3.6 - For Those Running Premium Fuel

zrickety

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
443
Reaction score
501
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Rubicon Sarge 3.6L 6MT
Occupation
Technician
1.) These results on a NA OEM motor from a tune alone is not feasible.

2.)The oem tune on a manual transmission JL is garbage. You can search the forum for many people who are in agreement.

3.) I’m still waiting for someone to post independent results from this tune. Not opinions on how it feels. I want to see data!
If I may add my .02, oem tunes as a whole are conservative. The Honda/Acura guys get NA tunes all the time that make DRAMATIC increases. The OEM tune being garbage means there is room for improvement. I would also argue that independent opinions ARE data. If multiple people are saying it feels better, faster, stronger, then it's probably true. You don't need a dyno to compete in the Pepsi challenge.





Advertisement

 

Litfuse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
799
Reaction score
752
Location
Columbia, IL
Vehicle(s)
2019 C7 Grand Sport, 2019 Ram 1500, 2017 Audi Q5.
If I may add my .02, oem tunes as a whole are conservative. The Honda/Acura guys get NA tunes all the time that make DRAMATIC increases. The OEM tune being garbage means there is room for improvement. I would also argue that independent opinions ARE data. If multiple people are saying it feels better, faster, stronger, then it's probably true. You don't need a dyno to compete in the Pepsi challenge.
People confuse throttle calibration with more power. Often, this is where tuners get their “feel” on NA tunes. People’s opinions are not facts.
 

zrickety

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
443
Reaction score
501
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Rubicon Sarge 3.6L 6MT
Occupation
Technician
People confuse throttle calibration with more power. Often, this is where tuners get their “feel” on NA tunes. People’s opinions are not facts.
You can go to any honda forum, those guys have the dyno sheets to back it up. NA tunes are not rocket science. Again, most manufacturers are holding back. People's opinions are observations, by definition this is science.
 

Litfuse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
799
Reaction score
752
Location
Columbia, IL
Vehicle(s)
2019 C7 Grand Sport, 2019 Ram 1500, 2017 Audi Q5.
You can go to any honda forum, those guys have the dyno sheets to back it up. NA tunes are not rocket science. Again, most manufacturers are holding back. People's opinions are observations, by definition this is science.
As far as I know, Honda guys are only getting increases when they do cam swaps and full Bolt-ons.
 

zrickety

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
443
Reaction score
501
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Rubicon Sarge 3.6L 6MT
Occupation
Technician
As far as I know, Honda guys are only getting increases when they do cam swaps and full Bolt-ons.
LOLOL you obviously haven't owned one. Any given ECU tune unlocks power, this is across the board.
 

Litfuse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
799
Reaction score
752
Location
Columbia, IL
Vehicle(s)
2019 C7 Grand Sport, 2019 Ram 1500, 2017 Audi Q5.
LOLOL you obviously haven't owned one. Any given ECU tune unlocks power, this is across the board.
I have owned several Honda’s. 99 Si, 05 Accord V6, 2006 S2000. Without bolt-ons, tunes offered marginal gains on these platforms. A tune on a new Type R is seeing 40plus horsepower gains, but we all know why. Even Hondata and KTuner websites show small gains with a tune only.
 
OP
Goosed

Goosed

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
450
Reaction score
486
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #157
I have owned several Honda’s. 99 Si, 05 Accord V6, 2006 S2000. Without bolt-ons, tunes offered marginal gains on these platforms. A tune on a new Type R is seeing 40plus horsepower gains, but we all know why. Even Hondata and KTuner websites show small gains with a tune only.
I’m going to see if I can dig up my APR chip tune from my 1.8T GTI. Three programs, all had substantial gains. I believe stage IV was 36 HP, 23 ftlb tq. Nothing else done. Just a chip installed.
 

