new diff but uses more fuel

[sideshow]

just fitted a 3.7 diff
used ot have a 4.1

i just finished a full tank on the new diff

seems that it migth use more fuel when i was hopin to use less

at 120 kph it dropped the revs by 500 rpm

which is good

im wondering that with the 3.7 diff theres more load measured on the airflow

meter at the same amount of revs

ill have to test it on full highway driving see if its better

anyway ill have to connect my scanner onto the ecu and see what its saying

ill have to see if it still gets hot or pings like it used to

what rpm is the engine labouring too much

i always run overdrive on

is it better to only run overdrive after 80 or 100 kph

i think at 60 and with over drive on it runs at about 1800 rpm maybe

thats puts too much load and uses more fuel

ill have ot test fuel economy with over dirve off in city driving

 

[Peewee]

Hmm, odd.

I currently have 4.1 and am planning to switch to 3.7 aswell.

I would have thought that even with a 3.7 it would still be in a good cruising band.

 

[sideshow]

i unplug my ecu regularly so the car doesnt start when i stay at friends place

maybe this has an affect on mixtures too as the ecu has to relearn

but i to was hoping for a 30 km increase in distance travelled on one tank

anyway it does go bit better now so i cant really complain

once i hook scanner back up ill see what it says

 

[Peewee]

Unplug the ecu? to stop it from getting stolen?

Is it quicker with a 3.7?

 

[Zuffen]

Maximum fuel economy usually coincides with maximum torque. Stray too far from there and the engine will start to use more fuel.

Rather than disconnect the ECU it would be easier to install a quality immobiliser or just a simple switch to not power up the ECU from the ignition.

By unplugging the ECU it has to keep relearning it operating parameters.

Keep in mind the wiring of your vehicle would be so "un Hilux" that any theif would have a devil of a time hotwiring it if you had a simple ignition cut out.

My experience in Insurance and car theft tells me physical deterents are the best for joy riders (buy and use a good club type steering wheel lock) and good immobilisers for the professionals. There are only a handfull of quality immobilisers on the market. The rest are built down to a price.

 

[sideshow]

yer im too lazy hehe

most immobilizrers can be bypassed hehe

the only good ones are ones that u have to physically remove a cover or something to get to then

in the end there will always be a way around them

 

[Peewee]

Peak torque is around 4400rpm.
Are you suggesting its most efficient up there?

Also, how good is 'AutoWatch' for alarms and immobs?
As far as reliability goes thus far it has shat all over the LaserLine in my old car.

 

[MaxPower]

What is considered a LTFT (Long Term Fuel Trim) in ECU time is only a few seconds in human time. The ECU re-learns each load point once you begin driving in closed loop, it may only need a few hundred milliseconds at each point to trim the fuel to where it needs to be to get the ideal 14.7:1 AFR. The only downside to disconnecting the ECU on a regular occasion is the wear on the pins and wiring. But i gotta agree with the others, just get a good alarm or hidden kill switch - far easier.

Peewee - Autowatch is, from what i have heard, a very good alarm system. That an Laserline are probably the two better ones out there, but you pay a premium for them. But a crappy install with the best alarm is still an easy ride for the common car thief.

 

[Zuffen]

Maxpower,

You've summed up the alarm market pretty well.

The installed is the most important link in good security.

I only use and recommend Brant but I know another member on this forum who removed his Brant himself in 20 minutes and the car ran fine.

A thief needs to get the car started in less than a couple of minutes as every second he is in the car and not moving exposes him to being caught, so whilst you can remove a system it depends how fast.

 

[SCV8]

Put a switch in the fuel pump circuit, or another circuit that only stays functioning for a few seconds.

 

[sideshow]

i can easily get thru most bypass cuts if i know the car

so alarms mean nothing to me

it needs to be a physical deterent but nothing is fool proof these days

anyway the 3.7 transformed the car

it feels better on full throttle

im gettin gbox tricked up to change gears faster
then ill play with speedo settings again and find the best revs for it to change gears

 

[Peewee]

Hmmm, so you'd definately recommend the 3.727 diff over the 4.10 ?

Coz thats the exact setup I'm about to convert to.

 

[sideshow]

well mine had a 4.3 beforehand

when yr cruising at 60 or 80 and u floor it it kicks to 2nd then quickly back to 3rd

it just doesnt have time to stay in a gear and rev out

i think it uses the torque better now

off th emark might have lost a tiny bit but everywhere else its good

and its limo

i have half decent tyres on it so it has good traction off the mark

if i coul dbe bothered id take it to the creek but it doesnt phaze me anymore

 

[Miles B]

I hate to sound like an idiot, but you did correct the numbers based on the new speedo error, right? Just checking...


Oh, and everything I've heard about Brant alarms has been terrible?

 

[Zuffen]

Miles,

One of the reasons I like the Brant alarm is Subaru thought it good enough to fit to their cars to stop WRX's being stolen.

I get a Government report on car theft every couple of months.

In the last 3 months there only is one stolen WRX in the whole of Australia that had the Brant upgrade immobiliser (fitted free by Subaru because the factory unit was up the the task) or the Brant fitted from new. Not a bad result for what was once the most stolen car (per capita) in Asutralia.

My experience is we have not had a Brant equiped car stolen in 3 years. We probably insure 400 WRX's (all of which have the upgrade, we make sure of that) so in 1200 policies we haven't lost a car.

Holden certainly can't claim that with its immobilisers.

I know Brant's remote controls look like crap and don't have a great operating range but it sure stops theft.

 

[Miles B]

Good info, I had a feeling I was hearing mostly from the people with bad experiences.

The problems I had heard were remotes, easy to tear out, poor backup from Brant, and a couple of units just going haywire.

I haven't had much of a look at alarms/immobilisers in a while, but last I checked they were essentially a hard-to-crack remote, and a control unit with black wiring to 3 or more relays cutting hot wires to various components... have they come up with any new stuff? Because that's always looked kind of like "find the relays and it's yours" to me...

 

[Zuffen]

MilesB,

You can laugh at me now!

Brant have been place in receivership.

No idea what Subaru will do?

I had one unit lose the software for some reason. It had to be replaced. Took around 3 hours from my call to driving again. Service was brilliant.

When I use a product like an immobiliser I purchase it at full retail in the name of my Wife's company so I am free of any suggestion of bribery when I recommend a product.

 

[Damien]

Glad I ditched my Brant now! Admittedly their service was good but after having 2 units die in as many weeks I'd had enough.

 

[Miles B]

Bugger. I always hate to see an Aussie electronics company die. There aren't many left... that's why I got out of embedded and into desktop software again.

 

[Zuffen]

Damien,

You may turn out to be the smart one.

I run two cars with Brants. At least they've kept going for the last 2-3 years so if they were going to give trouble they will have.

You never know maybe the receiver will sort it out?