91 Unleaded Tune

Thumbs up to 90TTZ, if i have to go work out bush, that item will be a must.

I dont understand why people would go out of their way to tell you how crap they think your idea is because they cant understand its merits.

 

Awesome Idea Karl!

Just ignore that other "idiot" mate, he doesn't have a clue what sh*t he's dribbling anyway.

Great idea for saving a few dollars on the fuel and being able to switch on the fly depending what type of driving you are doing is fantastic.

This could open up opportunities for different applications too....
Depending on the tune, this could even work in conjunction with dual stage/adjustable boost controllers also - running on a 92 octane fuel and running say 12psi boost, then switching back to the aggressive tune and wind boost back up to say 15psi (obviously depending on your tune & boost limitations)
So without having to put expensive A/M ecu's with multiple tunes in, you could have an economical (highway?) tune running 92 octane fuel to suit lower boost - and you could have your other more aggressive tune to suit maximum boost in conjunction with your adjustable boost controller and 98 octane fuel. All at the flick of a switch and on the cheap too!

Keep up the innovative ideas mate, you've added so much input and education to this forum with your findings i take my hat off to you. And these other wankers who bag these ideas are the type of people that don't and can't contribute anything so they put people down simply to make themselves heard. hahahaha, they always make me laugh.

Cheers,
Ben. :zlove:

 

i used different fuels on my old r33 gtst as i wasnt boosting that high. the car always ran better on 98 than regular unleaded. same thing with my silvia NA yes its more expensive 2 buy 98 octane but i ALWAYS found i got alot more kms per tank running 98 than regular fuel plus extra power.. win win situation

 

My thoughts

I like the idea and had previously thought about it myself with a bit of a twist however.

I had basically planned to drop the octane of the fuel and use the meth/water injection to help boost it up in terms of reducing intake temps to stop pinging. Granted it wouldnt be as good as 98ron + water injection but for daily stuff it woulda been ok.

The only problem was cost, it would have meant more dyno time to get it setup and in general I just figured it wasnt worth the effort to me. That said it may be worth it for other people.

It wasnt just the cost of dyno time though. I do have another car to drive around in which I bought specifically because it was cheap to run and get my usual stuff done. It also meant less wear and tear on the zed and also means the zed can be off the road for extended periods of time. In my opinion this is the better option if you can afford it however it does have drawbacks of double car rego and insurance but can work out better in the long run if you factor in the cost of 98ron + maintenance on the zed + higher insurance premiums.

I say insurance premiums because if you arent driving the zed all the time you can get insurance through shannons and possibly others with a low KM style policy. Basically designating the car as a weekend car which is insured at a good agreed value but only covered for x many km's a year.

Anyway im still very hungover from missus's 21st last night so im outa here cept to say that for some an option to change between maps could be very useful to some people, not just for those wanting to run lower fuel as a daily (think 98ron as base tune and then crazy high octane track fuel blend as the extra map). But for me the effort and cost required to have two maps was not worth it.

 

90ttz was capable of tunning his own car, only a hand full of people on this forum have done that successfully. Its obvious which comments are valid and which are full of $hit. Keep up the good work mate :zlove:

 

Thanks for the encouraging comments people, you can obviously think a little more broader than others.

As I mentioned in the orginal thread, the 91 tune was not an absolute but rather what more users would be after as there are many that are not interested in a higher performance tune. The option to dump your own two tunes on the tune selector will be entirely your choice but I thought it would be a good idea to offer a setup that would appeal to a borader range, otherwise there would be no advantage. And because the tunes will be burnt onto an EPROM, it can be changed for another two tunes when ever you like, I will continue to support this product well into the future.

Have a think about this situation. Remember when Wizard trialled the high octane race fuel by Martini at UAS and they extracted another 30RWKW along with a tweak in ignition timing and AFR. If I recall correctly this fuel is around $7 per litre so obviously all adjustments to take advantage of this fuel would have to be changed back for 98RON. It's going to be awesome to do the same thing but once the tunes are setup they can be changed anytime with a switch flick.

 

anyone on this forum who has followed over time, the

postings, initiatives, creativity, and indeed the genius of karl would indeed be a fool of major proportions to rubbish this special development ....

this lad, is very much of zed guru status ....

karl, the majority of us will continue to follow this project with considerable interest ... i really do wonder about the remainder ....

 

A twin tune that activates off the det sensor is not a good way to activate a tune as you need to actually get the engine to start pinging to activate the safer tune, and the det sensor needs to work where a lot on older cars are not quite as good as when they were new. Also, the alternate tune that runs off the det sensor is a very inefficient tune so economy would be poorer than a purpose built tune. The other problem doing it that way is once the detonation map is in effect, you have no further protection of your engine.

So really modern cars have two tunes but the other is a safe guard, not an alternative. As I mentioned before about the Holden Barina, it has a switch (in the engine bay ) you can use if you dump a load of 95 or higher in the tank to take advantage of more power from the higher RON fuel.

