Performance Chip

Veebyes wrote:
Sorry, can't see the point in messing with engines.

Engine manufacturers spend millions on R&D to end up with a good blend of performance, reliablility & durability. Start fooling with this balance & something has to suffer for it.

Modified engines giving high performance are not known for their reliability or durability. A detuned naturally aspirated slow turning low hp diesel chugs along year after year after year.

By all means go for the performance if you think you know better than the designers of your engine but there will be a price to pay.

You forgot to mention emissions....

There is a lot of tuning that goes into emissions, and nearly all (if not all) of that takes away from performance and can also reduce reliability and durability.

If I were to install a Cummins that had 350/800 and ZERO input from the EPA I would never touch it.. and in all likely hood it would get better mileage and last longer than what's put in pickups today.

Just a small example of how emissions robs horsepower, which in tern reduces performance and efficiency. My motor was rated 325/610 from the factory, using 132mm3 per main injection event. I dyno'd 284/518. I'll use only rwhp/tq numbers now. At rated rpm that's 2.15hp/mm3 and at peak torque that's 3.92ft lbs/mm3.

On a tune that is 100% stock fuel (mm3 and rail pressure) I dyno'd 296/609. That's 2.24hp/mm3 at peak hp and 4.61ft lbs/mm3.

Looking at peak torque, as it was ~2200-2400 rpms where most big hill pulling occurs, that is 17.8% more efficient that stock. That's emissions for you.

Just food for thought, as stock isn't always the best but it's stock and generally "safer".

A lot can be done to improve efficiency, performance, and longevity thru modification.