D-4d Chip

[02skn]

Do not wish to sound negative. But 600 miles for £53 works out at 60+ miles per gallon. You would never get that sort of mpg out of a 2 litre 4 wheel drive car even downhill with a tailwind, never mind in normal day to day driving. I'am a non believer sorry.

[Hoovie]

even 500 mile sounded quite remarkable, especially in the Hill West Country - I see my instant mpg figure drop into single figures often just due to going up the hills!

[bothwell_buyer]

Do not wish to sound negative. But 600 miles for £53 works out at 60+ miles per gallon. You would never get that sort of mpg out of a 2 litre 4 wheel drive car even downhill with a tailwind, never mind in normal day to day driving. I'am a non believer sorry.

Couldn't have put it better myself, so I didn't.

My LPG bus does alost 300 miles now on a tank of gas since I started taking it easy/ got the faulty wheel bearings sorted so the friction drag is less. A tank is 80 litres x £0.45 = £36 for 300 miles. I saved £60 quid today by collecting a fridge, just on the transport cost alone!! The gas for the journey cost me £14.40 so the real saving would be £45.60

[02skn]

Do not wish to sound negative. But 600 miles for £53 works out at 60+ miles per gallon. You would never get that sort of mpg out of a 2 litre 4 wheel drive car even downhill with a tailwind, never mind in normal day to day driving. I'am a non believer sorry.

Couldn't have put it better myself, so I didn't.

My LPG bus does alost 300 miles now on a tank of gas since I started taking it easy/ got the faulty wheel bearings sorted so the friction drag is less. A tank is 80 litres x £0.45 = £36 for 300 miles. I saved £60 quid today by collecting a fridge, just on the transport cost alone!! The gas for the journey cost me £14.40 so the real saving would be £45.60

Working out the cost at todays price, about £1.20 a litre the mpg was in the mid 60's not just 60. I fought with myself for a few hours before posting as i do not like to question what the op says they are getting. It just sounds too unbelievable that a chip could give such an improvment in mpg results. We can't even get 400 miles out of a full tank in the wifes car . Must be magic.

[PinkMinkee]

I don't have to justify my statement and you can believe what you like, but for any doubters out there heres the details.

we filled up the rav before we went to pembrey (near llanelli) last friday, it cost me 53 quid (diesel was priced at 116.9p per litre at THAT time) and the fuel light was on before i filled her up. We reset the trip about 10 miles into our trip up the a38, and we are still on the same tank of diesel now with 540 miles reading on the trip, and just under a quarter tank of diesel left............we did this to determine what sort of mpg we would get, granted half a tank was getting to and getting back from pembrey so those miles were mainly motorway miles, but the rest has been urban.......as I understand it a rav fuel tank holds about 57 litres of diesel (therefore a completely empty tank would be costing around £68 quid at today's prices, but we all know that letting a diesel engine run dry is stupid! AND I know that the gauges can be out, but i can only go by the figures that the rav is giving us...........if you wanna 'waste' ya 99 quid and go buy, and fit, a chip yourselves then you can disprove me after you have carried out your own 'test'!!

[DaisyFitz]

We chipped my old Rav - an 03 D4D Nrg 3Dr. Seemed to make a bit of difference to begin with, then I had the DMF issue, so new Clutch, Fly wheel and Computer later, the chip made a lot less difference (althogh still should have been fine). Eventually had to take it off as it made the engine break twice. Once I had to get AA out, second time I took the bloomin thing off.

Did improve MPG from 35.4 to 37.4 for a while at least.

OH says our chip was a cheaper Dragon one, so possibly not the best.

[02skn]

I don't have to justify my statement and you can believe what you like, but for any doubters out there heres the details.

we filled up the rav before we went to pembrey (near llanelli) last friday, it cost me 53 quid (diesel was priced at 116.9p per litre at THAT time) and the fuel light was on before i filled her up. We reset the trip about 10 miles into our trip up the a38, and we are still on the same tank of diesel now with 540 miles reading on the trip, and just under a quarter tank of diesel left............we did this to determine what sort of mpg we would get, granted half a tank was getting to and getting back from pembrey so those miles were mainly motorway miles, but the rest has been urban.......as I understand it a rav fuel tank holds about 57 litres of diesel (therefore a completely empty tank would be costing around £68 quid at today's prices, but we all know that letting a diesel engine run dry is stupid! AND I know that the gauges can be out, but i can only go by the figures that the rav is giving us...........if you wanna 'waste' ya 99 quid and go buy, and fit, a chip yourselves then you can disprove me after you have carried out your own 'test'!!