 

Not trying to bag your idea in any way mate, but I have found 98 to be more economical when compared to 95 anyway. Now I would never dare to put anything less than 98 in my tt, but when I had my n/a, I trialled 95 for several weeks, then 98 for several weeks afterwards, logging the cost to kilometer results.

Basically I filled up with exactly $50 of fuel each time, and noted the litres filled. Averaged, $50 of 95ron would buy me 40 litres, and would take me no more than 360 kilometers, while $50 of 98 would buy me 37 litres and take me at least 360 kilometers. As you can see, due to the cost per litre difference, the milage evened out almost exactly.

Note that driving style was measured and calm, but not grandpa style (eg brisk accelleration), mostly city driving (n/a manual).

 

Will the two tunes definately be a 91RON and 98RON tune? What about a 95RON and a 98RON tune?

And also, will you be developing the bin files for the specific car, eg 90 NA with AIV delete or will it just be for a 90 NA or whatever?

I'd be interested in doing two tunes, one for 95 and one for 98RON with AIV deletes on both for my 90 NA. The cost of this mod seems good.

I'll keep following your progress.

 

Yes you are correct saying that you get more milage with 98 but that is mainly to do with the tune suited for that fuel. I've found that 91ULP still is cheaper when mileage is taken into consideration although not as much when you simply go from aprice per litre perspective.

When I drove to Coona for Zed Fest, I used 98 on the way down and got about 10L/100Km average. Driving home, I filled at Rockhampton with 91 and did a very steady drive to Mackay thorugh the St. Lawrence stretch and got very similar economy figures as it was a good comparison to the same highway driving I did on the way down with 98RON. When I drive to Warwick in three weeks time I will be recording distance vs litres and cost of both fuels.

Also remember that a 91 tune is not purely a cost effective solution, it is also an advantage for some where 98RON is not available.

 

No it won't. This is what I posted earlier;

So there is no confusion, the 91 tune will be YOUR CHOICE . It will be offered free with the tune switching device. I would say the average person will be after the 91Tune and a Stock Tune. For the perfomrance buffs, the world is your oyster

 

interesting, could you have something like a TRAFFIC MODE .. where your still running the 98 octane fuel but majorly detune the fuel maps so when your sitting there moving 1 metre every 5 mins you wont use as much fuel

 

That's alright. I think I'm more interested in the ability to switch tunes on the go. Like having a fairly sedate, economical tune for a 98RON and then with the flick of a switch you go to the other tune for 98RON which could be more aggressive.

There's products like these for Audi's too. My cousin has an A4 and she bought the APR ECU chip. It allows different programs that can be controlled through the cruise control paddle inside the car. Its pretty cool. On one of her tunes she has the turbo's set to very low boost so the car is basically a 1.8 NA. Then on another she has the stock tune and then she also has a more extreme tune. And she can change between them while driving.

 

LOL, 10 points for initiative mate Only a tune for fuel specifics will get you best economy in that situation. Providing you have no error codes and your O2 sensors are fully functional you will not get better economy regardless of tune alteration.

 

Again anyone who owns a Z that complains about fuel economy is driving the WRONG car period!

Also mixing the octane levels of your fuel is not a good idea, why? Because your already low octane fuel contaminated tank is going to take a while to flush that crap out that's why. I had to put 91 in my car once because I was almost empty and it's all they had at the time and the only petrol station for ages. My car ran like crap for another full tank after that, the tank is still going to contain the low octane fuel even if you top it up with the right stuff again.

"Oh gee I have a turbocharged car with X amount of mods and I have poor fuel economy! Boo hoo!"

Give me a break, this is just crazy talk...

 

I can see from the post of some people that they have never lived out bush i wonder if some poeple know that quite often in the country you cant get good quality fuel.
This is where this idea will shine you can have a safe tune to allow you to get reasonable performance with no pinging when you get stuck at a servo in the middle of nowhere with only 91 unleaded .
Then when you get to a servo with optimax or another quality fuel you can switch tunes to take advantage of the better fuel

And this is the reason that i want one

 

a) move
b) buy a truck

Switching octane levels is not going to be an instant change, the lower octane fuel is still going to be in the system.

 

Even if there is still a few litres of the 91RON in the system, when he fills the tank up with 98RON the RON of the fuel mixture in his tank will be very close to 98, probably around the 97 or 96 mark. Now assuming his 98RON tune is not overly aggressive, there may be slight pinging but this would probably be under heavy boost.
Even if the low octane stuff is still in the system, all he has to do is fill the tank up with 98RON and still run it on the 91RON safe tune until he needs to fill up again. Then he can switch to the 98RON tune.

 

hahaha! - roflmfao!

Sounds like you needed one of these 91ron switches at the time ey..??
That would have sorted you out at the time and also while you flushed a couple of tanks of 98ron fuel through again - and yet you still bag it, and the people supporting it

Maybe you need to have a read back through yours and everyones posts just to realize how you sound when you post these remarks.