Cobbs AP economy map?????

[xsnapshot]

So using AccessTuner i opened up two maps.
1. 91 octane stage 2
2. Economy mode for 91 octane stock injectors

I looked at Fuel tables and Primary Ignition tables and im not impressed. This map does not seem to really offer any gains.

Between loads of .58 and 1.44 (which you would usually be in daily driving and not pushing hard aka trying to get good MPG) fuel tables are the same (until 5kRPM+). Depending on where your at in the load columns, ignition advance is between ~4 degrees advanced in a very few spots, the same in most, and less in others.

I tested these two maps out on an hour long fairly flat highway trip on Thursday night. With cobbs economy map i saw ZERO difference in MPG. I was cruising at 75mph @ ~2800 RPM. Ambient temps 50 degrees F.


My question is where is their claimed gain in efficiency coming from?

EDIT: i used 92 octane gas (no ethanol) just to make sure both maps were easily able to run to their full potential.

[Spincycle]

I never had much luck with the economy mode either, when it comes down to it, the way you drive has way more impact then the map you are using, unless it is a crazy rich fuel mixture. I do think that with the maps from cobb my mileage did increase over the stock ECU settings, no matter what map being used.

[Donkey]

Originally Posted by xsnapshot

So using AccessTuner i opened up two maps.
1. 91 octane stage 2
2. Economy mode for 91 octane stock injectors

I looked at Fuel tables and Primary Ignition tables and im not impressed. This map does not seem to really offer any gains.

Did you try looking at the max boost targets? Boost = fuel.You want to save gas,you turn down the boost.

[xsnapshot]

ya. I tried to always stay in vaccum on both maps when accelerating. Which seemed to be pretty easy to do. I dont think i ever got above 0 psi save once or twice just barely.

Boost targets and wastegate tables are all zero'd out. But i still can build about 7 psi by like 3,000 RPM if i put the accelerator down a little harder.

Im going to try and make my own economy map that leans out the mixture a little. It just seems to rich! Timing is probably advanced far enough. I was running 35 degrees of ignition advance just cruising down the road the other night.....

[Donkey]

Originally Posted by xsnapshot

ya. I tried to always stay in vaccum on both maps when accelerating. Which seemed to be pretty easy to do. I dont think i ever got above 0 psi save once or twice just barely.

Boost targets and wastegate tables are all zero'd out. But i still can build about 7 psi by like 3,000 RPM if i put the accelerator down a little harder.

Im going to try and make my own economy map that leans out the mixture a little. It just seems to rich! Timing is probably advanced far enough. I was running 35 degrees of ignition advance just cruising down the road the other night.....

Basiclly what I was saying is Cobb's economy maps just turn down the boost.You can't really run anything lower than wastegate pressure.Leaning out the econmy map would be a good idea but map changing is basiclly worthless.My aggressivly tuned "stage 2 " map I did myself gets around 26-28 mpg's.This is with a max boost of 20psi in the midrange.It's all in how you drive it.Only time map switching comes in handy is when you have a race gas map or something.I just run one map.

[teflon_jones]

Originally Posted by Spincycle

I never had much luck with the economy mode either, when it comes down to it, the way you drive has way more impact then the map you are using

I agree 100%. My MPGs are the same on stage 2 as they were on stage 1 as they were stock. The best way to get good gas mileage is to use cruise control. I drive pretty aggressively and I get 22-23 mpg in a 50/50 mix of city and highway driving.

The hassle of switching maps, plus the loss of power and the fact that you can't floor it, makes me have little motivation to use the economy map.

[2:43AM]

This Thanksgiving I am going to drive 12 hours to NJ from IN. I plan on using the econo map. From what I hear, it doesn't work...but I want to see for myself. I will post my findings after the trip.

[vttk_mig69]

please do i was planning to go stage 2 eventually and get the newest version of the cobb access port to switch between maps, (bc GF's parents live in Ohio and we live in Wisconsin) i just wanted to get better mg's over the long haul more or less.
(and i use the cruise controll everyday on my way to work.)

[2:43AM]

Originally Posted by 2:43AM

This Thanksgiving I am going to drive 12 hours to NJ from IN. I plan on using the econo map. From what I hear, it doesn't work...but I want to see for myself. I will post my findings after the trip.

Well, I've decided against using the Cobb Econo map for my travel. There are too many threads out there that basically say "don't do it!" The risk of detonation under boost in cold weather seems to be there. No thanks. There just isn't enough evidence out there that proves that the Cobb Econo map is safe, and my WRX isn't worth the risk.

Personally, I don't think it'll work any better than laying off boost anyway. A couple of days ago, I drove up to the suburbs of Chicago on Stage 1-91. All highway. I got about 60 or miles before the gas gauge even budged from full. Of course, the gauge is severely non-linear up at the top, but it still seemed good.

I will at least post my mileage for the trip when I return.

[2:43AM]

Originally Posted by 2:43AM

Personally, I don't think it'll work any better than laying off boost anyway. A couple of days ago, I drove up to the suburbs of Chicago on Stage 1-91. All highway. I got about 60 or miles before the gas gauge even budged from full. Of course, the gauge is severely non-linear up at the top, but it still seemed good.

