[Don Schmidt]

Exactly. You paid for the extra power with extra fuel. The aftermarket parts on your Audi did improve things at a monetary cost. Manufactures do not use this approach as they are working to a budget and such parts would be too expensive for the general market. However, those parts are not a tune, which is what you were saying would improve power and economy. Wiseman posted above that

"Offers 40 HP or higher, 25 Extra Torque or better for v8/v10 engines, and less for 4-6 cylinder engines.
You also receive better fuel consumption, extra 10% increase in top speed, faster acceleration, 50% better throttle response, smoother engine idling. "

I would argue that this contradicts basic principles of science.

That fact that it is a modest suv is not relevant to the situation. You said "Car companies do not put there best tunes on suv the very best tuning gets put on hi performance vehicles " Companies are not limited to a certain number of tunes. Each car is given its own tune developed solely for that engine.

Once again you have avoided answering my question as to why the manufactures would not use the same or better tune that the aftermarket offers right from the factory if there were no detrimental effects in the long term. Please answer this direct question. Remember, we are not talking hard parts here, only computer programming.

 

[timmayberry719]

Let me say this I am not a physics professor just a retired man that has spent 40 years building everything from show cars to 250 mph race cars and made a dam good living doing it. I have no idea why auto manufactures do this stupid stuff, why do they make 3 or 4 versions of every model, why did chevy put a 3 cylinder turbo in a Trailblazer when the blazer which is only a little bit bigger has a 4 cylinder turbo with over 70 more horsepower and only 4 mpg less than a trailblazerme personnelly I would rather have the 4 cylinder turbo and when my wife's factory warranty runs out I will put the 4 cylinder in her trailblazer. All I know is I have made a killing in my life time making factory cars alot better.

 

[Don Schmidt]

I am the first to admit I have little practical knowledge in modifying cars beyond cosmetic changes, some of which I posted pictures of in this forum. I deal in more theoretical matters. I am glad you made a good living doing what you did. You made cars better in certain ways to achieve specific goals, but other things would have to be sacrificed to do this. This reinforces that tunes are a money making endeavour that make improvements at a cost. I never ran a company but I have to assume that they make decisions based on monetary reward. as they need to in order to survive. I still assert that they put in the best possible tune in each car type to achieve their goals. If a better tune existed with no detrimental effects. they would use it. This is why I would never use an aftermarket tune. I am not willing to accept the negative effects. Anecdotal evidence as some have posted above shows that these tunes have either no benefit, or that the benefits do come at a cost. The laws of physics (as well as the other sciences cannot be cheated. The universe will not allow it.
There are no benefits to a company to use a less than optimal tune, which they have the expertise to produce for each model they make. The factory tune is the best for the average person, unless they have specific goals that they are willing to trade for.
As to other marketing decisions the company would have a good reason to use a 3 cyl not a 4,or make 3 or 4 versions of every model. They would not do it just on a whim. GM has existed for a long time, so they must be doing something right.

 

[timmayberry719]

Here is something for you to think about why does every auto manufacture put your air cleaner under your hood. What has denser air and more oxygen hot air under your hood or move your air intake so it so it receives colder air from outside the engine compartment. If you investigate it cost more money to build the factory air box than to buy a aftermarket cold air intake. So what's wrong with the factory engineers?

 

[timmayberry719]

No problem.

Most of those supposed chips that claim hp/tq increase are just piggybacking onto the locked factory system and alter the signals going to the computer which in turn tricks the computer into thinking it needs more fuel, timing which could create a little more power, but at the expense of voiding your warranty and possible engine damage.

Tuning is the only safe way to get more power, so until someone unlocks the computer for tuning all you can really do is improve airflow going in/out. The drop in K&N helps a little, but from my experimenting I found the biggest gains to be had were through exhaust modifications that allow higher flow. The factory exhaust is very restrictive and typically turbo engines don't like or need backpressure, but GM decided that a quiet exhaust was more important, nothing new with them, lol.

These computers can be unlocked I took my 2019 camaro to pro tuning shop and a $1000 later my ecu was reprogramed

 

[Don Schmidt]

I am not sure how a aftermarket cold air intake works. Maybe it increases the chance of water ingestion.
All my newer cars have had some type of duct to direct cold air to the intake without increasing that risk. Only older cars,like my first, a 63 Rambler !, had that circular air cleaner with no duct for cooler air.
How do you know it cost more money to build the factory air box than to buy a aftermarket cold air intake? What is your source for this? I would like to see the empirical evidence please.

