RAM 1500 Diesel Forum banner

1 - 20 of 128 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello all,

Its been a while since I've posted something to get the fanboys riled up. Some of you know (and many not on the forums requested me to do these) that I am working on some comparisons between stock, SFT and GDE. I have 3 ECUs, one with the AEMs stock tune, one with SFT and one with GDE.

I've completed some of the comparisons, specifically the 64 mile MPG loop with my trucks Stock tune which was post AEMs flash, and then also with the SFT TCM and engine tunes and the SFT TCM + GDE Hot Tune. This has taken me several hours to do, having to repeat runs because of traffic, regens (Both SFT and GDE loops) etc. I switched from 37" tires to 35" tires after my first run with SFT and so I did another SFT run with the 35s to give it an apples to apples comparison.

But I have completed the initial comparisons and I've added that info with links to the videos below. I am finishing up 2 hypermile loops, one with GDE and one with SFT. I will then do towing comparisons and will be monitoring EGTs, Oil, Transmission and coolant temps, as well as overall performance and MPG while towing. I will also be doing 0-60 times. I will then repeat all of these comparisons with the Off-Road/Stage 2 tunes.

I will also be completing this run with my dads 2015 ecodiesel as well with stock and GDE tunes (both transmission and engine tunes, he went with GDE because he hates SFT's name and his truck previously had the Hot tune from GDE). His truck has the 3.92 rear diff. It gets 2-3mpg less than my truck does and it will be interesting to see how it does on these runs.

All of these runs were on the same loop, which was mapped out to 64 miles exactly. I used the exact same pump at the same gas station for all of the runs. I followed the technique that TFLTrucks uses, and that is to fill up, wait 30 seconds after the pump clicks and then top off. I set cruise control to 5mph above the posted speed limit, and did as much as possible to limit my interaction in order for the comparisons to be as fair and accurate as possible.

Stock Run 64 mile loop:
Pump showed 2.618 gallons.
64/2.618 = 24.446 MPG
Video:

SFT Run 37" Tires:
Pump showed 2.402 gallons.
64/2.402 = 26.64 MPG
Link to video:


SFT Run 2 with 35" tires:
Pump showed 2.416 gallons.
64/2.416 = 26.49 MPG
Link to video:

GDE Run 35" Tires:
Pump showed 2.430 gallons
64/2.430 = 26.337 MPG
Link to video:

I know I was getting slightly better MPG with the 37" tires than I am getting with my 35" tires. On the highway. In the city, the 35" tires are doing a little better. SFT saw my first video I shared with the 37" tires and emailed me. They requested that I update my tune to their latest tune for the run. Which I did. I noticed that the new tune gave me better fuel economy as I drove on it for a couple days prior to doing the mpg run. SFT also has a bit more punch that GDE, so it feels like it performs slightly better. The 0-60 will show if there is any performance improvement. I've always felt that GDE was more efficient. Which it was prior to this updated tune. I know that if I would have done a run with the 37" tires with GDE, I probably would have been in the 27mpg range. But the new SFT tune I feel is on par with GDE, as far as fuel economy goes. It does still regen more often, but they have soot set at 65%, GDE is 80%. SFT told me they are working on the regens and will have an update.

To be 100% honest. SFT is way more convenient. I've flashed 3 tunes now from SFT, all taking a total of 15 minutes between the 3, about 5 minutes each. When I first ordered my reflash from GDE after the AEMS update, it took 5 days to get my new ECU. However, one of the features I ordered was not on the tune. So, I had to send the ECU back to GDE. They fixed it and sent it back. Taking another 8 days. SFT was able to get my tune back within 24 hours after I got my truck back from the dealer post AEMS reflash. They also did the updates the same day.

So, convenience, hands down goes to SFT. As does customer service. I mentioned to GDE I was doing these runs and they didn't seem to care. Actually asked me to sign an NDA and almost were accusatory in their responses to me. I guess thats what I get when I am completely upfront and honest. Last year, when I originally ordered my GDE tune, I also ran into some communication issues and delays on getting my tune. As much as I hate SFT's name and think of it as a JR high joke, SFT has been nothing but great to deal with and has had excellent customer service.

