PDA

View Full Version : Super Chip in truck...


Up North
10-11-2004, 12:45 PM
Anyone put a Superchip or something similar in their truck for better performance & mileage? I have a 2000 1/2 ton Silverado I'm considering maybe trying one. A buddy of mine put one in his Ford 3/4 ton V10 and really didn't notice much of a difference. My purpose is going to be mainly to help with mileage while snowplowing. Any thoughts?

BUck

HOMER
10-17-2004, 08:57 AM
I've heard it go both ways so the choice is up to you. Buy one with a guarantee, maybe you could get your money back if it doesn't work.

wriken
10-17-2004, 09:20 AM
I had a Superchip in a 1999 f-150, 4.6. Only differance I noticed was my wallet was thinner, because of prem fuel. I guess you can get a flip chip, (to be in chip mode or not) so you don't have to burn prem, but what the use, if you don't notice an improvement, I thinks its a waste of money. Get the biggest V8, V10, or better yet a Powerstroker. :)

Gilla Gorilla
10-17-2004, 09:38 AM
For the gas engines with a chip or tuner you will not really notice a difference in the increased fuel economy and or power. Like Wriken stated the only thing you will notice is at the pump when you are pumping in high test and looking at the cheaper 87 octane that cost about 15 to 20 cents cheaper.
Now if you had a diesel then I would say go for it. The chips or tuners on diesel engines will give you the biggest bang for the buck. I am running a Diablo Sport Predator tuner on my 02 F350 CC Dually and I love it, the best $350.00 buck that I have spent on this truck. I usaully run it in the 60 horse mode. And Yes that is a actual 60 rear wheel horse power increase and man can you feel it.

As you can tell I am kindof partial to diesels now.

Up North
10-17-2004, 10:30 AM
Kind of what I figured. My money would be best spent somewhere else. Thanks for the feedback guys.

Buck

wriken
10-17-2004, 06:18 PM
For the gas engines with a chip or tuner you will not really notice a difference in the increased fuel economy and or power. Like Wriken stated the only thing you will notice is at the pump when you are pumping in high test and looking at the cheaper 87 octane that cost about 15 to 20 cents cheaper.
Now if you had a diesel then I would say go for it. The chips or tuners on diesel engines will give you the biggest bang for the buck. I am running a Diablo Sport Predator tuner on my 02 F350 CC Dually and I love it, the best $350.00 buck that I have spent on this truck. I usaully run it in the 60 horse mode. And Yes that is a actual 60 rear wheel horse power increase and man can you feel it.

As you can tell I am kindof partial to diesels now.
I agree, I have a progam,(can't think of the name of it, by not going out in the shop) But its like nite and day for my diesel. Really did'nt need the extra power, but got it super cheap on ebay. :)

UNISCAPER
10-17-2004, 07:51 PM
Electronics wizzards just don't seem to get it...If you want to really go, there is NO substitute for cubic inches. You might get a little boost from a chip. In order to maximize any one single thing, all the other goodies need to be in sync. Ports matched and polished, larger exhaust, relived backflow in the mufflers...I prefer open headers myself, and if you really want it all to work, the cam, injectors, and intake manifold need to be flow matched so one does not cross out the next.

blafleur
10-18-2004, 07:12 AM
Electronics wizzards just don't seem to get it...If you want to really go, there is NO substitute for cubic inches. .

That might be the case with gas engines, but not diesels. I guess mainly because the diesel engines in pickup trucks are toned down so much at the factory that you can work wonders without ever touching the engine. Modify the air intake, exhaust, and fuel systems, and you got a race car. Then the problem is with the rest of the truck handling it.

Bryan

UNISCAPER
10-18-2004, 09:55 AM
Bryan:

That formula holds true to all engines...Bigger is better if you want to go. Case in point. Take a 366 cubic inch powerstroke and but a 150 HP superchip in it. Then take a 444 cubic inch powerstroke and leave it alone. Connect a 10,000 lb trailer to the back and race up a 7° grade. The 366 will surge forward, and about half way into the slope, the 444 will pass the 366. I can tell you this is true because we did this, my 02 F-450 and my buddies chipped out flowmastered 366 cubic inch 04 F-350 pulling the exact same machine and trailer. After that we hooked the trailer to my 04 Duramax Allison and made the same race....We walked all over me, but what would you expect? Stock Duramax vs chipped out powerstroke...Both engines are the same size.

Smaller with more HP might get the job done, but not as easily as bigger. In our Mack Granite, we are running a 375HP 645 cubic inch Maxidyne engine. In the Peterbuilt we have a 425HP, 720 cubic inch Cat. We have not seen a noticable difference when running that same grade with similar loads.

I'm not saying that chips aren't fun, anything that makes more power ARrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr is very cool, but, the theory of smaller with more HP has been shot down for 50 years now and that ain't gunna change. Kind of like putting a 200 blocker in front of a 300 lb linebacker.

blafleur
10-19-2004, 07:55 AM
Sure makes sense to me Uniscaper. Now maybe you can explain to me something I've wondered for a while, why can a 5.9 liter cummins diesel match (and surpass) 7.3 liter powerstroke in hp and torque?

UNISCAPER
10-19-2004, 06:28 PM
Before I dig too deep here, let me say that horsepower/torque ratings are similar to the way the politicians use stats to prove points...The old case of figures lie and liars figure. To my knowledge, there are 3 different ways to rate HP and torque on any engine. The most common are by gross and net hp, and now, since some genious decided we should lower our standards to the metric system or measure, there is metric and standard ratings.

Unless I saw the method that Dodge used, and Chevy, and Ford, I would not make an apples to apples comparison. Classic example was in the 60's when Chrysler had the 426 Hemi. The engine was rated at 425 hp, but in actuality, it produced a whopping 485 hp. The numbers were tweeked so insurance companies would give affordable rates to insure thier cars powered the Hemi.

In the case of the 5.9 Cummins is an undersquare engine, meaning the stroke is longer than the bore. Undersquare engines are notorious for high torque. A 1935 Packard straight eight had a 4.5" stroke with a 3.75" bore, and was capable of pulling away from a curb in third gear at a dead idle for example.

I don't want to sound the skeptic, but, unless I saw each engine as it was rated on the same dyno with the same tech, and the same criteria plugged into the dial, the only way to test weather or not an any engine has more ooomph than the next is with the method I mentioned before, side by side, with the same weight, and same loads, the way drag cars are tested. Size, weight and available power to the ground are what wins the race and proves what has the edge. Truck loads and torques are no different.
Torque and HP rating are not the only thing manufacturers play games with to sell things, hydraulic lifting capacities and tipping weights can be tweeked every way they need to be so the machine sells.

fastlane
10-19-2004, 08:05 PM
I sold and installed chips until 5 years ago. About the only way you could tell any difference was at full throttle. One to three car length in 1/4mile. Could not see any difference with normal driving.