Hey, this was not an attack on what you wrote or you personally,but i find it very hard to think of any 4 wheel drive car of any make or model that has ever achieved anywhere near 60 to the gallon. If yours does, lucky you.

[PinkMinkee]

no-one said it does 60 to the gallon, re-do your figures based on 57 litres costing £68 and getting about 550 combined miles to a tank

[02skn]

no-one said it does 60 to the gallon, re-do your figures based on 57 litres costing £68 and getting about 550 combined miles to a tank

Working on your figures. You put about 45ltrs in the car when the light was already on. As you have now done 540 miles with qtr of a tank left you have probably only used about 40 lts. That works out at about 61mpg. Like i said earlier, lucky you.

[dave.m]

Working out the cost at todays price, about £1.20 a litre the mpg was in the mid 60's not just 60. I fought with myself for a few hours before posting as i do not like to question what the op says they are getting. It just sounds too unbelievable that a chip could give such an improvment in mpg results. We can't even get 400 miles out of a full tank in the wifes car . Must be magic.

Baw lucks, you cant get 400 miles out of a tank in a 4.2 diesel ? Are you wearing a divers boot on your right foot ?

As I remember of my 4.2 when I had it, its a 12 gallon tank or thereabouts, on a decent motorway run I could get

low 40's to the gallon. You do the math.

[02skn]

Working out the cost at todays price, about £1.20 a litre the mpg was in the mid 60's not just 60. I fought with myself for a few hours before posting as i do not like to question what the op says they are getting. It just sounds too unbelievable that a chip could give such an improvment in mpg results. We can't even get 400 miles out of a full tank in the wifes car . Must be magic.

Baw lucks, you cant get 400 miles out of a tank in a 4.2 diesel ? Are you wearing a divers boot on your right foot ?

As I remember of my 4.2 when I had it, its a 12 gallon tank or thereabouts, on a decent motorway run I could get

low 40's to the gallon. You do the math.

I can only tell you what her car does. Normally 360-370 miles and she always fills up when the light comes on. Works out at about 37mpg given the reserve is about 2 and a half gallons.

Look at the post above,Daisyfitz was only getting a similar mileage out of there car with and without a chip. So why the BAW LUCKS line?

I would love to know how many on this forum question the ops mileage claims. As Bothy said, he thought it but didnt write it.

As you are all car buffs please can someone tell me of a similar sized 4 wheel drive that gets high 50's or low 60's mpg please?

I think i might have a long wait

[local hero]

no-one said it does 60 to the gallon, re-do your figures based on 57 litres costing £68 and getting about 550 combined miles to a tank

Working on your figures. You put about 45ltrs in the car when the light was already on. As you have now done 540 miles with qtr of a tank left you have probably only used about 40 lts. That works out at about 61mpg. Like i said earlier, lucky you.

Apologies up front this could be a bit lengthy, i have had one of Kingo,s chips on my car for the last 8 mths initially my onboard computer was showing 61mpg on a 35 mile trip, on a 172 mile trip it showed 54.9 mpg,and on a recent 1036 mile trip i averaged 49mpg according to my OBC, however when i worked out the true mpg full tank to full tank i dicovered my OBC was anything up to 12mpg out, now i am not technical, and maybe someone like Anchorman can explain this, but it begs the question could these chips in some way be affecting either mileage readout or consumption readout ? over all i would still reccomend my chip to anyone, after the initial seeing what it will do, the engine is so much more flexible you find yourself poodling about in a higher gear than you did previously, and i think this is where the fuel saving comes in. if you want to find out more go to the Tunit sight and bring up FAQs and this will answer most peoples doubts, on insurance and chips Toyota quoted me £485 without a chip and £585 with it, if you go on GO COMPARE and tick the box for modified cars then tick box for eng man unit it will list companies happy to quote for chipped cars i have mine coverd with E,SURE for £372pa, hope this all helps, hope to get to warrington for a couple of hours on saturday so anyone wanting to try my car is welcome, though obviously dont want it thrashing to death..

[dave.m]

Working out the cost at todays price, about £1.20 a litre the mpg was in the mid 60's not just 60. I fought with myself for a few hours before posting as i do not like to question what the op says they are getting. It just sounds too unbelievable that a chip could give such an improvment in mpg results. We can't even get 400 miles out of a full tank in the wifes car . Must be magic.

Baw lucks, you cant get 400 miles out of a tank in a 4.2 diesel ? Are you wearing a divers boot on your right foot ?

As I remember of my 4.2 when I had it, its a 12 gallon tank or thereabouts, on a decent motorway run I could get

low 40's to the gallon. You do the math.

