I was curious if there are any reliable performance chips for the 5.7. I'm not concerned about the power up grade, because it has plenty of power, I was looking to squeeze a few more mpgs. If I could get around 20 mpg at 75 to 78 mph this would be even more the ultimate SUV. Thanks in advance
5.7 performance chip
- Thread starter Marshpete
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
20 mpg at 75 mph....that's funny. It might be possible but you'll have to do the following:
New tires- oversized to about 32"-33", an eco compound, highway/all-season tread design. Yes, this exact tire exists, the Michelin MS2. I have a 32" on my Rover part time and it actually bumped the mpg up by 10%.
Height, unfortunately you can't lower, but that would help.
Drive very gently and coast all big down grades in Neutral whenever you need brakes to keep from increasing speed.
Seriously, the above tire would actually show you results you'd like. However, if you spend $1500 on tires... I hope the quest for 20 mpg is not simply for $ but some other desire like fuel tank range or just good feelings
Oh, and non-ethanol fuel will provide about 5-10% better mpg too.
New tires- oversized to about 32"-33", an eco compound, highway/all-season tread design. Yes, this exact tire exists, the Michelin MS2. I have a 32" on my Rover part time and it actually bumped the mpg up by 10%.
Height, unfortunately you can't lower, but that would help.
Drive very gently and coast all big down grades in Neutral whenever you need brakes to keep from increasing speed.
Seriously, the above tire would actually show you results you'd like. However, if you spend $1500 on tires... I hope the quest for 20 mpg is not simply for $ but some other desire like fuel tank range or just good feelings
Oh, and non-ethanol fuel will provide about 5-10% better mpg too.
Last edited:
I call BS on the non-Ethanol fuel. I tried this with about 8 tank fill ups and did not see any difference in overall fuel economy. Wasn't easy either as the closest gas station with "pure" fuel was 10 miles away.
This doesn't fit here but Has anyone tried the Michelin MS2 in green X compound?
They make a 285-70-17 I might be interested in for the summer when traveling long distances instead of running the KO2s all the time.
They make a 285-70-17 I might be interested in for the summer when traveling long distances instead of running the KO2s all the time.
Last edited:
You can call what ever you like, but you don't have to believe it for it to be true. It just is. This was not just some goofy experiment I came up with on a whim. This is basic science well proven.
There is more energy in pure gas per volume for standard gas engines. You cannot simply use 87 octane though. All my uses have been 92 to 92.
It works in all vehicles I've tested for truly. 10%. The twin turbo bmw wagon, the land rover v8's, and the Audi v8.
I thought I
I'm using the 275/65x18 and it's really a very good tire. Perfectly suitable for gravel and basic forest roads but also some of the more rugged without too much deep mud.
just said that above.... They don't make the ms2 in non-greenX.
I'm using the 275/65x18 and it's really a very good tire. Perfectly suitable for gravel and basic forest roads but also some of the more rugged without too much deep mud.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't ever consider P metric tires so I had only looked at LT tires which are all Green X in the MS2 from what I found while looking.
It's not about belief. As I mentioned, I did try it. I should clarify though: Yes, there is more energy stored in gasoline but the Ethanol only represents 10% of the total you are pumping. As pure ethanol has about 66% of the energy content as gasoline per gallon, that means 1 gallon of E10 (90% gasoline / 10% Ethanol) has about 96.6% of the energy as a gallon of 100% gasoline. So you are getting about 3.4% less energy per gallon of E10 than pure gasoline.
While this definitely represents a loss of energy, I found that in real world driving (city, highway, parking, standing, etc) this 3.4% essentially becomes margin of error. Sorry dude.
(I don't mean to come across too a******-ish...)
I'm not sure why you're saying "sorry dude". This is a real world fact. You not having the same results is more of an anomaly, not proof against the data. So, "sorry dude" actually goes to you.
Many, many people confirm the above rough change of about 10% increase in fuel economy driving most vehicles. This may be more apparent in direct 92 vs 92 octane, and starting with truly empty tank, I have no idea.
Stating what you think are % of energy and resulting % in a gallon equaling 3.4% is really not exactly the same as an engineer finding an engine to be more efficient with a given fuel. I don't think it's a linear equation simply using % difference in the fuel. For all I know the effect is greater at certain altitudes or in certain engines. But across 4 engines, I've found roughly the same results.
BMW inline 6 twin turbo
Audi 4.2 V8
Land Rover, Buick sourced engine I think, in 2004 Discovery with Bosch management
Jaguar v8 in my LR3
The most obvious gains have been in the turbo bmw engine. Possibly the forced induction makes even better use of the fuel. The best comparisons I found in the LR3 is on a 100 mile out and back that for a few years I was driving a few times a week, same lane, same pavement, same hills, same speeds, etc. It was +1.5-1.8 ish mpg. Which pushed it into the 20-21 mpg range.
Your sig shows driving an lx and/or tundra. Which one did you try it in? Does your LX also say "premium only" in the fuel door or in manual? I still don't understand why the LX specs premium and LC says regular is fine. Is reg fine in LX too or would LC get better performance out of premium, while "fine" with regular 87 ?
Last edited:
I tested the non-Ethanol fuel in my 2003 Land Cruiser (recently sold) which calls for premium fuel. The effective difference was not noticeable.
I did find a noticeable difference between 87 vs 93 octane fuel but no difference with / without Ethanol.
I have tried it on the LX or the Tundra yet but you seem to be convinced so I will try it again.
BTW: the LX calls for premium fuel while the Tundra is good with 87. Same engine, tranny and HP ratings.
I did find a noticeable difference between 87 vs 93 octane fuel but no difference with / without Ethanol.
I have tried it on the LX or the Tundra yet but you seem to be convinced so I will try it again.
BTW: the LX calls for premium fuel while the Tundra is good with 87. Same engine, tranny and HP ratings.
They both don't have the same output ratings with different fuel octane. 383/403 LX570 on 91 octane. Tundra 381/401 on 87 octane. This is per Lexus/Toyota
Last edited:
Well, I need no more proof as I've had multiple examples in my own vehicles as well as the general consensus. However, in a desire to help others, I do think that the exact same route in similar conditions, same lanes, etc, must be used to really know for sure. I've had a couple years to use the same routes such as a 500 mile round trip to same town with mtns and highways or the often used 90 mile round trip route.
Another possibility is the fuel you thought was E-free, was not. Try the "Pure gas" app or website and see who else has used the station or tested it. The test is simple DIY. The fuel I go for is 92 pure gas and my lr3 has a jag v8.
