Fuel Economy after Edit

[Daniel996]

Hi Guys,

I'm trying (legitimately) to convince the Financial Controller that if I get an edit then my fuel economy will improve, and the cost of the edit will be recovered in about 12 months. I based this on 30,000km/year, avg fuel price $1.35, current economy of 22L/100 and proposed economy of 20L/100, and cost of edit $1000. See my calcs here (http://subnet.net.au/dan/petrol.xls) .

How much did other people pay for an edit and what fuel economy improvements did you get? I'm mainly interested to hear from people with cars similar to mine (Stock HSV, cat back exhaust (to come), the SV300 is already mafless if it makes a difference) as I know modded cars with cam etc the fuel economy will be quite different.

Cheers
Dan

[Ryzz]

Thats unusally high L/100. Most people seem to be getting around the 16-18L/100 before edit and some as low as 12-14 After.

Just wait as im sure some people will post up there current stats.

Do a search as there was recently a thread on L/100 and different peoples figures

[andrewdisco]

Personally, I paid $800 for an edit based on the assumption it would eventually pay for itself. In reality it didn't make any difference, except that my wallet was lighter. I don't think the edit is all that it's cracked up to be.

If your car has a stock ECU then you can probably change from PULP to ULP without a performance loss. Then spend those savings on some diff gears or something.

My car was "faster" after the edit, but didn't really feel more powerful. And post edit it ran like crap on ULP.. so I was stuck with the more expensive PULP.

Just don't use fuel savings as a motivator for the edit as I did. It might have worked out for some people (or maybe they are just trying to convince themselves they saved money).... but there is no guarentee :p

[Daniel996]

Thats unusally high L/100. Most people seem to be getting around the 16-18L/100 before edit and some as low as 12-14 After.

Just wait as im sure some people will post up there current stats.

Do a search as there was recently a thread on L/100 and different peoples figures

It is high, my VX clubby with the "standard" 255kw motor ran around 16 - 18L/100, but the SV300 has the C4B 300kw motor from the GTS. I have spoken to other GTS owners who have similar economy from their cars so I don't think it's unusual for this motor.

Cheers
Dan

[Daniel996]

Personally, I paid $800 for an edit based on the assumption it would eventually pay for itself. In reality it didn't make any difference, except that my wallet was lighter. I don't think the edit is all that it's cracked up to be.

If your car has a stock ECU then you can probably change from PULP to ULP without a performance loss. Then spend those savings on some diff gears or something.

My car was "faster" after the edit, but didn't really feel more powerful. And post edit it ran like crap on ULP.. so I was stuck with the more expensive PULP.

Just don't use fuel savings as a motivator for the edit as I did. It might have worked out for some people (or maybe they are just trying to convince themselves they saved money).... but there is no guarentee :p

Hmm, I've never run ULP so I could try it for a couple of tanks and check the economy. The economy argument is a big part of my reason for wanting the edit, but I would like to increase the responsiveness of the car as well.

Cheers
Dan

[MRVZSS]

Tell Your financial planner to look on the bright side.........

You will be able to get to work faster :D

[Ryzz]

Hmm, I've never run ULP so I could try it for a couple of tanks and check the economy. The economy argument is a big part of my reason for wanting the edit, but I would like to increase the responsiveness of the car as well.

Cheers
Dan
Using ULP instead of PULP isnt going to increase your economy, it anything it will make it worse due to the lower octane rating not producing as much power per burn, as less timing has to be used, as the lower octane burns quicker, etc


Personally, I paid $800 for an edit based on the assumption it would eventually pay for itself. In reality it didn't make any difference, except that my wallet was lighter. I don't think the edit is all that it's cracked up to be.
I think you would have to be one of the ONLY people on this forum saying that. I would suggest taking your car to a forum sponser close to you (not the same person that did the job, even if they are a forum sponser) and ask them to give you edit a Health Check. It sounds like you got a pretty crappy edit done as everyone else raves about the difference in the way the car feels, the extra torque and power, etc

[VXSS346]

I reckon its probably worth about a 0.5 - 1 litre/100km improvement.
That's what I found. I don't believe it'll improve by as much as some say it does.
In the end, an edit is not going to pay for itself in a hurry, but the car is great to drive though.
My 2c

[HazzaHSV]

Daniel.