Litfuse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
799
Reaction score
752
Location
Columbia, IL
Vehicle(s)
2019 C7 Grand Sport, 2019 Ram 1500, 2017 Audi Q5.
I’m going to see if I can dig up my APR chip tune from my 1.8T GTI. Three programs, all had substantial gains. I believe stage IV was 36 HP, 23 ftlb tq. Nothing else done. Just a chip installed.
Yes, but it is a forced induction motor. APR is able to get some incredible gains. I’m looking at getting a new GTI in the spring.
 

BrntWS6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
1,255
Location
Land of the FOID
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUS, 2002 WS6
If I may add my .02, oem tunes as a whole are conservative. The Honda/Acura guys get NA tunes all the time that make DRAMATIC increases. The OEM tune being garbage means there is room for improvement. I would also argue that independent opinions ARE data. If multiple people are saying it feels better, faster, stronger, then it's probably true. You don't need a dyno to compete in the Pepsi challenge.
Good point. I have been in the LS1 world for 18 years. It was not uncommon to get 20hp out of them with just a tune.
 

Litfuse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
799
Reaction score
752
Location
Columbia, IL
Vehicle(s)
2019 C7 Grand Sport, 2019 Ram 1500, 2017 Audi Q5.
Good point. I have been in the LS1 world for 18 years. It was not uncommon to get 20hp out of them with just a tune.
What year WS6 do you own? I have always liked those cars.

I had a 2006 GTO I did a lot of work to. You can’t beat the sound of a cammed small block Chevy with full exhaust. I was going to do the same with my 2019 Grand Sport C7, but I ended up not liking the car and got rid of it after nine months.
 

BrntWS6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
1,255
Location
Land of the FOID
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUS, 2002 WS6
What year WS6 do you own? I have always liked those cars.

I had a 2006 GTO I did a lot of work to. You can’t beat the sound of a cammed small block Chevy with full exhaust. I was going to do the same with my 2019 Grand Sport C7, but I ended up not liking the car and got rid of it after nine months.
2002...been a real fun car but don't drive it much since I bought the Jeep. It's just a H/C car but I did have plans to go nuts with a forged LS3 and a D1X. Decided to buy a Jeep instead.
 

Livernois Motorsports

Well-Known Member
Rock Sponsor (Level 1)
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
143
Reaction score
232
Location
Dearborn Heights, MI
Vehicle(s)
2019 Wrangler JLU Moab/2021 392 Rubicon
Well geeze, glad we provided some good content for discussion and debate.

I will keep it as short as I can.

Item 1.

While this engine is "rated" to use 87 octane fuel, it is a compromise to do so. You've got something that is 11.3:1, and is designed to rev to nearly 7500 RPM (even if the factory limiter is lower), means you end up having to pull power back to be able to run 87 octane fuel.

Item 2.

These stay at 1.0 Lambda in the stock calibration for most of the run, go into enrichment, and then almost immediately into cat overtemp protection. 1.0 lambda has about the worst knock prevention you can get under a load, which means they have to pull even more power out of it. But this combination of low timing, and stoichiometric fuel mixture generates a TON of heat in the catalyst, so to offset this they then put far too much fuel into it to cool things back down. this equals power being low now from protecting the cat, because it got hot, quick.

so you have 2 items that create an environment that is very unfriendly to low octane fuel, and also limits power because of this. So the oem is calibrating around this "87 octane approved" mandate they were given, but a little secret is that all EPA fuel economy testing is done with 91 octane 0 ethanol fuel. Which is why so few vehicles actually are able to return the advertised fuel economy figures. So you have the CAFE side of the team developing an engine and calibration to be super efficient (relatively) under one condition, and then another team that's sole job is to make sure it can live with low octane fuel, with almost no control over the base engine design.

So we are able to get huge gains by allowing the proper balance for a richer lambda, combined with other changes to make it happier on low octane fuel, but you still have the fundamental limit of the engine design holding back the power due to 87 not controlling knock very well.

Now move to better fuel, which means you can actually start adding in power, rather than just removing the items limiting power.

Then add in ethanol being a 100+ octane fuel that has a dramatic impact on cooling off air charge and combustion chamber/piston crown temps, and you have even more gains.

