3rd Gen Ram Tech 2002-2008 Rams: This section is for TECHNICAL discussions only, that involve the 2002 through 2008 Rams Rams. For any non-tech discussions, please direct your attention to the "General discussion/NON-tech" sub sections.

Got my 3815!!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 13, 2009 | 06:36 PM
  #21  
xfeejayx's Avatar
xfeejayx
Thread Starter
|
3rd gen Ram, Newbies
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,815
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Default

Originally Posted by HammerZ71
Sorry, I have a tendency to say what I think, as soon as I think it...
is that why you fart so much?
 
Reply
Old Feb 13, 2009 | 10:07 PM
  #22  
SilsHemi's Avatar
SilsHemi
All Star
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
From: GA
Default

Originally Posted by xfeejayx
came in yesterday. on Mileage XS now, at least till I go through this tank. Might run one more tank on MXS so I know if it makes a difference or not.

Don't really care much for the added horsepwer in 91 tune, it's not a track truck so high end HP doesn't do anything for me.

Definitely going to mess with it later today and this weekend to tweak shifts. I'm tired of this crap torque management and soft shift.
Enjoy it.


Sil
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2009 | 05:15 PM
  #23  
bigpappaholt's Avatar
bigpappaholt
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
From: Indiana
Default

any updates?
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2009 | 05:21 PM
  #24  
xfeejayx's Avatar
xfeejayx
Thread Starter
|
3rd gen Ram, Newbies
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,815
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Default

I haven't had the consistency in testing that I would want. The weather has been inconsistent, I've made a couple extra stops on the way home, and my brother borrowed the truck a couple times (though only for 5 miles of driving, but the start/warm cycle sucks up gas).

but, as of now, I am not seeing any gain. Apparently Mileage XS does change shift timings, and that's all I really want from the SC, so I'll leave it on there indefinitely until I'm satisfied with the data.
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2009 | 05:24 PM
  #25  
V_Scapes's Avatar
V_Scapes
Record Breaker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
From: NJ
Default

**** it! why not get good milage for a truck!! theres no reason why not! who the hell wants to be paying a ton of money for gas when we can spend less, if you can get better milage then by all means DO SO! not all of us have a alternate commuter vehicle to save gas money on.
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2009 | 05:27 PM
  #26  
HammerZ71's Avatar
HammerZ71
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,686
Likes: 21
From: South Georgia/East Florida
Default

Built in shift points and adjustable WOT's are common to all 4 canned tunes. As well as the line pressure increase which maked the shifting a lot firmer.
I saw a solid 2.3 mpg increase on the XS tune on my last Ga trip, but didn't like it, the truck had no *****! Except for better tranny shifts, the truck felt weaker than stock. That was my test run, would have gone back to stock when I got to the farm anyway, but I'll not even change it for highway driving again...
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2009 | 08:31 PM
  #27  
Off_Road_Teacher's Avatar
Off_Road_Teacher
Banned
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,759
Likes: 1
Default

I just stick with the 91 performance tune. It gives me the best mileage anyway so no reason to ever change it. That is until they come out with the 93 tune.
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2009 | 10:38 PM
  #28  
ried69's Avatar
ried69
Record Breaker
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
From: Kansas
Default

Originally Posted by V_Scapes
**** it! why not get good milage for a truck!! theres no reason why not! who the hell wants to be paying a ton of money for gas when we can spend less, if you can get better milage then by all means DO SO! not all of us have a alternate commuter vehicle to save gas money on.
That's what I think dude. So long as you don't sacrifice all of your power, why the hell not get some better mpgs? These fuel costs really do suck, and isn't always fun to pay.
What would happen if a vehicle would have an 87 tune on it, then run off of 89? Just worse mpgs, power, or what?
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2009 | 10:41 PM
  #29  
SilverBullet08's Avatar
SilverBullet08
Grand Champion
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,556
Likes: 1
From: TX
Default

Originally Posted by ried69
That's what I think dude. So long as you don't sacrifice all of your power, why the hell not get some better mpgs? These fuel costs really do suck, and isn't always fun to pay.
What would happen if a vehicle would have an 87 tune on it, then run off of 89? Just worse mpgs, power, or what?
i have the 87 tune set and i run on 89. i havent noticed a big difference in mpgs up or down but this is my first tank. power though is increased
 
Reply
Old Feb 20, 2009 | 09:06 AM
  #30  
V_Scapes's Avatar
V_Scapes
Record Breaker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
From: NJ
Default

shouldnt the truck run better on higher octane at least?
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:23 AM.