control was set at 72mph (2100 rpms) pretty much the entire trip

So the extra power must have offset some of the extra weight and aero drag of the trailer/bike for the mileage to have gone up? I certainly noticed the car ran better on the 91 performance tune when going through the hilly(Ozark mountains) part of southern MO and northern Arkansas than when I had it on the 89 Street tune through that stretch going down

Now if I run the car in the 91 performance mode that I generally do since geting the tuner, I have been averaging 30-30.7 mpg vs when the car had the stock tune and no CAI I was getting 31-32 under the same conditions with the same fuel

When I did the Eiback Pro Springs I did not notice any difference in Mileage with the car about 1" lower than when it was at stock height.

Nuke

Comparisons between tunes are meaningless unless each octane is run under as identical conditions as possible with AT LEAST a dozen or more fill-ups per octane to average out some of the variables that will skew the data. In addition, differences between fuel quality from fill-up to fill-up are significant enough to skew that data as well as temperature, humidity, wind speed, road surface texture, etc.

Taking a road trip and swapping tunes along the way may make it LOOK like one tune averages higher or lower than another but it's simply too uncontrolled to be able to infer ANYTHING about a vehicle's fuel economy.

luckydawg003

Well I put in 93 yesterday, but my tuner only had two 87 tunes on it, so I went like 3 miles home and uploaded the 93 race tune from my computer. I won't get to test it since its raining today, but will prob. Try tomorrow.