RAM 1500 Diesel Forum banner

81 - 100 of 141 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
725 Posts
GPS files, how they pumped the fuel, or said that the distance wasn't long enough
I am the one who asked for GPS tracks. I am the one who said that the longer the mileage the lower the error rate for refill and I am also the one who said that some of the distances used for mileage testing weren't long enough to give accurate results.

I stand by the last two claims, and I will also say that they have nothing to do with either GDE or SFT. They just make for better results regardless.

I asked for the GPS files so that I could see what sort of driving style the posting member was using, what sort of elevation and speed changes etc, and only because the posting member was happy to supply videos. There's no point in watching a video when you can chart the GPS log and see it all at once in a graph. In my opinion the videos are a waste of time.

Again .... I have no tune. I do not plan to buy a tune until my warranty expires in about three years, so my only goal is to educate myself.

As far as those who post claims of incredibly high mileage rates .... there's lots of BS everywhere on the web. Some of it isn't worth commenting on, but Gputah's claims were so similar to my own untuned mileage, that it raised a curiosity in me as to how similar our driving styles might be. Hence the requests for additional data.

That's all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,243 Posts
You make a good point. In the past when I saw questionable posts about high mileage, etc. claims with a GDE tune I never once saw anyone question those claims. No one ever asked the GDE posters for GPS files, how they pumped the fuel, or said that the distance wasn't long enough, or the tune can't do that, or attack the owner, etc., etc,. The list of confrontations and interrogations regarding SFT posts goes on and on. Now all that crap is mute as those GDE tunes are a thing of the past. Hopefully all the SFT negativism will also be a thing of the past
You're comparing apples to oranges. None of those GDE high mileage posts you reference claimed to be an accurate unbiased test between two or three tunes, as this thread has. Nice attempt at showing bias though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
I am the one who asked for GPS tracks. I am the one who said that the longer the mileage the lower the error rate for refill and I am also the one who said that some of the distances used for mileage testing weren't long enough to give accurate results.

I stand by the last two claims, and I will also say that they have nothing to do with either GDE or SFT. They just make for better results regardless.

I asked for the GPS files so that I could see what sort of driving style the posting member was using, what sort of elevation and speed changes etc, and only because the posting member was happy to supply videos. There's no point in watching a video when you can chart the GPS log and see it all at once in a graph. In my opinion the videos are a waste of time.

Again .... I have no tune. I do not plan to buy a tune until my warranty expires in about three years, so my only goal is to educate myself.

As far as those who post claims of incredibly high mileage rates .... there's lots of BS everywhere on the web. Some of it isn't worth commenting on, but Gputah's claims were so similar to my own untuned mileage, that it raised a curiosity in me as to how similar our driving styles might be. Hence the requests for additional data.

That's all.

John,

I know you asked those things and I understand why. Several others have also asked similar questions.
I'm merely trying to point out that I've never read a post where someone asked those type of things of any questionable GDE claim.
And, i was reinforcing Kabitz's point. No attempt to attack you, sorry if you got it that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
You're comparing apples to oranges. None of those GDE high mileage posts you reference claimed to be an accurate unbiased test between two or three tunes, as this thread has. Nice attempt at showing bias though.
Bounty,
You completely missed my point. As I said to John, I'm merely trying to point out that I've never read a post where someone asked those type of things of any questionable GDE claim. Nothing more than that.
Case in point, you mentioned,"None of those GDE high mileage posts you reference claimed to be an accurate unbiased test between two or three tunes". Exactly my point, they just claimed it without any data and you all accepted it, nobody challenged it.

I don't understand you calling me biased. I just gave my observations which were based on fact that the GDE/SFT playing field is one sided. How in hell does that encompass bias?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,243 Posts
Bounty,
You completely missed my point. As I said to John, I'm merely trying to point out that I've never read a post where someone asked those type of things of any questionable GDE claim. Nothing more than that.
Case in point, you mentioned,"None of those GDE high mileage posts you reference claimed to be an accurate unbiased test between two or three tunes". Exactly my point, they just claimed it without any data and you all accepted it, nobody challenged it.
I didn't miss your point. Are you implying that everybody's GDE mileage claim was accepted solely because they weren't challenged? I for one rarely buy any high mileage claims, regardless of tune. Always skeptical. I claim your biased on statements like "You all accepted it", like there's a definite line drawn somewhere lol.