Now, I am completely floored that someone on the internet would ever claim to not believe something posted by a company, just in utter disbelief. </sarcasm>

With that said, we would never stack the deck on baseline vs results. here is some insight into our method:

6 baseline runs done with 3 minute cooldowns, then we take the median result. in the case of the MOAB from the original video, there were runs as low as 213, and as high as 229. we went a little higher than median and chose the 224 run as we had 3 that were 223, 224, and 225. we did have 2 that were 213 and 215, and one that was 229.

Same goes for the final numbers. 6 final validation runs, and choose the run we feel is the median. the highest was 258, lowest was 244, but we had a grouping of 252, 253, 253, and 255

and yes, all done on the same dyno, the same day, by the same operator. No rookie stuff here. It's almost like we've been doing testing and validation for over 70 years or something...
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
2,459
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
Well geeze, glad we provided some good content for discussion and debate.

I will keep it as short as I can.

Item 1.

While this engine is "rated" to use 87 octane fuel, it is a compromise to do so. You've got something that is 11.3:1, and is designed to rev to nearly 7500 RPM (even if the factory limiter is lower), means you end up having to pull power back to be able to run 87 octane fuel.

Item 2.

These stay at 1.0 Lambda in the stock calibration for most of the run, go into enrichment, and then almost immediately into cat overtemp protection. 1.0 lambda has about the worst knock prevention you can get under a load, which means they have to pull even more power out of it. But this combination of low timing, and stoichiometric fuel mixture generates a TON of heat in the catalyst, so to offset this they then put far too much fuel into it to cool things back down. this equals power being low now from protecting the cat, because it got hot, quick.

so you have 2 items that create an environment that is very unfriendly to low octane fuel, and also limits power because of this. So the oem is calibrating around this "87 octane approved" mandate they were given, but a little secret is that all EPA fuel economy testing is done with 91 octane 0 ethanol fuel. Which is why so few vehicles actually are able to return the advertised fuel economy figures. So you have the CAFE side of the team developing an engine and calibration to be super efficient (relatively) under one condition, and then another team that's sole job is to make sure it can live with low octane fuel, with almost no control over the base engine design.

So we are able to get huge gains by allowing the proper balance for a richer lambda, combined with other changes to make it happier on low octane fuel, but you still have the fundamental limit of the engine design holding back the power due to 87 not controlling knock very well.

Now move to better fuel, which means you can actually start adding in power, rather than just removing the items limiting power.

Then add in ethanol being a 100+ octane fuel that has a dramatic impact on cooling off air charge and combustion chamber/piston crown temps, and you have even more gains.

Now, I am completely floored that someone on the internet would ever claim to not believe something posted by a company, just in utter disbelief. </sarcasm>

With that said, we would never stack the deck on baseline vs results. here is some insight into our method:

6 baseline runs done with 3 minute cooldowns, then we take the median result. in the case of the MOAB from the original video, there were runs as low as 213, and as high as 229. we went a little higher than median and chose the 224 run as we had 3 that were 223, 224, and 225. we did have 2 that were 213 and 215, and one that was 229.

Same goes for the final numbers. 6 final validation runs, and choose the run we feel is the median. the highest was 258, lowest was 244, but we had a grouping of 252, 253, 253, and 255

and yes, all done on the same dyno, the same day, by the same operator. No rookie stuff here. It's almost like we've been doing testing and validation for over 70 years or something...
Awesome explanation. One question: How much did you raise the rev limiter?

And uhh... want to look at the 2.0?
 

The Last Cowboy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
826
Reaction score
1,356
Location
San Antonio, TX
Vehicle(s)
2020 JL Willys 2 door
Occupation
Wandering Vaquero
To get back on track, I'm getting 23.2 after 150 miles of mostly highway driving over the last 2 days. Speeds between 60-75 mph.

I use 89 octane mid grade. Recent oil Change to Pennzoil Platinum 0w20.

3.6, 8 speed, 32" Firestone MTs, 3.45 gears, no lift.
 

Advertisement




Morris 4x4 Center
 



Advertisement
Top