I have been gathering data since July. All octane ratings of 87 mean I did NOT have the Superchip installed. Hence, all 93 octane ratings mean the Superchip was installed. Each time the chip was put in or taken out, the computer was reset by disconnecting the battery for 15-20 minutes with headlights on.

*********************************************


date Brand octane miles gallons notes MPG
---------------------------------------------

date Brand octane miles gallons MPG notes
7/1/00 Texaco 87 391 26.2 14.92

7/7/00 sunoco 87 357 26.4 13.52

7/14/00 mobile 93 267 17.3 15.43

7/15/00 noname 93 265 25.5 10.39 off-road

7/20/00 Texaco 93 107 8.2 13.05 off-road

7/21/00 Texaco 93 286 19.9 14.37

7/24/00 exxon 93 325 25.3 12.85

8/1/00 Mobile 87 331 26.9 12.30

8/9/00 mobile 87 313 24.6 12.72

8/19/00 Texaco 87 315 24.5 12.86

9/3/00 Sheetz 87 350 24 14.58

9/8/00 sunoco 87 351 26.3 13.35

9/15/00 exxon 93 338 25 13.52

9/22/00 sunoco 93 350 26 13.46

9/29/00 sunoco 93 300 26 11.54 towing 5000#

10/1/00 sunoco 93 195 15.4 12.66

10/6/00 citgo 93 314 23.6 13.31

10/10/00 exxon 93 316 24.5 12.90

10/19/00 citgo 93 286 21.1 13.55

10/22/00 Texaco 93 285 21.6 13.19

10/28/00 citgo 93 254 22 11.55

11/4/00 citgo 87 274 22.2 12.34

11/10/00 citgo 87 364 24.7 14.74

11/14/00 citgo 87 331 24.7 13.40

11/20/00 shell 87 323 27 11.96

11/26/00 mobile 87 314 25.6 12.27



total average:7902(M) 604.5(G) 13.07 MPG

chip average: 3888(M) 301.4(G)12.90 MPG

no chip ave: 4014(M) 303.1(G)13.24 MPG


BEST was using Mobile and worste was using a no-name brand and off-roading in sand (Nags Head Beach NC)

Obviously the Superchip did NOT in fact give ANY gains. Actually, from this data I lost some. I personally think that given enough time and data you would see the chip does improve but only to the point of being equal with no chip!

At .20 per gallon difference I spent roughly

$480 for 300 gallons of 87 octane @ $1.60
AND
$540 for 300 gallons of 93 octane @$1.80

for a $60 difference in approximately 5 months.... Thats only about $150 per year to run the chip or $12.50 per month.

If your seeing better MPG with the chip it will cost you less.

However, I have proved to myself that the chip will NOT pay for itself over time with improved MPG. I'm not getting that benefit.

Basically, the only advantage from the chip is the improved performance. And for about 28 HP and 45 ft/lb thats not a bad deal!

I challenge anyone else to provide this kind of data! Would be interesting to see if others are getting similar results!

With and without chip....



------------------
Rand

98 Ford Expedition 4X4 XLT
5.4, 3.73s, 17" wheels,
Homemade 3" "COLD" Air-Box
mod, SuperChip, Amsoil
everywhere but tranny, Perma-
Cool combo 6 pass trans/oil
cooler (FQR 5.4 @ 50K)

 

Wow rand, that is some serious data you've posted!! Your results echo what I've noticed too since re-installing my chip. I am now on my 4th tank since putting the chip in, each time running it down well past the Low Fuel idiot light illumination point.

I haven't taken the time to track MPG, but I have been tracking MPT since summer. Before the chip install I was seeing about 381mpt.

After installing the chip:
1st Tank: 341
2nd Tank: 349
3rd Tank: 357

It is gradually coming up, but I don't think it's going hit the baseline that I had established with 3 months of fuel mileage tracking. I'm still happy with the chip though despite that I do have some issues with it as I have mentioned before. The HP gains are still worth the decreased gas mileage IMHO.

------------------
2000 F-150 XLT, Reg Cab/Long Box, Styleside, Oxford White, Dark Graphite Int., 4x4, 4.6L, 3.55 L/S, Off-Road pkg (Skid Plates, Cab Steps, Heavy Duty Shock Absorbers, LT265/70R17SL), Class III Towing pkg with Heavy Duty Cooling pkg, 4 wheel disk ABS, Overhead Console, Factory In-Dash CD, Remote Keyless Entry, and Sliding Rear Window, Cabin Air Filtration, Ventvisors, Ford Bug Deflector, Ford Bedliner, SuPeRcHiP.

2000 Polaris Sportsman 500, Camo Green, 4x4, 499cc 4-stroke, independent suspension, shaft drive, 4 wheel disc brakes, etc.