 

[timmayberry719]

Look at the air box on the trailblazer it is a closed box restricting air flow and it actually sits above the turbo in the heat under your hood. All a cold air intake does is move the location to a cooler area with a larger diameter intake tube and a high flow rated filter. More oxygen in means bigger bang which intern makes more horsepower and increases mpg, a better breathing engine makes more power and has better mpg. And as far as my source I worked for GM years ago.

 

[Don Schmidt]

Tim, I just want to say that I am not calling you a liar. Its just in my line of work statements must always be presented and be backed up with proof.

 

[timmayberry719]

So basically you are one of those people that if I told you I could take your cars ecu and reprogram it to give you better fuel economy you would tell me No. I am not trying to insult you but investigate more before you condemn, I am not talking about chips and tuners I am talking about taking your car to a pro that will sit down with his laptop and reprogram your ecu by changing fuel delivery times, spark advance, and timing and other sensor p parameters.

 

[Don Schmidt]

When you worked for GM, was it in accounting or design? I work in Education but I don't know what a whiteboard costs.

As to the location, cooler denser air would normally increase power etc. but the turbo compensates for most of that. An intercooler would help even more but I am pretty sure a cost/benefit analysis would rule that out Do any cars have one? I think high end Porsches do but $$$.
Space underhood is limited by aero and other considerations.
I am certain the engineers know about the charge density factors you mentioned, so when you ask "what's wrong with the factory engineers? " I would answer "nothing ". They are balancing many factors to achieve the best outcomes within a specified budget. You cannot isolate one single item and criticize the decisions the made. You need to look at the complete picture.

I just read your last comment. I am sure that a tuner could reprogram my car to improve one or two specific things. However, do you deny that it be at the expense of something else? Physics doesn't work that way. Compromises have to be made. Tell me why GM would not do those changes if there were not detriment to other aspects. Their engineers know how to program an ecu. Please explain to me why they wouldn't design it that way originally?

 

[timmayberry719]

I was a designer and engineer for GM all cars are designed on a basic tune for economy and emissions. They are not programmed to max out your fuel economy or horsepower. They give you a basic tune because there are to many variations that people would want That's why there are so many models to choose from but the basic tunes can be fine tuned to increase your preference and there is no undo wear on other parts by doing this, changing when fuel is put in and taken out of the power curve does not put undo stress on other parts. Increasing your timing and spark advance does not put undo pressures on other parts it just makes your engine run more efficiently.

 

[Don Schmidt]

You say that they only offer a basic tune as there are so many variations that people would want. That doesn't explain for example why GM would not tune to increase fuel economy if there were not added stress to other parts. As I said, they struggle to increase fuel economy whenever possible to meet cafe requirements. GM would want the most efficient engines possible. There is no logical reason why they would not do this. There has to be a tradeoff that they are not willing to make. I still maintain the factory tune is the best compromise to all the variables in the design.

 

[timmayberry719]

Everybody has there own opinion but my 40 plus years in the automotive industry I beg to differ but that is just my opinion and experience and I am nobody but a retired little old man that led a good life in the industry. I know how cars are designed and engineered but I am definitely not a professor of physics and we will leave it at that.

 

[timmayberry719]

Everybody has there own opinion but my 40 plus years in the automotive industry I beg to differ but that is just my opinion and experience and I am nobody but a retired little old man that led a good life in the industry. I know how cars are designed and engineered but I am definitely not a professor of physics and we will leave it at that.

It has been very nice chatting with you have a good evening

 

[Don Schmidt]

By the way, I always thought that increasing spark timing can cause predetonation, which is damaging to an engine. Am I wrong? Fuel quality can vary from station to station, so the factory timing curve is probably on the cautious side to prevent damage. Sure you could advance my timing curve to get more power and maybe economy, but the trade off is risking that damage.
You know much more about car engine design than I do, but there is no free lunch. The universe doesn't work that way.
Thank you for your best wishes. Same to you.