I am not a fanboy of either tune. I've always felt GDE was more efficient and more reliable, as they have a solid history and a proven product. But, with this recent update from SFT I now I feel they are very similar, at least for fuel economy. I do know that SFT runs cooler during towing, as my Oil temps have been consistently lower while towing and I tow several times a week with my truck. Lower oil temps is something that is very important to me with this truck. From my research, I believe GDE uses higher cylinder temps to increase efficiency and MPG and this could be the cause, but I don't know. That is purely speculation.

I have a custom oil cooler kit I've put together, but don't plan on installing it until after I complete the towing comparisons.

I know people will flame this post (Bounty Hunter I'm sure will have his speculations). But I did my absolute best, spending many hours, to make sure these comparisons were as fair and honest as possible. I will continue to do the same with the towing comparisons, Stage 2 and 0-60 runs. I will post my hypermilling runs very soon. I know there will be much hate spewed at those because I was able to get above 30mpg with both of these tunes on that 64 mile loop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,792 Posts
Thanks for calling me out specifically, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I discounted all your research once I realized it's based on a 64-mile loop. Just not enough distance and too many variables for any real consistent analysis. I applaud you for putting in the time and making the attempt to help others, but to me you're just pissing up a rope.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,262 Posts
Gputah, It sounds like you put a lot of time & effort into your testing. I didn't take the time to view your videos, but there's just too many factors you can't control when testing as you did. Think about wind, temperature, humidity, braking to name a few.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Not surprised to see the old gde crew commenting first. And the responses were about as good as I expected.

These comparisons are as close to real world as your going to get and all of them were pretty much identical. I did my best to match temprature, time of day and weather, though it was not always possible. They will provide anyone with more information than what is needed to help make a decision. I don't think any amount of distance is going to matter, and it obviously wouldn't appease any of you. But 64 miles is plenty to show the difference for the purpose of comparisons. I was about to take a 300 mile trip for each, but again too many variables there too.

At least someone can see how they perform and make a more educated decision. If gde had been on top by a few mpg, I doubt any of you would have commented. As typical with responses from those who only support GDE, I expected my work to simply be discredited.

I just love that nothing will ever satisfy. Other than maybe if I went into a wind tunnel and performed some tests, but then I'm sure y'all would come back and say it wasn't real world and brush it off. But people who watch my videos and are truly curious how they compare (unlike you guys), will gain some knowledge from it. I'm not trying to start another pissing war, but saying there are too many variables to discredit everything is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Go ahead, tear the comparisons apart now. I'll wait.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Tfltrucks, a company I find to be pretty unbias, and strive to do their best when comparing, do just about the same loop to compare vehicles and I don't discredit what they do.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,262 Posts
No it surprised to see the old gde crew commenting first. And the responses were about as good as I expected.

These comparisons are as close to real world as your going to get and all of them were pretty much identical. They will provide anyone with more information than what is needed to help make a decision. I don't think any amount of distance is going to matter, and it obviously wouldn't appease any of you. But 64 miles is plenty to show the difference for the purpose of comparisons. I was about to take a 300 mile trip for each, but again too many variables there too.

At least someone can see how they perform and make a more educated decision. If gde had been on top by a few mpg, I doubt any of you would have commented.

I just love that nothing will ever satisfy. Other than maybe if I went into a wind tunnel and performed some tests, but then I'm sure y'all would come back and say it wasn't real world and brush it off. 🙂 But people who watch my videos and are truly curious how they compare (unlike you guys), will gain some knowledge from it. I'm not trying to start another pissing war, but saying there are too many variables to discredit everything is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Go ahead, tear the comparisons apart now. I'll wait.
Go ahead and complete the same loop 24.5 times with each tune and report back.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
Would you please define "hypermile"? I think I have an idea what it is, but I'd like to be sure.

FWIW .... I don't have a tune, won't for at least three years OR 85,000km (whichever comes first), so I'm not a fanboy of anything, but I also find a 64 mile loop to be a wasted effort, as are videos. Just post your GPS tracks for the same stretch of highway .... say 250 miles? and your full-empty-full fuel volumes with the truck configured exactly the same except for the different tunes. Then we can see instantaneous speeds, changes in elevation and how they correspond. The video is irrelevant. Only the data matters.

FWIW, my 2016 is completely stock, even down to the original factory tires, has 75,000km on it, and averages about 33mpg-Cdn on the highway and about 28mpg-Cdn in town....and always has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Would you please define "hypermile"? I think I have an idea what it is, but I'd like to be sure.