Edit's are great for responsiveness and power increases and better economy BUT it is far more noticeable when coming from 220 - 230kw (170 rwkw) which most VX's are standard to > 300kw (225 rwkw) post edit.

In your case you already have 300kw and therefore your factory tune may be alot closer to the mark both timing/spark wise and fuel mixture wise. So gains in performance and economy may be far less than the average SS etc. It would be better to talk to a tuner/sponsor in your area about their experiences with the C4B engine.

Cheers.

Hazza.

[Wonky]

I reckon its probably worth about a 0.5 - 1 litre/100km improvement.
That's what I found. I don't believe it'll improve by as much as some say it does.
In the end, an edit is not going to pay for itself in a hurry, but the car is great to drive though.
My 2c
What he said! :)

That's for an SS, probably not as much to gain on a C4B.

[OzMystic]

Tell Your financial planner to look on the bright side.........

You will be able to get to work faster :D

OR!!! Get home to her quicker.... :lol:

[VX-300]

VX GTS with C4B (stock/no edit) all city driving average over 70 000 km = 16l/100km. About 220rwkw

VX GTS with LS2 (pacemaker tri-y + K&N + FMS 30#/ edit) all city driving in last 1000 km = 13.8l/100km. 250rwkw

[Daniel996]

OR!!! Get home to her quicker.... :lol:

That's more like it... she already isn't happy with how long I spend at work :rolleyes:

[andrewdisco]

I think you would have to be one of the ONLY people on this forum saying that. I would suggest taking your car to a forum sponser close to you (not the same person that did the job, even if they are a forum sponser) and ask them to give you edit a Health Check. It sounds like you got a pretty crappy edit done as everyone else raves about the difference in the way the car feels, the extra torque and power, etc

I had the edit done twice by a forum sponsor. No difference in fuel economy,however performance did improve. That was on my SS.

I now have a VY Clubsport with 3.7 gears. Finding 18/100 if i pussy foot it (may as well buy a V6) or 26/100 if i drive it like a V8. I live about 15km from the CBD... so we have traffic lights :p i.e I don't drive on the freeway. Also I don't drive in peak hour much, so there is always room to accelerate.

Economy in neither my SS nor my clubsport seemed affected by PULP versus ULP. You push the pedal in, it still sucks in just as much fuel.

You are using the theory that people will subconsciously think "oh thats as much power as I need, I don't need to push the throttle in any further" because it's burning more efficiently. That isn't the case. If you put the boot in.. you put the boot in.

I think PULP is just a waste of money on these cars if you don't have it tuned specifically for it... AKA Edit or maybe VZ stock tune which I haven't had experience with. If anything next time i'll prob go for a ULP tune. In reality I'll probably be getting an LPG edit.

If you think you can get fuel economy AND performance (performance that you use, not that you keep in reserves just in case you're driving through dandenong) out of these things by tweaking your ECU... please say hello to the fairy's for me. :D

[Daniel996]

VX GTS with C4B (stock/no edit) all city driving average over 70 000 km = 16l/100km. About 220rwkw

VX GTS with LS2 (pacemaker tri-y + K&N + FMS 30#/ edit) all city driving in last 1000 km = 13.8l/100km. 250rwkw

Far out, how do you do that? Maybe mine's a dud? Absolute best I can get is 19L/100km, and only if I drive like Miss Daisy. Is yours an auto or manual?

I think I definitely need an edit, or maybe someone who knows what they are doing to service the car.

Cheers
Dan

[Wonky]

Far out, how do you do that? Maybe mine's a dud? Absolute best I can get is 19L/100km, and only if I drive like Miss Daisy. Is yours an auto or manual?

I think I definitely need an edit, or maybe someone who knows what they are doing to service the car.

Cheers
Dan
Street_Tuna is over your way somewhere and he is meant to be pretty good.

[HRT 8]

If you think you can get fuel economy AND performance (performance that you use, not that you keep in reserves just in case you're driving through dandenong) out of these things by tweaking your ECU... please say hello to the fairy's for me. :D

There must be a few of us talking to the fairy's then.
My av fuel usgae since edit has improved. The car gets driven in the same manner, maybe even a bit more aggressively now.
If I choose, I can make it use all the fuel I like, but I can also choose to have to have it cruise along at 110km/h sipping just 9.5l/100klm. Something not possible before it was edited.

[VYMaloo]

Daniel.