I don't understand you calling me biased. I just gave my observations which were based on fact that the GDE/SFT playing field is one sided. How in hell does that encompass bias?
You and I apparently have differing definitions of what is opinion and what is fact. You saying the playing field is one sided is your opinion, not fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
I didn't miss your point. Are you implying that everybody's GDE mileage claim was accepted solely because they weren't challenged? I for one rarely buy any high mileage claims, regardless of tune. Always skeptical. I claim your biased on statements like "You all accepted it", like there's a definite line drawn somewhere lol.



You and I apparently have differing definitions of what is opinion and what is fact. You saying the playing field is one sided is your opinion, not fact.
Bounty, the most accurate thing you've said is we have different opinions. I'll respect yours.
I'm going to leave it at that as this isn't worth further discussion.
Cheers!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,572 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.
LMAO , wind,temp,humility etc. Did you test your GDE under all these different conditions to come to your bias towards GDE tune ?
yes or no question here,
Jeez. You completely missed the point. Environmental conditions affect the comparisons. You might want to re-read the OP's #1 post "Stock VS SFT VS GDE - MPG Comparisons"

Did I in this thread or have I ever said GDE gets better MPG's than SFT? I have stated in the past that I prefer GDE and I still do. That's an opinion I'm allowed to share.

Did I ever say I tested my GDE tune?

How you can read that into my most basic of a post is made is beyond me.

Talk about a thoughtless post... You can't make this stuff up.

If you would read before you post, you would have read my post in this thread:

"We are a community of Ecodiesel owners and I'm sure most all of us appreciate your input. The biggest concern here was insufficient data for an accurate comparison. This is what most are disputing rather than the tune itself. Although many will always prefer one over the other, most here accept other opinions. I'm happy to hear you're not taking these comments as personal attacks on you and/or SFT. I agree both tunes work and as long is the user feels they made the best choice that's all that matters."

BTW John J., Are you not paying attention either?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Mpg

I was starting to wonder why I could not get great MPG even after a engine and tranny tune. I tho maybe the guys getting 30+mpg must have 2wd models lol. I average around 23-24 mpg here in the blue ridge mtns of VA even after a tune. However, I just took a trip down south to the flat grounds of eastern VA and down the outer banks of NC. While driving for 3 days I got 28+mpg average for the first time ever. I didn't get 30 mpg but that may be related to having 3:92 gears instead of higher 3:21 gears. Am I right to assume that the higher gears get 1-2 mpg more? Was happy to see what the truck was capable of but now assume these guys claiming 30+ mpg live in flat country. Makes me want to move to flatter ground, lol!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
BTW John J., Are you not paying attention either?
I am and have been paying very close attention, I got and understand your point.
Question is, did you get my point, seems not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Jeez. You completely missed the point. Environmental conditions affect the comparisons. You might want to re-read the OP's #1 post "Stock VS SFT VS GDE - MPG Comparisons"

Did I in this thread or have I ever said GDE gets better MPG's than SFT? I have stated in the past that I prefer GDE and I still do. That's an opinion I'm allowed to share.

Did I ever say I tested my GDE tune?

How you can read that into my most basic of a post is made is beyond me.

Talk about a thoughtless post... You can't make this stuff up.

If you would read before you post, you would have read my post in this thread:

"We are a community of Ecodiesel owners and I'm sure most all of us appreciate your input. The biggest concern here was insufficient data for an accurate comparison. This is what most are disputing rather than the tune itself. Although many will always prefer one over the other, most here accept other opinions. I'm happy to hear you're not taking these comments as personal attacks on you and/or SFT. I agree both tunes work and as long is the user feels they made the best choice that's all that matters."

BTW John J., Are you not paying attention either?
so your answer is no. thank you
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,572 Posts
so your answer is no. thank you
Well Kabby, The irony here is you are the one who stated "On my 30 mile test drive my MPG was actually worse than the mpg's I was getting with the AEM update."

I have nothing against the sofa tune. The truth of the matter is it's the owner who had caused this forum and me a ton of grief with false the pretense of becoming a sponsor as he continued to advertise and I firmly believed his intentions were sincere.. I was the fool who originally believed in him and gave him and his tune the benefit of the doubt.

I have been here since the beginning and than along comes a newbie who feels the need to be a wiseguy. Shame on you. Why don't you consider sticking around for a while and take the opportunity to learn from the members of this fine community.

Reputation or lack of goes a long way on a public forum. Jimmy made a choice and so can you.