 

[Trailblazer1]

By the way, I always thought that increasing spark timing can cause predetonation, which is damaging to an engine. Am I wrong? Fuel quality can vary from station to station, so the factory timing curve is probably on the cautious side to prevent damage. Sure you could advance my timing curve to get more power and maybe economy, but the trade off is risking that damage.
You know much more about car engine design than I do, but there is no free lunch. The universe doesn't work that way.
Thank you for your best wishes. Same to you.

Here is the short of it. The factory does a tune that they figure will make the driveline last at least the length of the warranty and provide enough power and fuel mileage. The long of it, my brother had a Cobra mustang ample horsepower for the size of the car. I personally have owned muscle cars since 16 years old so he had meto road test the car to see what I thought. I told him the car had all around performance and fuel mileage for what it was. With that being said someone told him about modifications that could make the car extreme. A supercharger was the first addition, not enough, the next all new exhuast system, still not enough. Brought the car to a person that only does Mustang performace, did a flash tune to the ECM, better but not enough. Next changed the fuel injectors, fuel pump, and ignition system. The tuner drove the car on the street with his computer hooked up to the car and made adjustments to the ECM while he drove, then the car went on the dyno. This occured ten times till the tuner said no more could be obtained from the motor without changing internal parts. All this produced 450 RWH and the car on the highway got 25 miles to the gallon at 70 MPH which is great for the horsepower it had. So in the end he got the power he wanted and gained 4 miles per gallon over a stock motor and it all only took 7 days and $8,000.00 for parts and labor.

 

[Don Schmidt]

From your second sentence, I think you are saying that the factory tune is the best for regular driving and longevity. I certainly would agree that changes can be made to improve specific things, in the case you mentioned both power and economy, but at a cost in both money and probably reliability. GM would not exist too long trying to sell a car that cost them $8000 dollars more to make at the same price point they do. Your brother was willing to pay the price to get what he wanted. That is why speed shops exist. The average person would not.
If the factory could improve power, fuel economy, throttle response etc. with a different tune, they would. It would cost them nothing, since they have to put a tune of some kind in anyway. I still strongly maintain that the factory tune is the best compromise for the regular public.

 

[Viosgett]

I’ve messed with a couple of these before, and honestly the gains felt minimal. What helped more was cleaning up my fuel system and double-checking timing. Sometimes people forget how much those chemical delivery systems impact performance when they’re not working right. If the injectors are gunked or the lines are clogged, no chip’s gonna give you real power.

 

[Chipss]

The 1.3l makes crazy HP, actually more than per ci than a new vet motor. Many use the little 3 cylinder engines in experimental aircraft.
The stock manifold presser is so high, they actually reduce it for aircraft.
I think it’s wise to leave it alone, rather than expect more out of it.
I know how to tune, and have tuned , and have the software to do so, with my mustang. It’s needed because no stock tune exists for the motors I build.

This little trailblazer motor is on the edge as is.
But what ever. You do you.
Have fun.

I just need to get to work with the lil trailblazer.
I don’t take it to the track.

 

[Bevtech]

When you worked for GM, was it in accounting or design? I work in Education but I don't know what a whiteboard costs.

As to the location, cooler denser air would normally increase power etc. but the turbo compensates for most of that. An intercooler would help even more but I am pretty sure a cost/benefit analysis would rule that out Do any cars have one? I think high end Porsches do but $$$.
Space underhood is limited by aero and other considerations.
I am certain the engineers know about the charge density factors you mentioned, so when you ask "what's wrong with the factory engineers? " I would answer "nothing ". They are balancing many factors to achieve the best outcomes within a specified budget. You cannot isolate one single item and criticize the decisions the made. You need to look at the complete picture.

I just read your last comment. I am sure that a tuner could reprogram my car to improve one or two specific things. However, do you deny that it be at the expense of something else? Physics doesn't work that way. Compromises have to be made. Tell me why GM would not do those changes if there were not detriment to other aspects. Their engineers know how to program an ecu. Please explain to me why they wouldn't design it that way originally?

I work for Ford, I am a technician. All ford turbo engines have Intercoolers on them. I can say that factory tunes,like tire pressure , is a compromise of performance and economy. They have to " build" into the powertrains a certain amount of longevity to keep selling more vehicles. All the power and no reliability doesn't sell cars. Neither does long lasting but needs to roll down hill to accelerate. Tricking the ecu is a long time trick to get "cold enrichment" or continued closed loop operation. More fuel more air more bang. Just doesn't do well for emissions. Most care now are run so lean for epa requirements.