FWIW .... I don't have a tune, won't for at least three years OR 85,000km (whichever comes first), so I'm not a fanboy of anything, but I also find a 64 mile loop to be a wasted effort, as are videos. Just post your GPS tracks for the same stretch of highway .... say 250 miles? and your full-empty-full fuel volumes with the truck configured exactly the same except for the different tunes. Then we can see instantaneous speeds, changes in elevation and how they correspond. The video is irrelevant. Only the data matters.

FWIW, my 2016 is completely stock, even down to the original factory tires, has 75,000km on it, and averages about 33mpg-Cdn on the highway and about 28mpg-Cdn in town....and always has.
John, the 64 miles loop was mapped out suing gps. I can post the GPS coordinates for you if you would like. I did this because of your previous comments. 250 miles wouldn't have made a difference. Also, it would be easy to simply post numbers up here. Videos show that I actually did the work. I know you aren't a fan of the videos, but most people appreciate them when they are researching.

Also let me do this for you, https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&sxsrf=ACYBGNTjMmKUKU1C2mcehXdkhHGVxGNC8g:1568552294362&source=hp&ei=ZjV-XbKNE4SksAXOoar4Bg&q=what+is+hypermiling&oq=what+is+hypermiling&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l3j0i30l3.2009.9890..10198...0.0..0.279.3245.1j19j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..35i362i39j35i39j0i131j35i305i39j0i10j0i13j0i13i30j0i22i30j0i13i10j0i22i10i30j0i7i30.CgqKWgPQwbs&ved=0ahUKEwiy2MHS8NLkAhUEEqwKHc6QCm8Q4dUDCAg&uact=5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
No it surprised to see the old gde crew commenting first. And the responses were about as good as I expected.

These comparisons are as close to real world as your going to get and all of them were pretty much identical. They will provide anyone with more information than what is needed to help make a decision. I don't think any amount of distance is going to matter, and it obviously wouldn't appease any of you. But 64 miles is plenty to show the difference for the purpose of comparisons. I was about to take a 300 mile trip for each, but again too many variables there too.

At least someone can see how they perform and make a more educated decision. If gde had been on top by a few mpg, I doubt any of you would have commented.

I just love that nothing will ever satisfy. Other than maybe if I went into a wind tunnel and performed some tests, but then I'm sure y'all would come back and say it wasn't real world and brush it off. 🙂 But people who watch my videos and are truly curious how they compare (unlike you guys), will gain some knowledge from it. I'm not trying to start another pissing war, but saying there are too many variables to discredit everything is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Go ahead, tear the comparisons apart now. I'll wait.
Go ahead and complete the same loop 24.5 times with each tune and report back.<img src="http://www.ram1500diesel.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.png" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />

Wouldn't make a difference. There are people now with 40k and 50k miles on the sft tune, but those who don't like sft simply brush them off as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
No it surprised to see the old gde crew commenting first. And the responses were about as good as I expected.

These comparisons are as close to real world as your going to get and all of them were pretty much identical. They will provide anyone with more information than what is needed to help make a decision. I don't think any amount of distance is going to matter, and it obviously wouldn't appease any of you. But 64 miles is plenty to show the difference for the purpose of comparisons. I was about to take a 300 mile trip for each, but again too many variables there too.

At least someone can see how they perform and make a more educated decision. If gde had been on top by a few mpg, I doubt any of you would have commented.

I just love that nothing will ever satisfy. Other than maybe if I went into a wind tunnel and performed some tests, but then I'm sure y'all would come back and say it wasn't real world and brush it off. 🙂 But people who watch my videos and are truly curious how they compare (unlike you guys), will gain some knowledge from it. I'm not trying to start another pissing war, but saying there are too many variables to discredit everything is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Go ahead, tear the comparisons apart now. I'll wait.
Go ahead and complete the same loop 24.5 times with each tune and report back.<img src="http://www.ram1500diesel.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.png" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />

Wouldn't make a difference. There are people now with 40k and 50k miles on the sft tune, but those who don't like sft simply brush them off as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
John, the 64 miles loop was mapped out suing gps. I can post the GPS coordinates for you if you would like. I did this because of your previous comments. 250 miles wouldn't have made a difference. Also, it would be easy to simply post numbers up here. Videos show that I actually did the work. I know you aren't a fan of the videos, but most people appreciate them when they are researching.