Thank You
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
So I haven't had the time to read every comment here, but the OPs original post shows that the two tunes are within (less than) 2 tenths of a MPG. BFD!
So it comes down to which company you are more comfortable spending your money with. Before reading this post I bought the GDE engine and trans. tunes. I've installed the engine tune but need a PC to do the trans tune (will buy a cheap used one or rent one from RAC -I'm a Mac guy.)
Now that I've got my tune installed I am thinking that we all need to join together along with SEMA folk and start a class-action suit against the EPA for enacting new regulations banning tunes altogether. Who's with me?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Had there been another choice when I was looking for a tune I might have went with a different vendor.
Our ED has never came close to getting 30 mpg, but the tune was purchased to disable the EGR and extend engine service life (hopefully).
We average 23-24mpg around town and only 26-ish highway, but our speed limits here in TX are mostly 75 interstate, 80 on the toll roads.
The best we ever did (MPG-wise) was 28, but that was coasting along at 55 on back roads.
I'm not complaining, I love our ED for the room, creature comforts, and decent mileage.
Once the warranty is up maybe I'll ditch the DPF and pickup another 1-2 mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,158 Posts
So I haven't had the time to read every comment here, but the OPs original post shows that the two tunes are within (less than) 2 tenths of a MPG. BFD!
So it comes down to which company you are more comfortable spending your money with. Before reading this post I bought the GDE engine and trans. tunes. I've installed the engine tune but need a PC to do the trans tune (will buy a cheap used one or rent one from RAC -I'm a Mac guy.)
Now that I've got my tune installed I am thinking that we all need to join together along with SEMA folk and start a class-action suit against the EPA for enacting new regulations banning tunes altogether. Who's with me?
You wont get anywhere arguing with the EPA over this. All these tunes have been illegal for on road use for as long as they have been around. Seems the EPA just cares a little more now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
889 Posts
I was starting to wonder why I could not get great MPG even after a engine and tranny tune. I tho maybe the guys getting 30+mpg must have 2wd models lol. I average around 23-24 mpg here in the blue ridge mtns of VA even after a tune. However, I just took a trip down south to the flat grounds of eastern VA and down the outer banks of NC. While driving for 3 days I got 28+mpg average for the first time ever. I didn't get 30 mpg but that may be related to having 3:92 gears instead of higher 3:21 gears. Am I right to assume that the higher gears get 1-2 mpg more? Was happy to see what the truck was capable of but now assume these guys claiming 30+ mpg live in flat country. Makes me want to move to flatter ground, lol!
Approaching 30k miles and lifetime average is just over 22. Best tank to date has been when I slowed down on state roads across the flattest part of Ohio. At 60-65, that netted me 27 mpg for the tank. From my experience, it's flat roads combined with slower speeds. Maybe even a little tailwind since I was heading east.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
John,
You bet Cheers - you are a class act
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
So I haven't had the time to read every comment here, but the OPs original post shows that the two tunes are within (less than) 2 tenths of a MPG. BFD!
So it comes down to which company you are more comfortable spending your money with. Before reading this post I bought the GDE engine and trans. tunes. I've installed the engine tune but need a PC to do the trans tune (will buy a cheap used one or rent one from RAC -I'm a Mac guy.)
Now that I've got my tune installed I am thinking that we all need to join together along with SEMA folk and start a class-action suit against the EPA for enacting new regulations banning tunes altogether. Who's with me?
So you want to initiate a class action against the EPA for enforcing the law? Good luck.

The simple truth is that everyone who has a tune is complicit in the wink-wink-nod-nod-it's-only-for-off-road fiction. Use of tunes is clearly in violation of federal statutes. What will be the legal theory you argue in your litigation? That you should be able to violate the law?

While it is highly unlikely that any individual consumer will suffer legal consequences, it is apparent that the companies providing the tunes are at risk. Everyone will have to make their own decisions moving forward. This may be a temporary spasm of regulatory resolve or it may be longer term. Personally, I hope the EPA (and all other regulatory agencies and law enforcement agencies) continue to enforce the laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Not at all, I just feel (like many here) that the AEM ruined my truck. I doubt I would have bought a tune if it hadn't. I'm not sure if the EPA had its fingers in the design of the AEM but I'm pretty sure they had to sign off on it and from my personal experience the AEM not only effected the driveability but the MPG also suffered (2-3 MPG in my experience.)
So, perhaps we should take another class-action against FCA and let them battle it out with the EPA.
 
81 - 100 of 141 Posts
Top