spike98

I find the exact opposite. I have a turbo MKV jetta and after going Revo Stg 1 flashed my consumption went up. I feel that more power = more fuel no matter how you look at it. With a tuned engine you can achieve the same power while increasing efficiency thus reducing consumption. But the earlier formula will always ring true.

dino5666

I am not familiar with Revo tuning. I got mine tuned by BSR stg 1. But I agree with you that more power = more fuel.

dino5666

Is it true that you get thousands of watt stereo in your car and that would cost you more fuel?

spike98

The revo is amazing. Got ~50hp and ~75ftlb with a single reflash. When i add a 3" downpipe and go stage 2 that will give me another 30/30 ish.

75HP and 100 ftlb for roughly $1000 is amazing!

I have the SPS Plus programer which allows you to change the setting within the flash for even more power. Also you can switch programs depending on what fuel you use.

I believe this to be true. Bigger/more alternators take more work to turn thus requiring the engine to work harder. To obtain the same power with more load you would have to use more fuel. However most just deal with the decrease in power. Using the stock alternator, the effects are hardly felt but overwork the alternator resulting in premature failure.

Its the same principal as people removing the AC compressor to get more power.

Gen1_Rx7

More Power does not always equal more fuel, Fine tuning a motor can give you an increase in power and fuel economy. Tuning does not always mean getting the max hp out of a motor (altho now days that seems to be the common idea) it could simply mean changing engine perimeters so that everything works in harmony "a well oiled machine".

The thing with modifications to a persons car such as yours is 50 hp and 75 ft/lbs is a ***huge*** increase in power. you have gone past fine tuning the motor and are getting into the world of performance and over-tuning, this is not meant to cause the motor to run better it , it is causing the motor to perform better (there is a difference in tuning).

The other thing to note is that you have not done a performance retune of your car you have done a performance reflash of your ECU (again there is a difference)

lastly, if you look at the video posted it gives you that "its how you drive" quote, and a little car like yours with an additional 75 ft/lbs 99% chance you drive it like it is meant to be driven. i know i would!

spike98

I know all of the above. I was using the word "Tuning" in the sense of "Preformance Tuning" because usually one doesnt tune there vehicle for fuel saving and efficency.

I had mentioned the Revo FLASH serveral times. Im am fully aware as to what it is and why/how it works.

I started to participate in this thread with the 747/F1 car reference. I do not drive either an F1 car or a Passenger Aircraft. Thus not making a reference to the way a vehicle is driven in perportion to the amount of fuel being used. Lastly, i drive my far like its stolen and its fun!

Gen1_Rx7

I was trying to state that you can have both in moderation if you tune for engine efficiency you can increase hp and fuel economy, but you are only going to gain moderate amounts of hp (20hp not 50 etc)

as for the f1/747 reference i would agree that more power out of those engines (even 2hp) would require more fuel but they are 2 different types of motors altogether

just wanted to show (direct from Revo site)

Stage 1 tuning is designed to work on vehicles with standard components. Power, torque, responsiveness and flexibility are all improved while maintaining factory levels of smoothness, reliability and fuel economy.

as for the way we drive (like they are stolen) that will of course cause you fuel economy to go for S**T, but it puts a smile on my face!

RomanticMoments

To make more power, it takes more fuel and more air. Bottom line. Even if you compress this mixture, an engines displacement is static, so as the mixture is compressed, there will need to be more fuel and more air to fill the same space. An engine with 4 cylinders, that is naturally aspriated, and has identical specifications (bore, stroke, compression ratio, etc.) as an 8 cylinder engine, will NOT produce more power. More air and fuel can enter into the 8 cyl, thus making it more powerful. Assuming all specifications are equal, the 8 cyl would displace twice what the 4cyl will, and as such will consume more fuel. What makes a motor more fuel efficient has NOTHING to do with it's power output. Yes, higher power motors consume more fuel, but fuel efficiency does not increase or decrease due to power. Fuel efficiency is a biproduct of the engines efficiency. The more complete the burn, the more efficient the motor is, and the less fuel/air it takes to make a given power level. A 300 hp motor can consume 2x the fuel of another motor of equal power output, due soley to how efficient it is. This is why carbs were ousted for EFI, and why early single point systems changed to multipoint, why multipoint went to sequential, and why we now have direct injection, and why magnetos don't exist and computers and coil-on-plug for ignition do. Technology has improved efficiency, so not only can motors run longer on less fuel, but with compression systems like turbochargers, they can produce more power at smaller displacements. "Tuning" or "Chipping" is simply optimizing the fuel and ignition curves to make power (increase fuel and air consumption, and adjust spark timing to compensate). Factory tuning is already optimized to get highest fuel efficiency.

RomanticMoments

Obviously load (drive it like you stole it) increases fuel consumption due to higher fuel and air needed to drive the load

Gen1_Rx7

I agree with Rm for the most part, but i think it might be starting to go over the head of the guy who originally started this thread haha. i was trying to say something to that sort earlier but its hard to keep it in easy to understand terms without losing the better part of the point. sorry if i made things a little hard to understand, i wasn't stating variable compression or crap like that i was just stating motor differences, altho i do disagree with some of what you have said, the one point i have the bone to pick about is

Nope not!