Tuning Twinair Remap

[AGH1965]

the TA obviously doesn't leave as much on the table., just matching NEDC will be an achievement.

What happened? I thought you wanted to show us that 100 mpg is doable.

Indeed, matching the NEDC will be a superb achievement! Personally I think the NEDC results were reached with a lot of creativity. I didn't use the word "cheating"...

 

[gazz_bee]

It's the way the world seems to work nowadays:

You price your product at the maximum you think the market will bear for the volume you want to achieve.

You produce the product in the most cost effective way possible.

The difference between the two determines whether you want to sell that particular product in that particular market.

The days of pricing a product by adding a percentage to your costs are long gone. Some product lines will be far more profitable, in percentage terms, than other ones.

At the risk of going completely off topic, it's not a recent phenomenon. BA used to make a loss on Concorde flights until they did some market research to find out how much people in their demographic thought tickets actually cost. The result was that prices were doubled overnight, demand exceeded supply and the plane became profitable, well at least until it was grounded.

 

[UFI]

That the MFD doesn't show the right value when the actual fuel consumption is lower than 2 l/100km or higher than 25 l/100km doesn't mean that these clipped values are used for calculating the mean value! These clipped values are just a visualisation. Apparently FIAT's engineers expect that some drivers will panic when they see values below 2 or above 25 l/100km... However, even the EcoDrive program logs the actual fuel flow in l/h with 1 Hz to the USB stick without such stupid clipping.

That is interesting, I changed radios so no longer have B&M or EcoDrive. Does your EcoDrive agree with your MFD? The trip and tank average value calculated by the MFD in my experience uses the clipped values. When compared to aftermarket instruments the trip average on the MFD drops far slower than it should when I'm using 0.0. It also explains why most people report the MFD reporting about 0.2l/100km low, while I've always found it to report high, last time as much as 0.7l /100km high (the more economically I drive, the bigger the discrepancy). I spend a lot of time driving at less than 21/100km, a total of ~4.3litres were 'clipped' from the tank, too much to account for via fill up variations etc.

What happened? I thought you wanted to show us that 100 mpg is doable.

Indeed, matching the NEDC will be a superb achievement! Personally I think the NEDC results were reached with a lot of creativity. I didn't use the word "cheating"...

I've already done ~100mpg on a short ~20km loop. I don't consider it official until it's been done over a tank distance. At 100mpg that would mean over 1200km of dedicated hypermiling, and that's a challenge for anyone, particularly for a non daily driven car (the car does 3500km a year).

 

[UFI]

Mine too, but I think that a constant 30odd mph is probably the economical speed for just about every car.

I just wondered that UFI with his statements about 100% load had any bearing in the economy at a steady speed.

Mick.

You're both on the money, as a 99% fool proof rule, top gear at a speed only just fast enough to prevent lugging is most economical. For a TA that's a bit over 30mph, a bit less for a 4cyl since they're happy at lower revs. For a high geared diesel it will be around 40mph. For a handful of high geared cars, peak economy may happen in a gear below top, but usually the difference is minute and in practical terms not worth traveling slower for.

The high load principle only applies to acceleration, and if teamed with pulse and glide can raise your most economical speed by around 10mph.

 

[UFI]

Both have 964 cc instead of the 875 cc the TA85 and TA105 have.

Sniff, sniff, I smell a 140+hp stroker Any chance you know what would be required to do that? Block/crank/ pistons?

I was just thinking yesterday I'd love a Doblo with a 105 (no it doesn't exist from the factory), but if Fiat did a 'big block' TA Doblo that would be perfect.

 

[frupi]

I've already done ~100mpg on a short ~20km loop. I don't consider it official until it's been done over a tank distance. At 100mpg that would mean over 1200km of dedicated hypermiling, and that's a challenge for anyone, particularly for a non daily driven car (the car does 3500km a year).

UFI, if you haven't already set one up, it would be useful if you could set up a fuelly account and then put the banner on your signature block like some of us already have? All the working out is done for you, just put in your litres, cost per litre, odometer reading and jobs a good 'un.

 

[AGH1965]

The high load principle only applies to acceleration, and if teamed with pulse and glide can raise your most economical speed by around 10mph.

10 mph??? For that speed I recommend a bicycle. That's even more economical!

 

[AGH1965]

Does your EcoDrive agree with your MFD? The trip and tank average value calculated by the MFD in my experience uses the clipped values.

I stopped using the EcoDrive pc software long ago, because I don't like the fact that FIAT can see how I treat my car. Therefore I can't tell how accurate the current version of the EcoDrive pc software is, but I do know that if you integrate the 1 Hz fuel flow values stored by EcoDrive on the USB stick, then the total volume is a few percent too low. However, if you integrate the 1 Hz speed values, then the total distance appears to be also a few percent too low. Combining both results gives a pretty good average fuel consumption though.

 

[AGH1965]

When compared to aftermarket instruments the trip average on the MFD drops far slower than it should when I'm using 0.0.