Edit's are great for responsiveness and power increases and better economy BUT it is far more noticeable when coming from 220 - 230kw (170 rwkw) which most VX's are standard to > 300kw (225 rwkw) post edit.

In your case you already have 300kw and therefore your factory tune may be alot closer to the mark both timing/spark wise and fuel mixture wise. So gains in performance and economy may be far less than the average SS etc. It would be better to talk to a tuner/sponsor in your area about their experiences with the C4B engine.

Cheers.

Hazza.

Factory tune will not even be close to the mark , just get the car tuned and remember it's not all about the peak figure on a piece of paper . The tune will dramatically improve lowdown power while using less fuel . Hit the search function this has been covered heaps

[andrewdisco]

Sorry - to clarify what I said - yes I think the edit will help for people that do alot of cruising with little stop start driving or people that drive fairly conservatively. If you are currently getting 22/100 then it's unlikely you fit into these categories. I also was getting 22/100 type consumption in my SS. So i'm guessing you are probably driving like me... alot of traffic lights and a alot of "enthusiastic" moments of acceleration.

If you are doing alot of driving at 9.5/100 then i a sympathetic to the fact that you aren't getting much of a V8 experience :D

Whether my car gets 11 or 9.5 on the freeway is fairly irrelevant to me as it's the 18-26/100km mon-fri around town that is costing me at the bowser.

If you're getting 22/100 and you DO drive conservatively or on alot of open road then you might be in need of an edit.

[chillicatqld]

I think the 9.5l/100klms is when he is on an open road run - not around town! And Im almost certain HRT would have more than enjoyed the "V8 experience"... (what a stupid claim to make!)

On the subject - I thought mine was thirsty with an average of approx 17l/100 round town! damn. plus the Gold Coast has a set of traffic lights every 300m now it seems like... after edit I estimate I now get a bout 20-30klms more out of a tank round town - with a fair bit more spirited driving. :)

[markone2]

[QUOTE=andrewdisco]

Whether my car gets 11 or 9.5 on the freeway is fairly irrelevant to me as it's the 18-26/100km mon-fri around town that is costing me at the bowser.

QUOTE]


Actually I can sympathise with you getting those sort fuel consumption figures ..I know just what its like to get a constant 19L per 100k around town in stop start traffic….but then I consider I have liitle to complain about at 19L given a largish cam and 4600rpm high stall which equates to very exciting and quick street car.....mind you :eek: I'd shudder to think what the consumption would climb to if the car did not benefit from a well sorted tune ;)

[james2]

There must be a few of us talking to the fairy's then.
My av fuel usgae since edit has improved. The car gets driven in the same manner, maybe even a bit more aggressively now.
If I choose, I can make it use all the fuel I like, but I can also choose to have to have it cruise along at 110km/h sipping just 9.5l/100klm. Something not possible before it was edited.
What he said. had my edit done by ST with 95 RON in tank excellent. :D

[B-REX]

Fuel consumption of my stock VT11 LS1 auto 18 l/100km around the city.
Mafless edit improved that to 16 l/100km.
Fitted a blower (Gen-PD) and retuned now delivers 14 l/100km in stop start city traffic and as good as 12.8 l/100km in off peak city driving.
There is only a certain amount of WOT you can use and keep your licence :p
Tuned by ST also.

[LimoLS1]

Week in week out in a mix of City Traffic and Up and down the freeways in Melbourne my WL Caprice returns 11.5 - 12 litres per 100kms on PULP over 2000+kms most weeks. This includes warming up to normal operating temp every morning A/C on most of the time and idiling while waiting for customers for a few minutes. My WH used to get between 10.8 - 11.5 post edit and 11.5 to 12 pre edit and on a trip from Adelaide to Melbourne when it had a mere 240000kms on the clock it returned 8.4 L/100 sitting on 110 - 120km/h and just last summernats with 526000kms on the clock did South east suburbs of Melbourne to Queanbeyan on one tank of fuel and used another tank for the return which was from memory 770kms on 67 litres of fuel.
For me an edit makes sense as I notice the saving in fuel bills far quicker than most because of the amount of kilometres I do.

[Tez82]

Its scary hearing some of the stories of fuel economy etc that you guys get... hehehe I am no granny drive ask the brissy boys (v6shame, highlanger etc) but around town I am getting around 15.5L per 100..... But on average I am getting 14.5 which includes drag runs etc :) Since my edit and diff gears I been using around 2L more per 100km but I think thats just cause i give her a lot more WOT hehehe while exiting every corner.