[This message has been edited by Y2K OffRoad (edited 12-08-2000).]

 

Wow, I don't think I could ever manage to keep up with mileage for that length of time. Maybe I'll start trying...

Anyway, the only problem I see with this comparison is that the driving situations are not the same. Even though the data is from quite a few months the few heavy duty uses of the superchip somewhat skews the averages. Throw out the offroad trip and tank towing 5000# and the superchip barely eases ahead with 13.305. So I would think it would be fair to call the mileage fairly equal in your case. Just out of curiosity how do you tend to drive? Given the mileage estimates for a 4x4 expedition I would guess you drive pretty aggressively(or in town alot). If you tend to use the extra power given by the chip alot, mileage will suffer. But hey, if you don't use the extra power what's the point, right?

Again, great numbers, great insight. Just curious to know about you driving style to try and quantify the result a little more. You know, you've inspired me. Starting now I'm going to keep up with my mileage, don't have a superchip yet to do any comparisons, but hopefully will someday...

 

Double-post, sorry!

[This message has been edited by Superchips_Distributor (edited 12-08-2000).]

 

Right on Mike..................

 

I knew there was a reason why I got the flip chip!!! Actually I am very satisfied with the chip. I purchased the chip more for the performance gains than any increases in MPG. Also, I have not done any extensive MPG logging or comparison other than checking MPG every third or fourth tank for fun. However, just for grins, next long trip I take, will flip chip on one direction, and flip off on the way back, and will compare MPG. Not scientific or controlled, but interesting. May not happen for a while though.

 

Well, first off, this isn't any kind of direct comparison or test, it's simply a travel log of mileage in many different types of driving over time, etc. with no direct comparison in the same configuration on the same fuel on the same route, etc., like you need to do for any real comparison, so that you would actually be comparing apples to apples, so to speak, and that isn't what we have here.


The vast majority of people don't see anything like those numbers, meaning basically no apparent gain in mileage from the Superchip. The vast majority see nice improvements, as did Rand himself did during his first months when he installed the Superchip, as he posted here and in email.

There are numerous different driving conditions and situations, etc., that skew these numbers, anyone can see that very quickly.

The only time you can make any direct comparison is doing identical trips, or the same type of driving, without towing, offroad, etc. being throw into the mix. Once again, what Rand has posted is far from "scientific", but it was interesting to see the vast difference in mileage with the "no-name" brands, which we generally tell people to steer clear of due to lower energy contents, etc.

I see also that quite a bit of the driving on premium with the Superchip was done using Exxon gasoline, compared to using higher energy content fuels when running on regular, like Texaco, Citgo, etc. And not once is Exxon used in 87 octane, only when running 93 octane.

This shows nothing in the way of "direct comparisons", but instead, is simply a log of mileage in all the various different types of driving, towing, not towing, offroad, highway, etc. These are *not* comparisons, this is simply a log, nothing more.

You also need to do direct comparisons the same approximate time of year, so that your results are not skewed by the introduction of reformulated winter fuels, which starts from October 1st and phases in the rest of the country by November 1st.

There's a *huge* difference between just keeping a log, which is all this is, or a real direct comparison, which this is not. If you want to do a real comparison of mileage, then you do it roughly the same time of year, on the same fuel, on a known route or trip, in other words circumstances that actually lend themselves to being able to make direct comparisons, so that you don't have results skewed like we see here by things like using Exxon for 93 and higher energy fuels for regular, or comparing towing to not towing, etc. This reminds me of the thread Rand posted that was supposed to be "Scientific Proof" a few months ago.

Interesting data, but an "MPG CHALLENGE", or any kind of direct comparison or actual test, it's not.

------------------
Mike Troyer
Performance Products, Inc.
National Distributor of Superchips
(540) 862-9515
Email: mtroyer@compuserve.com
Performance Products F150Online Superchip ordering system: F150Online Superchip Ordering System
First National F-150 Online Rally Event Organizer

 

I have to disagree with what some of you say.... Too late tonight, I'll give it some thought in the morning.

 

Rand,

One way to come close to being accurate would be to rent a dyno room and run the truck at 60 mph with and without the chip each time using a gallon of gas. See which one runs longer. That would be a test under "close" to identical conditions.

Regards

Jean Marc Chartier

------------------
00 F-150 XLT SC Flairside 4x4 4.6 w/5spd 3.55LSD
Warn XD9000i, skid plates, Draw tite class III,
Rancho RSX Reflex shocks,
BFG 285/75 R16 MTs,
Borla Cat Back, Headman Headers,
Modified Air Cleaner Outlet Tube
and air box, Ported Throttle body,
Shortened MAF sensor tower,
K&N air filter,
Superchips





[This message has been edited by JMC (edited 12-10-2000).]