OK, well I decided to go against my own logic and actually use the Cobb Econo map to test for gas mileage improvement (if any) on my long, arduous trip from Indiana to New Jersey. I filled up three times on the way there. Tank #1 used Cobb Econo and the second tank #2 used Cobb Stage 1-91. Tank #3 continued on Stage 1-91, but is still partially full.

Both tanks #1 and #2 both experienced 75-80mph speeds. Tank #1 contained flat terrain while Tank #2 contained mountainous terrain with many hills and valleys.

OK, the results are as follows:

Tank #1 (Cobb Econo) - 340mi - 26.3mpg
Tank #2 (Stage 1-91) - 342mi - 26.6mpg

Results? I think it's pretty self-explanitory. Cobb Econo map simply does not work, at all. In fact, given the terrain in which Stage 1-91 experienced, it is worse.

[all-motor_turbo]

Originally Posted by 2:43AM

OK, the results are as follows:

Tank #1 (Cobb Econo) - 340mi - 26.3mpg
Tank #2 (Stage 1-91) - 342mi - 26.6mpg

Results? I think it's pretty self-explanitory. Cobb Econo map simply does not work, at all. In fact, given the terrain in which Stage 1-91 experienced, it is worse.

of course it doesnt work. i dont know if you guys know but mpg is all dependent on vaccum manifold pressure and throttle position. if you go to cobb's site they tell you exactly what the map does and what updates they have done. which is pretty much nothing. the only way you can get great gas mileage is running much leaner while in cruise and drive at a consistent speed for the longest period time possible.

[2:43AM]

^2 posts total, and that's what you say? Come on.

According to Cobb's website, Econo map is "Low boost and increased ignition timing for optimal fuel savings." Keywords are optimal fuel savings. I didn't write it, Cobb did.

So my thread and experiment was to test if Cobb's map (which I'm sure took some time and experimentation) actually worked. Most people just say, "Duh, it doesn't work," but they cannot prove why or can back it up with any evidence. They're either too lazy, IMO, or they just repeat what others say in the forums.

So my thread (or my followup post) says, under my experiment which may differ from user to user, the Cobb Econo map does not yield "optimal fuel savings."

[all-motor_turbo]

Originally Posted by 2:43AM

^2 posts total, and that's what you say? Come on.

According to Cobb's website, Econo map is "Low boost and increased ignition timing for optimal fuel savings." Keywords are optimal fuel savings. I didn't write it, Cobb did.

So my thread and experiment was to test if Cobb's map (which I'm sure took some time and experimentation) actually worked. Most people just say, "Duh, it doesn't work," but they cannot prove why or can back it up with any evidence. They're either too lazy, IMO, or they just repeat what others say in the forums.

So my thread (or my followup post) says, under my experiment which may differ from user to user, the Cobb Econo map does not yield "optimal fuel savings."

are you serious? yea i have two posts and its because i bought an STI dumb**** and i decided to join the forum for insight. ****! but its ok it sounds exactly like you know what your talking about from your posts. oh and you must know more about cars than i do also. LOL you went with this map as an "experiment" because you dont know better...do you know how to tune your car? do you know what it takes to get this "optimal fuel usage" bull**** that they say? You are like everyone else that falls for what certain vendors have to say to put their names on products and sell their item.

but if you need some kind of evidence then here it is. cutting boost does nothing for fuel usage because now all that is happening is less air coming in same amount of fuel as before when there was boost. they advanced the timing because when you actually apply boost you need to retard the timing in order to prevent detonation. if you dont advance the timing when you take it back off then the motor will dog and you will get really ****ty performance and what does that do for cobb's rep? you act like cobb knows everything which i guess is ok for you to assume. you leave it up to others when you cant do stuf like this yourself! but thats ok. i actually have this avp1 or whatever its called because it came with my sti and its crap. i would never spend 500 or whatever on this piece. but you go ahead. since you know more than i do and feel the need to put me down.

oh and by the way for anyone who wonders i am aem ems standalone with a/f and boost control from the unit. thats the RIGHT way to tune your car. any questions can be directed towards me via pm. thanks

[xsnapshot]

Originally Posted by all-motor_turbo

cutting boost does nothing for fuel usage because now all that is happening is less air coming in same amount of fuel as before when there was boost.

First of all we have MAF sensors, so when there is less boost, less air is being drawn through the MAF sensor, resulting in less fuel. its xx.xx parts air to ONE PART fuel. If there is less air, there is less fuel. Which is why we see BOV's causing brief rich conditions. EDIT: forgot to mention that the ECU will also dump in extra fuel under heavier loads, which are not necessarily boost (air) dependent, also under high detonation same thing.

I think you guys need to go download cobb's accesstuner and look for yourself. Read the fuel tables, read the ignition tables, or, go read the opening post. There is basically no difference between the maps except for boost cut.

And mpg is dependant on MORE than just Manifold pressure and throttle position. Its a function of your RPM, your AFR's, ignition timing, load, and speed. Smaller things such as coefficient of drag, tire width, air temperature and pressure also factor in.

Basically under light loads the only way cobb's map can be called "economy" is by running zero target boost. You'll still see WG spring pressure however, you just won't see full boost, thus not needing full boost fueling, and using less fuel.

[2:43AM]

Wow. This forum sure has it's share of a$$holes.

EDIT: I'm not going to waste my time.

...and providing solid MPG numbers was my bread to the table. Excuse me for offending anyone.