My wife took the P!g up to NY for the week. I set it to Map 7 before she left and she averaged 32.7/28.46 (PCM/actual) for the tank it took to get up and over half way back and pulled 731 miles out of the tank over pretty varied terrain (up and down through the mountains).

This would be a new record for it. So much for me getting the best gas milage in the family

 

Well the wife is really not happy with me, but I have some dyno time scheduled for the 31st. They are going to test 5 of the maps for me which I plan to be 0 and 6-9. So in a few weeks we should have some actual curves to look at.

I keep meaning to go back to 8, but never seem to get around to it so it's been on 7 for most of a couple of tanks. Still happy with it considering that last weekend I did a really mixed (suburbia weekend traffic, WV hills, Western VA hills, and some highway) 200 miles and the PCM told me it got 33.9MPG out of it including the low light coming on ~80 miles from home and it still got me home).

Next up for me is to replace my dash clock with a Boost/Vacuum gauge (wife is going to love that too...). I'll post the details in a separate thread on that after it's done, but the normal boost is 33psi so I'm looking at the Autometer Sport-comp II 45psi gauge (7608). I measured the mounting hole this morning and it's 65mm so I'll have to grind a bit away to get it to fit (gauge is 66.7mm). Now I just need to find the vacuum hose and a path to run the hose from the top of the dash out through the firewall (ideally without having to pull major parts of the dash).

 

I'll be looking forward to your curves, especially if they turn out to be anywhere close to the estimates I posted some months ago. Just finished a 1900 mile road trip, still on Map7. Second to last leg 325 miles; 35.8 mpg. Last leg 338 miles, 36.2 mpg, my combined mileage since new (~9400 miles) is 30.1 mpg. Helluva lot better than the EPA rated 23 mpg. In the spirit of full disclosure though, these are MFD reported numbers. I'm too lazy to calculate at the pump anymore.

//greg//

 

Same here. Looking forward to see your curves.

Ronan

 

Hello Guys,

We are still cranking along on map 6. As per previous posts, map 7 worked very nicely as well, but settled on 6 as a good balance of performance and economy.

It was too tempting to dip into the throttle using map 7 truth be told .....

Whatever the case, this 5,000 lb SUV really hauls, is alot of fun to drive, and gets an average mpg in the low 30s. We have enjoyed 35 mpg highway mostly obeying the speed limit.

The tuner box was well worth the cost.

 

I'll post the details later, but the runs just finished and I'm disappointed in the results. I did 0 and 6-9. There was a noticeable jump between 0 and 6, but the rest had no significant variation from 6. 7 doesn't surprise me as I can't feel the difference, but 8 and 9 really shock me.

Its also quite disheartening how much drive train loss there is...

 

Well, what your dyno tests may not provide, is the projected MPG in each of the Maps tested. Personally, I never even bothered with Map 9; highest hp estimate, but Map 8 had a higher torque estimate. Didn't stay on Map 8 very long, as - while going through the gears at WOT - it seemed to cause torque drop to off before horsepower caught up. Or perhaps it caused fuel pressure to get out of sync with turbo boost. Regardless, I dropped to Map 7, much better. Same improved WOT acceleration, but not as inconsistent as Map 8. Plus there was a significant mpg increase over factory. Tried Map 6 just for comparison, switched back to Map 7 after half a tank. Performance was not unlike Map 7, but mpg dropped notably. I'm sticking with Map7.

//greg//

 

No it doesn't include that at all and I agree that the MPG difference is easily measurable at the pump.

Based on the information that BlueSpark provides, however, what I saw on the dyno (waiting on them to email the results as their printer was out of ink) didn't match their claims at all.

Speaking of WOT, he did have issues with Maps 7 and 8 with that. He found that it was doing something weird and you'd get a weird power drop. When he redid them slightly off WOT he got a consistent curve. It was really strange, almost like it had upshifted or cut the fuel.

As far as Map 7 goes, I was not impressed when I originally tested it and have meant to change it back to 8, but I ended up putting it back to 7 again after the testing today. I've been getting 32-33 (MFD) consistently the last couple of weeks going back and forth to work. I know some of that is people getting that last week off with their kids as schools are starting to go back in this area, but I'm certainly not complaining.

 

Looking forward to dyno results, but I think that results will vary from dyno to dyno depending on brand and operator and conditions. I think that a chassis dyno gives the most consistent results - rear drive axle is directly connected to the dyno....