 

Driving conditions FOR THE MOST part are the same. Only difference was the vacation where I spent some time in the sand and one towing trip.

I would like to say that the first time I towed my boat approximately 150 miles without the chip I got approx 9.5 MPG. With the chip I saw approx 11.5. Thats was going the exact same road! I REFUSE to believe I could get 2 MPG less using a less energy fuel!

Now for my BIG disagreement! WHO THE HELL DRIVES THEIR TRUCK IN A TEST TUBE??? Anyone? All this crap about "log" versus "direct comparisons"... Sorry Mike but I can not see the relevance! If the chip was in fact giving better mileage then I should see it throughout my "log." Regardless of the type of fuel used! I used low energy fuels without the chip as well!

The Superchip advertises a "increase in MPG." It does NOT say anywhere about the fact that you must use "high energy" fuels or curb your driving habits or time of year.... NON OF THIS SHOULD MATTER.

This ONLY matters if you are doing a "direct comparison!" Who the heck cares if the Superchip gives me better mileage in the "Scientific labratory?" I want to know WHAT CAN IT DO FOR ME IN THE REAL WORLD!

"Motor Week" television takes vehicles on LONG tests to give the customer an idea of how the vehicle performs in the REAL WORLD. What kind of REAL gas mileage to expect and so forth... What good would it do the viewers if they drove the car ONLY on a racetrack? How many of us drive on a reacetrack?

Its great that the Superchip might give me 10 MPG better with FRESH "high energy" fuel, jumping right on the highway, never passing anyone because I might disturb the "scientific" study....

I drive my vehicle somewhere between 16 year old stock car driver and a 90 year old woman!
Just like most of us! I dont baby it, but I dont floor it off every stop light either!

I am challenging others to do as I have done to QUESTION the Superchips decrease in fuel usage. No need to be on the defensive. If it in fact does do this for a majority of the population, then I would say the advertisement appears Sound!

However, if the only place the Superchip is giving this decrease in fuel consumption is the "labratory".... Then sure the salepeople can say with honesty that a benifit is increased MPG... They just leave out the part about it only occuring in the lab! Semantics!

A test where we use the same fuel and drive the exact same route with and without the chip does NOTHING for us! What will it do for me over the long haul?

------------------
Rand

98 Ford Expedition 4X4 XLT
5.4, 3.73s, 17" wheels,
Homemade 3" "COLD" Air-Box
mod, SuperChip, Amsoil
everywhere but tranny, Perma-
Cool combo 6 pass trans/oil
cooler (FQR 5.4 @ 50K)

 

Rand,

When I compare things I like to have the playing field as even as possible. The only way to do this is to control as many as the factors as possible. Today the temp is 23°F and relative humidity is 70%. If I test my truck today with the chip and tomorrow without when the temp is still 23°F but the relative humidity is say 63% then I have skewed the test. Trust me if the test is done in the lab first then the real world results will follow suit. I am not saying that the lab will mimic real world conditions I am just saying that the trends will be identical. IE: if the chip is better in the lab then it will be better in the "Real World". Congrats on your log and I applaud your effort but too bad it was all for nothing. Unfortunately your methods were not scientific so they prove nothing.

Kindest regards

Jean Marc Chartier

------------------
00 F-150 XLT SC Flairside 4x4 4.6 w/5spd 3.55LSD
Warn XD9000i, skid plates, Draw tite class III,
Rancho RSX Reflex shocks,
BFG 285/75 R16 MTs,
Borla Cat Back, Headman Headers,
Modified Air Cleaner Outlet Tube
and air box, Ported Throttle body,
Shortened MAF sensor tower,
K&N air filter,
Superchips





[This message has been edited by JMC (edited 12-11-2000).]

 

I'm sorry if you wish to keep your eyes closed to the fact that it did give me worse or about the same MPG. That is a FACT.

If you guys are so smart, then instead of beleiving everything you read.... Why don't you go out and do this test yourselves?

Put up or shut up.... If your so convinced you do get better mileage with the chip then do your own analysis and prove me wrong.

So far, I am one of the ONLY ones who has attempted to challenge the Superchip AND Amsoil. Both of which takes time and energy.

I have done oil analysis and tracked my mileage, however, as soon as someone posts and REAL data and questions these products, you get immediate negative responses from disbelievers who like to run their mouths....

I dont see any of you doing these tests.... Takes too much effort, huh? Just go ahead and keep believing everything you hear and read!

After a year of tracking MPG and doing a couple of oil analysis' the data should not lie!

 

Rand,

Unless you can duplicate conditions for each test you are blowing smoke up your own a**. Now, you live in a free country so you go right on blowing. I have done tests on my 97 and on my 00, but because they were in no way scientific I kept my mouth shut. My tests prove nothing. I am not defending Superchips I am only stating the obvious: Your tests are bogus.