[seldo]

Almost all my driving is around the 'burbs and rarely get into 4th gear. I used to get 21-22, and since a maf-less tune and 3.9's I'm now getting 17-18. Another one off with the fairies...

[andrewdisco]

Almost all my driving is around the 'burbs and rarely get into 4th gear. I used to get 21-22, and since a maf-less tune and 3.9's I'm now getting 17-18. Another one off with the fairies...

Dropping from 22 to 18 is excellent and far better than I got with my MAF tune on the M6. Obviously the results on here vary quite a bit and I think we tend to hear mostly from the people that got the most dramatic benefits and the one's that didn't seem to keep fairly quite about that aspect of it.

I still tend to think that the edit is most economically beneficial for people that don't spend much time on WOT or stop start driving.

I had my edit done based on what you guys said... and it didn't work out... and I went to a forum sponsor as you guys said. So I don't think it's that clear cut, and you might want to think things out a bit better before convincing others to shell out their hard earned cash, especially on a car that might already be in a good state of tune. As a performance mod (not economically motivated) though, it's a great way to go.

And yes, if you think 18 is economical then I DO think you are off with the fairies ;):p

[myles]

It's clear pre-edit fuel consumption and post-edit fuel consumption figures vary considerably.

It's a given fuel consumption will depend on our individual driving styles, but even if the same person were to drive a number of different LS1s (say all edited or all stock) the same way, the fuel consumption figures would still vary.

Hope to book in at powertorque shortly, maybe it will shave off a few more cents. But with the extra power, I doubt it. ;)

Either way, I'm certain the petrol station attendants and I will know each other on a first name basis for awhile to come.

"Stevo, in for the long haul again?" :p

[Daniel996]

Thanks for all the feedback guys, I will at least talk to a tuner and see what my options are. Most people do seem to be getting better economy than me though so there must be something to it... My driving is a mix of highway and town usually so the edit may help a little.

Cheers
Dan

[NickS]

Almost all my driving is around the 'burbs and rarely get into 4th gear. I used to get 21-22, and since a maf-less tune and 3.9's I'm now getting 17-18. Another one off with the fairies...
Geez seldo, your lucky ... I went the other way. I was averaging around 18 and after my edit I now average around 21-22 :confused: Of course the stroke to 383ci may have something to do with that :lol:

Seriously though, I had a run up to the mountains a few weeks ago. Averaged 16 (with fairly spirited driving), which I think is pretty good all things considered.

[VXSS346]

The variations in fuel economy mentioned here shows that its simply how you drive it that determines fuel economy. Some people claim huge differences while others say its negligable.
I'd say the guys thet say its negligable probably drive their cars a little harder since edit. At the same time I don't believe the gains can be as much as 5L/100km's. That's fantasy to me.
However, no doubt in my mind, it does improve fuel economy IF driven the same way.
Cheers

[seldo]

..............snip

And yes, if you think 18 is economical then I DO think you are off with the fairies ;):p
Considering most of my driving is done in 1st & 2nd with 3rd only occassionally (A4), I do actually think it's pretty good. It certainly isn't any different from my old VR V6...I guess that makes me off with the :limpy: :goodtime: :girl: :jester::clown::diddy:;)

[LS1VT]

The main reason why i went for an edit was to extract as much power from a stock motor as possible, if the fuel economy improved it would have been a bonus, but i have to say it stayed the same, but the perfomance sure made a difference and that was enough for me.

[Muzzak]

Something to note here....from the reviews I have read as well as the window "fuel consumption" stickers on new cars.... Auto gives better fuel economy than manual.

I would imagine this would be down to less over revving. Essentially in auto when you press down - you getting the power to the wheels. No clutch theatrics and no waste. Any comments ?


Muz

[B-REX]

At the same time I don't believe the gains can be as much as 5L/100km's. That's fantasy to me.


Standard tune (VT11) with an AFR of 10:1 or richer at WOT :eek: and severely retarded spark timing (16 degrees total advance at WOT) :eek: and high engine temperatures and cooling fans operating fequently and low rpm knock causing more spark retard, causing a lazy engine and making you use more throttle.
Compare that to an engine with good low down response requiring minimal throttle, 12.8:1 AFR at WOT, 24 degrees total spark advance at WOT, a happy engine running cooler :D , fans rarely come on and no knock retard at low speeds. Makes sense that it would use a lot less fuel. :cool:

[VXSS346]

Yeah I agree, but not 5L/100kms less.
From 22L to 17L per 100kms. That's 29% less fuel. I'm not convinced, sorry.