Not sure how a dyno would work with our AWD SUVs.....anyway, thanks for running the tests, should give a decent relative comparison of the maps...

I am the Lone Wolf as I have the BlueSpark without boost control. More details- I found map 7 to be a bit aggressive with the fueling - the tone and timbre of the engine changed noticeably and it "felt" that the car was getting fuel super force fed. Map 7 was quite fun in that respect, but the engine ran rougher, and I was concerned about reliability.

My buddy is a Porsche Master Tech at the local dealer and I am going to have him do some fuel pressure measurements when I get a chance.

 

I like these posts and appreciate all the work and sharing. This device is inexpensive and has potential. However, if all the Porsche engineers had to do was change the programming to get extra hp, torque or mpg, wouldn't they have done it? I see the value if you want crazy mileage at the expense of power or vice versa. I have done mods to my 991S so I'm not against trying to improve what we start with but this is a heavy SUV- I'm getting 30+ on the hwy, 25 around town, great torque and I see little to improve upon. I get it, it's cheap enough, why not try it but realistically, if you could increase mileage and torque or hp, don't you think the engineers at Porsche would have done it (and charged us extra for it)?

 

There are a few reasons.

First let's take a look at the TT and TTS from all their models. It really is just a cheap upgrade for the additional power, but look how much extra they make for it. Porsche has not offered power upgrades yet and may never do so, but the engines obviously have more to give (I assume the same for the new baby turbo in the Pan too). I know for the N54 and N55 engines BMW was offering a power upgrade that was just an ECU tune (later that was the standard for the "is" models, but I don't know if they stopped offering the tunes for the base i models).

The second issue is supportability. Every country/region has different rules about emissions and other related things. Some have higher taxes for higher powered cars. Others have insurance rates that change so dramatically that the target buyer can't afford it. So rather than have maps for each of the possible markets (which as a programmer I can tell you is a PITA to support) they only create a few that get used in many places. As such some markets end up with detuned versions of the ECU map even though their market doesn't require it.

Finally, even though everything seems ok right now in the short term we may also see all kinds of potential longer term issues (increased oil burn, increased AdBlue use, failed parts from extra stress, etc..). Only time will tell.

I personally view the improvements the BSP claims as safe and worth the risk, but the reality is that Porsche did have a good reason for tuning the way that they did and we are now operating outside of that. I think it's small and am willing to bet against it, but there is indeed some risk here and therefore not for everyone.

 

The factory Cayenne Diesel tune is relative to where it's placed in the product line. Yes, it could be tuned to over 300hp and 500 torque, but that puts it in Cayenne S performance territory. Not to mention with greater fuel economy. That would cut into Cayenne S sales. Hence the factory Cayenne diesel was tuned to fall into a price slot 10 grand below the S. No different than the V8 models; each has slightly more hp and torque, and is slightly faster than the one below it. Things will get even more complicated if we get the Cayenne Diesel S over here.

So from my perspective, model line positioning is the single largest reason for the factory diesel tune.

//greg//

 

That's part of what I was trying to convey with my first point, but you certainly summed it up much more clearly.

 

Subscribing to this, my CD is due first week of december!

 

As promised, here are the graphs. These are the individuals so each is easier to read, I've asked for the all-in-one graph as well and will post it so you can visually see how close they are to one another.

The particulars are:

1. It was a Dyno Dynamics dyno.
2. I was the one that adjusted the BlueSpark between runs. Yes the unit power cycled between runs (took it's damn time too).
3. The readings were taken in 6th gear.
4. No cetane boosters were used and all I have around here is plain old 40.
5. The drivetrain loss is depressing

According to the Map 0 run it appears that there is a 17-18% margin from the factory numbers which will mostly be due to drivetrain loss, but also will be impacted by the accuracy of the dyno and the gas quality.

• Map 0 = 198.5/339.7
• Map 6 = 212.7/354.3
• Map 7 = 213.8/352.4
• Map 8 = 211.5/352.9
• Map 9 = 212.2/356.6

I'm shocked how little difference there is after the 0-6 jump. I feel a large difference between 6 and 9 and I find it hard to believe that only 2 foot pounds makes that much of a feeling difference.

I'll analyse the numbers in a bit more detail later if someone doesn't beat me to it, but I've been looking at numbers all day and am tired of them right now

Let the discussions commence!