Kindest regards

Jean Marc Chartier

------------------
00 F-150 XLT SC Flairside 4x4 4.6 w/5spd 3.55LSD
Warn XD9000i, skid plates, Draw tite class III,
Rancho RSX Reflex shocks,
BFG 285/75 R16 MTs,
Borla Cat Back, Headman Headers,
Modified Air Cleaner Outlet Tube
and air box, Ported Throttle body,
Shortened MAF sensor tower,
K&N air filter,
Superchips





[This message has been edited by JMC (edited 12-11-2000).]

 

Rand,

I think you need to cool your jets and stop attacking people in defense of your obviously flawed method of comparison, as many here have *already* done just that and have posted their mileage results, so anyone could go check it out; doing actual and proper back-to-back comparisons, something that you did not do, my friend. Plain and simple, and that is the heart of this issue.

All you posted here is basically nothing more than a travel log of mileage under numerous different conditions, with numerous different brands of fuels, and using one of the absolute lowest energy fuels in existence among the major name brands for your premium gas numerous times, which is Exxon of course. In other words, while what you posted is I'm sure just what you got for results, they are *not* direct comparisons that can accurate or even fairly be used to further the title of this silly thread. Surely you can see that the variances in mileage just between the different brands you used should give you *some* kind of clue here that is you want to determine just exactly what the Superchip is doing for mileage, that needs to be done on the same basic route, in the same configuration (not comparing towing to not towing, etc.), and on the same brand of fuel, preferably from the same station, if you really want a direct comparison. It is a fact that mileage varies widely among different brands of fuel, which is why we make some of the recommendations we do, one of which is to avoid Exxon gas, due to it's lower energy content compared to other top name brands. Notice the much lower mileage you got with the off-brands. The point being, you are comparing apples to oranges.

You have done this so many times here on F-150 Online since you have been here, where you'll post things like "Undisputed Scientific Proof", and all the other similar threads you've started, and not once have you done or provided any real apples-to-apples comparisons. Instead, you use flawed methods for any kind of accurate direct comparisons, and expect people to swallow that; and every single time you do that, you get flack from numerous different people who see the obvious flaws in your methods, to which you respond by attacking them.

Remember the last time you pulled that, in your "Scientific Proof" thread in another section, when you made the mistake of posting equations that were wrong, facts that were wrong, and all the people that corrected your "facts", your methods, and your equations? Once again, as soon as that happened and people pointed out your errors, you started with these same tactics, attacking and lashing out at others. Then you even tried to claim that you were in fact *not* intending to offer "scientific proof", even though that was *exactly* what you titled the thread and therefore direclty claimed! You have repeated that same scenario here so many times that I've literally lost count.

I have a feeling that for as long as you continue to post flawed data & methods, or use flawed data to try and use as a basis for direct comparions, etc., you will continue to get people challenging you, your methods, and your results, which is as it should be, for anyone desiring *accuracy*, and accurate comparions.

It is a fact of life that the vast majority of people get an increase in mileage when using the Superchip. It is also a fact of life that there will always be a few people who do not see a mileage gain, either due to driving it harder with the Superchip, or due to differences & variations in fuel formulations, which we know have been an issue for the past couple of years. Nothing you post is ever going to change any of that, Rand.

I don't know why you continue to used flawed methods for your "testing" or "comparisons", or whatever you want to call this, but one thing is *quite* clear, and that is, your methods are extremely flawed for your title thread of "SUPERCHIP MPG CHALLENGE IS IN", and are nothing more than a data log, and no "evidence" at all to back up the claim of your thread title, as usual.

Why you dream up these provocative title threads, and then expect everyone reading this silliness tp agree with you is beyond me; to say nothing of the fact that you are now posting the complete opposite of what you originally posted here, which was that you did in fact get better than 1.5 mpg increases, that comes from your own posts, Rand.

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone interesting in objective results is going to approve of your methods of apples to oranges comparisons here, and it's not becoming of you to start attacking and lashing out at others because they don't agree with you, you've done this just too many times here.

Merry Christmas,

------------------
Mike Troyer
Performance Products, Inc.
National Distributor of Superchips
(540) 862-9515
Email: mtroyer@compuserve.com
Performance Products F150Online Superchip ordering system: F150Online Superchip Ordering System
First National F-150 Online Rally Event Organizer

 

I have used exxon got about 358-370 miles to a tank.Switched to shell average 402-408 a tank all in town driving, hmmmmm not too scientific but something's giving me better mileage.

------------------
------------------------- 99 SILVER XLT/REG.CAB/4.2/5SPD/3.55/K&N/Dynomax Super Turbo/Westin Black Nerfs/SuperChip/Hellwig Rear Swaybar/Energy Suspension Front Swaybar Bushings and Endlinks/Trenz Billet Antenna