[B-REX]

I'll have to get my trip computer checked then. It must have been telling porkies for the last 5 years. :stick:

[james2]

I'll have to get my trip computer checked then. It must have been telling porkies for the last 5 years. :stick:
:lol: v/good

[seldo]

Yeah I agree, but not 5L/100kms less.
From 22L to 17L per 100kms. That's 29% less fuel. I'm not convinced, sorry.
I don't give a rat's if you're not convinced. Someone asked the question - them's the facts. Take it or leave it

[VXSS346]

Hmm, seems like I've upset a few people here.
My experience was 0.5-1L per 100kms less. in suburban driving. From about 14L to 13L/100kms. Measured from the bowser, Trip computer is not as accurate.

Take it or leave it.

[B-REX]

VXSS346, you have not upset anybody.
Obviously your experience with an Edit showed an improvement of around 1 L/100km. I accept that.
My experience with an Edit showed an improvement as previously stated of up to 5 L/100km around the city.
Different cars, different drivers.
Why can't you accept it?

BTW, My trip computer is accurate to the bowser courtesy of the customise mode. Within 0.5 litres of the bowser reading.

[dark]

Prior to edit managed 16l/100 around Melbourne. Since edit up to 234rwkw and average fuel day in day out between 12.5 and 13.2l/100.

[VXSS346]

To be honest, maybe so, but the driving style, is the most important factor.

Depends whether your talking about an edit only or edit and full exhaust, I found headers and exhaust made a similar difference to fuel economy as well, but I did them on seperate occaisions. So yeah, maybe My car is now 2L/100kms better.

Wouldn't it also depend on the changed auto calibration, and how that was done, also whether you drive in the city in power mode or economy mode.

Maybe since edit the drivers driving style has changed, either way, cause of the nature of the power delivery. (that includes me possibily too)
My cars mafless too so maybe that's got something to do with it.

In the end, I guess because my fuel economy is around 14L/100kms, (I obviously don't drive my car as hard as some here) I can't get a 5L improvement.

Too many variables IMO.

[seldo]

VXSS346, you have not upset anybody.
Obviously your experience with an Edit showed an improvement of around 1 L/100km. I accept that.
My experience with an Edit showed an improvement as previously stated of up to 5 L/100km around the city.
Different cars, different drivers.
Why can't you accept it?

BTW, My trip computer is accurate to the bowser courtesy of the customise mode. Within 0.5 litres of the bowser reading.
Even if your trip-computer was inaccurate, it would be consistently x% inaccurate, so it wouldn't make any difference to the argument as to whether an edit improved the consumption or not. :) I think VXSS is just dirty because he's not had the same results we have. Maybe he needs to go back to his tuner.....

[seedyrom]

ooooh .... its generated into a tuner war thread

Can I join in ? :p

nah, I kid .... Im going to be good from now on :)


oh, and FYI ... I didnt notice an improvement in fuel. Yes I did have a cam installed at the same time ... but that aside ... the way people have different interpretations of "traffic" and "give it some stick" means that feeling inadequate cause Mr X. is getting better fuel economy is pointless.

Some roll onto the accelerator ... I jab at it ... my economy is shocking ... but its all to do with my driving style, and driving conditions ... and I dont pay any attention when people start sprouting fuel figures. Give it a bootful.

I average 23-25L/100 depending on traffic. BAD sydney traffic. The sort many wouldnt even realise exists. And i'm a terribly inefficient driver. Who cares. I've had two tunes from different sponsors, so to say "go and see your tuner" isnt quite representive of all the factors at play.
Oh, and I have tried driving like a nancy in the same traffic, and gotten 19L/100. So I feel the major factor is you.


Lets just drill and tap into the antartic and the barrier reef. We can all have a big oil party and maybe these economy threads will start to disappear.

[seldo]

............ We can all have a big oil party and maybe these economy threads will start to disappear.
:lol: Couldn't agree more! To me it's a matter of interest (and amazement)only and if economy was an issue I woudn't have bought an LS1 anyway, I'd be driving an Astra or some such other spineless wonder... But I do get cranky when someone questions my veracity or integrity...