UFI, what aftermarket instrument do you use? In another thread you mentioned an OBD gauge. I wonder how this works. My 2011 500 with TA85 didn't support OBD-II PID 0x5E "Engine fuel rate", but without that you can only guess the amount of fuel used. Or is there another way?

 

[UFI]

I've got a Scangauge2 and an UltraGuage. Relatively few cars will support fuel flow rate, the UltraGauge does display fuel trims but these appear to be non-sense. As you know these boxes simply use MAF and load to calculate fuel use, assuming a stoich AFR. While that's far from perfect, if you calibrate it for your driving style I've found it better than the MFD. If you change driving styles, the calibration goes out, so they're less useful for trying different methods (this appears to be expecially true for throttle less engines).

I also have a third gauge that needs to be wired directly to the injectors (and VSS), it counts injector pulses and arrives at a fuel consumption from that. This one will let me fine tune my technique to squeeze those last few precious drops out of the tank.

PS, UFI uses about 35l/100km at full throttle (my Jeep uses about 80!), but after a day at the track the MFD only read about 23l/100k. To me it's clear the MFD clips it's data.

 

[AGH1965]

UFI uses about 35l/100km at full throttle

That depends on the gear. At high speeds in 5th gear you won't even reach 25 l/100km. At least that is what I found when I analysed some EcoDrive data. I don't know why, but EcoDrive also logs the clipped and heavily filtered MFD data to the USB stick. This gave me the opportunity to make the following graph:

This 'real' fuel consumption was calculated out of the vehicle speed and the fuel flow.

 

[UFI]

It's nearly midnight here, so I might be missing something, but your fuel consumption is lower at 170km/h than it is at 140!

How did you get the graph? I don't remember seeing anything like that via the ecodrive software (that I only briefly tried).

 

[frupi]

UFI, any thoughts about fuelly? I would really be interested to see exactly what your TA is doing long term.....?

https://www.fuelly.com/

 

[AGH1965]

It's nearly midnight here, so I might be missing something, but your fuel consumption is lower at 170km/h than it is at 140!

How did you get the graph? I don't remember seeing anything like that via the ecodrive software (that I only briefly tried).

Of course, at a constant speed of 140 km/h the fuel consumption would be clearly lower than at a constant speed of 170 km/h, but this is while accelerating with WOT. At 140 km/h the acceleration of the 1000+ kg is about 5 times faster than at 170 km/h. Bottom line is that accelerations are not for free!

The graph is not from FIAT's EcoDrive pc software itself, but for making it I used the database of an old version of EcoDrive. The old versions copied all data from the USB stick into an SQLite database. Any SQLite tool can be used to sniff around in the database. Unfortunately FIAT removed this part in later versions of EcoDrive pc software.

 

[UFI]

UFI, any thoughts about fuelly? I would really be interested to see exactly what your TA is doing long term.....?

https://www.fuelly.com/

I don't really like fuelly, I might put UFI on spritmonitor, but I already log my fuel use in a spreadsheet and ecomodder:

You can see a very linear progression as the engine's worn in (~7500km so far), the three tanks that show a drop I blame on a weak battery returning poor mpg, which caused me to temporarily throw in the mpg towel so to speak (S/S wasn't working either). The last tank was run on a new 110ah battery. The graph is in US MPG. The dashed line across the top represents the NEDC combined figure, less than 10mpg US to go!

 

[UFI]

Does anyone know where it's possible to pick up the factory fuel signal from? It's sometimes possible to tap into it at the back of the instrument cluster but looking at the pinout I've got I don't see any thing it could be. Unfortunately, I've only got an older book that covers the 4cyl models, not the TA, but it should be the same as the clusters are more or less the same. If I can connect to the pre-clipped signal I can display the actual data on a separate screen.

 

[AGH1965]

UFI, I assume the signal is somehow on one of the CAN busses, otherwise Blue&Me couldn't write it to the USB stick, but then you have to know which CAN message is used for this and probably that is a proprietary one.

 

[AGH1965]

My 2011 500 with TA85 didn't support OBD-II PID 0x5E "Engine fuel rate", but without that you can only guess the amount of fuel used. Or is there another way?

Relatively few cars will support fuel flow rate, the UltraGauge does display fuel trims but these appear to be non-sense. As you know these boxes simply use MAF and load to calculate fuel use, assuming a stoich AFR.

But my 2011 500 didn't support OBD-II PID 0x10 "MAF" either.

I haven't checked my 2014 500 yet.

 

[kimriggs]

Morning all , just had my TA 85 remapped yesterday and was wondering if any others have had theirs done. All i can say is its saved me thousands on a trade in to a new 105 model that the stealer tried to get me to sign up for.

3 weeks on just wondered how the car was performing?? Anyone else had this done with Quantum??

 

[eric1939]

Car is doing well...pulls like a train, even uphills in 5th gear...had it mapped about 3 weeks now and its doing about 2mpg more than it did pre-mapped, altho i hasten to add i aint been horsing it lately