Bama Tune Observations
08-13-2009, 10:47 AM
#11
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 344
Having been in the IT field for ~20 years I learned a very long time ago not to trust anything a computer tells me.
So I've run many pencil and paper calculations on my MPG.
Bama 93 torque is rather efficient at highway speeds - the 'sweet' spot is at about 62-63MPH, where I've routinely observed 29-30MPG.
At about 70-80MPH cruising speed, MPG drops to ~27-28.
Stock and all other tunes run about the same - all roughly 1-2MPG lower than the 93 torque.
I've also noticed that the onboard computer 'overestimates' MPG by somewhere around .5 - 1MPG.
Never paid much attention to the gallons used figure - it only depresses me if I do so I never reset it and try not to think about it.
But, like the old saying goes - Your mileage may vary.
08-13-2009, 02:21 PM
#12
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Merritt Island, FL
Posts: 996
I had all 3 93 octane tunes, and I preferred the performance tune. Race was too touchy for me and I felt it was lacking in the top end compared to the performance. The torque was just wimpy. Good below 3K and nothing above 3K. Simple as that. I felt the best driving the performance tune.
As for MPG, I get around 19.5 with JLT CAI, LTs O/R X, and 4.10s if I stay in the 70-75 range with a Brenspeed tune.
As for MPG, I get around 19.5 with JLT CAI, LTs O/R X, and 4.10s if I stay in the 70-75 range with a Brenspeed tune.
08-14-2009, 01:06 PM
#13
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deep in the <3 of Tx
Posts: 3,925
From what I remember, to me it felt like the Race and Torque are about the same other than the Race having a touchy throttle. I've been using the Torque for a few months now so I think I'll load the Race back and compare again.
08-14-2009, 02:51 PM
#16
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Il
Posts: 52
Here is an interesting factoid not many consumers are aware of. When you purchase gasoline, the pump dispenses the product based on volume. But the computer in the car, by means of its sensors and computer burns it based on stoichiometry. Due to thermal expansion, consumers are being short changed if the temperature of the gasoline is above 60 degrees F. You make out if the gas is colder. Could it be that this is the reason that my info center displays one value for gas used where as the pump reports some X value different? For example. Info center says 10.8 gallons put the station pump reports 11.3?
08-14-2009, 04:32 PM
#17
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,968
right on gas man!
08-15-2009, 09:03 AM
#18
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Escondido, California
Posts: 2,018
I believe they are the same with the exception of the throttle response. I dynoed both the tq and race tune back to back and the graph showed no difference. They essentially mirrored each other.
08-15-2009, 10:59 AM
#19
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Newark, Delaware
Posts: 1,259
My stock 08 Mustang GT regularly gets 24-27 mpg on a 40/60 city/highway split, driving normally on 87 octain. This figure is calculated at the pump (Same station, same pump) miles divided by gallons. In my experience the trip computer displays about 1.2 mpg high pretty consistently. On all highway runs I have broken the 30 mpg mark (driving like a grandmother) Car now has 49,xxx miles on it and an overall average for the life of the car is hovering around 24.5 mpg.
I can't wait until funds permit me to get an intake and Bama tunes I'm hoping to see my milage increase along with an increase in power. Though with better throttle response I may end up having too much fun and dropping that mpg number a few points, after all it is a mustang and I didn't buy it for its fuel economy. Mustang wasn't supposed to be my daily, it just happens to get way better economy than my Cheorkee.
Pictured below all highway run averaging about 75-80ish mph almost 400 miles to the tank and a pump calculated 28.5 mpg.
I can't wait until funds permit me to get an intake and Bama tunes I'm hoping to see my milage increase along with an increase in power. Though with better throttle response I may end up having too much fun and dropping that mpg number a few points, after all it is a mustang and I didn't buy it for its fuel economy. Mustang wasn't supposed to be my daily, it just happens to get way better economy than my Cheorkee.
Pictured below all highway run averaging about 75-80ish mph almost 400 miles to the tank and a pump calculated 28.5 mpg.
We are going to reflect on and miss terribly these days of being legally allowed to have cars that run consistently under 20 mpg. Thank you, Obamer...
09-11-2009, 04:01 PM
#20
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Georgia
Posts: 595
History: Had Bama torque tune, then race tune >>>>> now to present >>>> To see if I would notice a difference I ordered a 93 vmp tune for my current mods - steeda cai, 4:10, and cmcv delete (see sig for other non-tune related mods).
No slight to BAMA or any of the others but this is the best tune of them all. No drop off at all at 3k. I had a vmp tune before I did cmcv deletes and tried others (Brenspeed, etc) just to see what all the hype was. I will not be loading any other tunes now. Cost me about $160 in tunes to get here but I'm really satisfied.
Not sure why vmp doesn't get more press on here. Customer service skills aren't overwhelming but the guy can write a tune.
Disclaimer: Not affiliated with vmp in any way except as a customer -
No slight to BAMA or any of the others but this is the best tune of them all. No drop off at all at 3k. I had a vmp tune before I did cmcv deletes and tried others (Brenspeed, etc) just to see what all the hype was. I will not be loading any other tunes now. Cost me about $160 in tunes to get here but I'm really satisfied.
Not sure why vmp doesn't get more press on here. Customer service skills aren't overwhelming but the guy can write a tune.
Disclaimer: Not affiliated with vmp in any way except as a customer -