Also let me do this for you, https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&sxsrf=ACYBGNTjMmKUKU1C2mcehXdkhHGVxGNC8g:1568552294362&source=hp&ei=ZjV-XbKNE4SksAXOoar4Bg&q=what+is+hypermiling&oq=what+is+hypermiling&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l3j0i30l3.2009.9890..10198...0.0..0.279.3245.1j19j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..35i362i39j35i39j0i131j35i305i39j0i10j0i13j0i13i30j0i22i30j0i13i10j0i22i10i30j0i7i30.CgqKWgPQwbs&ved=0ahUKEwiy2MHS8NLkAhUEEqwKHc6QCm8Q4dUDCAg&uact=5.
Thank you for the reply.

Video .... I don't have any doubts that you did what you said .... never was in question as far as I am concerned.

Hypermiling ... from my quick read through ... is a blend of commons sense things like vehicle maintenance and driving technique. We have some people up here who typically drive small cars, slow down on uphills, speed up on downhills, tailgate (especially when behind trucks or bigger vehicles) and generally cause unsafe driving conditions. I wonder if they're trying to hypermile. I generally slow down enough to make them pass, then I put my cruise back on.

GPS .... the track file is what I'd like to see. The coordinates are just points on a map. It's all the other stuff that's interesting.

cheers, thank you again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,451 Posts
I understand you are not using the odometer since you are running the same loop. Please comment on how you corrected for the tire size change and resultant speed change. The 35 to 37 inch tire change makes about a 3.7 mph difference in actual vs indicated speed. Did you compensate for this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I understand you are not using the odometer since you are running the same loop. Please comment on how you corrected for the tire size change and resultant speed change. The 35 to 37 inch tire change makes about a 3.7 mph difference in actual vs indicated speed. Did you compensate for this?
Yes, tire size was updated using the AlphaOBD app. Speedometer is accurate for all of the runs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
One of the biggest reasons I wouldn’t use sfkt is it adds to your flash count. That could be an expensive problem if warranty is an issue to anyone.
I also noticed you didn’t use both Tran tunes for your comparison. You can’t really use a 24 mile loop test when you are using a gas pump to determine how much fuel is used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
One of the biggest reasons I wouldn’t use sfkt is it adds to your flash count. That could be an expensive problem if warranty is an issue to anyone.
I also noticed you didn’t use both Tran tunes for your comparison. You can’t really use a 24 mile loop test when you are using a gas pump to determine how much fuel is used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I have multiple ECUs, so for me this is a non issue. However, I know SFT recently posted that they can prove it doesn't effect flash count. I haven't seen the proof yet myself. Others have posted that they have had warranty work done without issues with the SFT tune. Any tune, including GDE, can cause items to not be covered under warranty. I personally asked my service writer in my local dealer if they even looked at the flash count and he said in 10 years, he hasn't ever checked it and wouldn't have any way of telling if it was changed because its not something they keep track of. He mentioned that even me updating my tire size and accessing the truck with the AlphaOBD app could potentially show a flash count.

I worked at this dealer and have known him for several years. I have 0 concerns asking him anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
Glenn (Gputah),


Thanks for your efforts and reports. I have used GDE and and now SFT and experienced basically the same results as your controlled tests, including the levels of customer service.
It's interesting the critics are down to "picking the fly specs out of the coffee" and Sisyphean comments. That's a great improvement!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
Sisyphean comments.
Not really. I think all we are saying is that the mileage used in the tests is simply not of enough a distance to gain real world results. Sixty-four miles is about 100km. Once a week I do a round trip of about 150km +- and I can barely see the fuel gauge needle move. Combining that short distance with relatively uncontrolled refuels is enough to throw off your mileage results by mis-guessing on the refill, even by a little bit.

What I find interesting is that we have shown an interest in the test, but none of our suggestions have been taken up and they aren't many .... longer trip, gps track, scrap the videos .... not really anything else?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
The videos are essential to proving the method. I have followed all of your previous requests. This is a GPS measured distance, using the same pump at the same station and hand calculating the results, just as you previously requested. I didn't mention this prior in text because it's in one of the videos, but I made the runs multiple times to make sure I removed inconsistency. The results are a reflection of the average of several trips, all of which I recorded.

I assume you are older and don't go to YouTube for information like my generation does. To me, anything posted without video would be suspect. I gave you all the information requested previously and also did a video so people can see the methods used. You don't have to go look at the video because I typed the info for you.
 
1 - 20 of 128 Posts
Top