Do you know what company actually makes those injectors?

 

Bookmarked, thanks for the tip

These are probably the same product, but for double the price

https://www.ebay.com/itm/223289593342

 

15% pulley swap done, it is now back to the way I bought it (no stock pulley)... mpg's on this tank definitely look better than the last, there is part of a can of sea foam in there to do some cleaning, I doubt there has been enough miles for it to be effective yet.

test drive time...

edit... believer...Thanks adriancl...

 

Update... so I suspected the FPR vacuum line might have had an issue, pulled it, found nothing wrong and slapped in a new line with a T to allow a sea foam cleaning. Took it for a spin and to my surprise, it pulls harder once in closed loop mode. Was hard on it for a bit and mpg's continued to climb. I dont see anything wrong with the line I pulled... will need to put a vacuum on it and see if its got a leak somewhere.

So new question... with it running the way it was do I need to reset the ECU? Or can I continue to beat on it and let it learn the new habit?

 

What MPG are you getting with the 15%? I live in NYC and before modding mine (DDM intake and 15%) I would get 20/21 mpg. Now I get a measly 15-16.

 

Not driving it enough to get any consistent data to help with. But, after the last FPR vacuum line change, there was a noticeable change in the SOTP performance. What that equals in mpg I have yet to come to a conclusion on. All I can say was the LOM (aka Lie-O-Meter in the Dodge Diesel Ram world), started steadily climbing after that vacuum line swap. been too busy to find the vacuum pump I have to test that line out. I will do it at some point tho

 

I can get around 30mpg on the highway and mid 20's around town with my 03' R53 JCW with a 17% pulley....it's also got the larger injectors, full JCW exhaust, JCW head, etc,etc....

My 07' twin turbo 500hp 335i makes high 20's on the highway and 18-20 around town.

If you are getting 15-16 mpg with your R53.....you either have a tune that is way off and running super rich, a motor that needs some TLC, or your display is off and you are actually getting much more than that.

Have you tried doing the math your self based off of how many gallons it takes at each fill up and the amount of miles you put on the car?

 

Next time I fill up, I'll do the math myself. I was under the impression a 15% pulley doesn't require a tune. On the highway the mpg improves greatly, I would usually get at least 30. Maybe it's just the city stop and go traffic.

 

an update... had some quality seat time running errands today, mostly hiway miles in absolutely crappy weather... was in no way kind to it in any way. mpg LOM jumped from 21.7 up to 23.5. runs way better than it did prior to that fpr line swap.

 

Filled up today, estimating a 60/40 city/hiway split, 23.546 mpg hand calculated. Drove it in to work this AM, was not kind to it one bit. I plan to try to behave for the next tank....

this is with the 15% pulley

 

I'll add my two cents to the discussion.

Even with all my mods (see my signature below) I get ~28 mpg. I went on a long highway trip yesterday (180+ miles) & hand calculated it; 27.9 mpg with the cruise control set at 72 mph.

 

Look at SFT in cruise regim, will find the answer for bad mpg.

 

As long as you have a good tune that's running around 14.7-15.0 AFR at cruising speed on the highway.....these little 1.6L motors should easily be making 27+mpg on the highway easy.

 

More info please!

 

Would you please spell out for the uninitiated what exactly you want to see for a range of values in the Short Fuel Trim (SFT) to optimize fuel economy.

 

RE: mpg's on mine... need to remind those who missed it I'm running a heavier weight oil with 10w-30... mpg's will drop.

 

I was waiting for Adrian to jump in here & answer this, but the last time I talked to him, I believe we concluded the optimum Short Fuel Trim (SFT) is to stay within 10% of either side of stoichiometric; i.e. the needle on the SFT gauge shouldn't swing any farther than +/- 10% of 0.

 

Shouldn't that also be the same for the LTFT?

 

I would presume LFT would be even less.