I can only tell you what her car does. Normally 360-370 miles and she always fills up when the light comes on. Works out at about 37mpg given the reserve is about 2 and a half gallons.

Look at the post above,Daisyfitz was only getting a similar milleage out of there car with and without a chip. So why the BAW LUCKS line?

I would love to know how many on this forum question the ops milleage claims. As Bothy said, he thought it but didnt write it.

As you are all car buffs please can someone tell me of a similar sized 4 wheel drive that gets high 50's or low 60's mpg please?

I think i might have a long wait

Daisyfiz's is a T180, which gets on average mid 30's. There are other threads on this very issue.

[02skn]

Wrong again. Read Daisyfitz post above. It gives reference to her old 2003 d4d. 35-37mpg

[dave.m]

Wrong again. Read Daisyfitz post above. It gives reference to her old 2003 d4d. 35-37mpg

I stand corrected , and I also stand by my original statement. If you cant get 400 miles out of a 4.2 diesel

on a reasonable motorway trip, there is something wrong with your Rav or your driving.

[Hoovie]

just out of interest, tried to max my economy on my last run - Rav 4.2 2.0 VVT-i - and the on board computer is currently showing 42MPG for the last 150 miles - M4/A34/A303/A30 at average of 50mph and taking it very easy (I would find it extremely hard to drive more ecomonicsally and stay awake) ..... but on board also tends to be 20% optimistic (so prob really 34MPG)

Would a Diesel be 25+% better? and could it ever be 80% better??

[bothwell_buyer]

Ooooohhhhhh

How I like an argument......

MPG figures come down to lots of factors and no 2 cars can be the same.

Also, most engines are capable of greater output and Jap cars are no exception.

Logic tends to tell me that an engine will move a physical mass at a given speed with a given power input (fuel). Making the engine 'more efficient' will increase power available. Now, if you choose not to floor the pedal, but just retain a sedatory driving style, then the efficiency figures should go up.

HOWEVER - an engine is chipped/ecu managed for a reason. You tell me what that reason might be. Its not due to the global partnership between car manufactureres and fuel companies. Sometimes, it might just be to preserve emmissions control, or even the state of the engine/ frequency of maintenance. If it wasn't then the manufacturers would ramp up their ecu accordingly.

Single cylinder diesel engines achieve good fuel efficiency and have been for decades. Nice heavy flywheels etc etc.

Some current petrol engines achieve 45+mpg (eg Fiat 1.2) on long haul, carrying lightweight and driven at the magical 56mph.

Statistically many accidents are caused by drivers falling asleep, and this driving method is one such way of achieving that state. Witness the landrover that ploughed off the road and onto the railway tracks.....................

So - the 60mpg diesel - why not? Not in town. Not on country roads. Not on short journeys. So best put things into perspective.

Me..?

Friday morning, I get the RAV number 1 re-tuned for the weekend and the boost well up.

If someone wants to try a RAV with REAL power, then I need to make sure its up to it, and it will be.

If I wanted to conserve fuel, I'd have used my disabled persons railcard where the train would achieve umpteen diesel mpg.

[anchorman]

It seems to be an emotive subject! I think the excitement/speculation is probably driven by the current cost of fuel and whether or not this thing can mitigate the issue.

My opinion on this thing for what its worth!!!

Fuel savings

To get accurate figures on what savings are made requires accurate measurement. Pinky has given us her estimation based upon past experience in good faith and I have no doubt that she has achieved something better than before but we will not know just what until she fills up again and probably until she has repeated the exercise a couple more times.

The other consideration is the variation from vehicle to vehicle. I have a 136bhp engined vehicle and I don't consider myself to be a hard driver but my mileage is relatively low. I cannot get better than high 30s from mine but I know Steve from Aberdeen (does he still look in?) and shcm do rather better - low to mid 40s. I doubt very much whether modern electronics vary by anything we can quantify so I believe that all 3 of these vehicles are metering exactly the same amount of fuel. What makes the difference is the way it is driven and the distance it is driven - this is significant. Minor variations in the way we drive can make big differences to mpg so I accept fully that some of you will be getting rather different mpg's from similar vehicles. The other consideration is that it will take some control to avoid keep testing the performance and therefor adversly effecting consumption - it has to be seen as an economy chip!

So back to the performance (economy) chip. I did a sum based on the £130 for the chip (ex-ebay which is subject to delivery and other bids) and based upon todays fuel prices it would take approximately 10,000 miles to pay it back at the claimed 5mpg improvement. They are likely to quote the lowest figure in order to avoid returns so if we assume that it will be better than 5mpg OR the price of fuel continues to rise then the pay back period will be reduced.

A quick comment on Stewarts thoughts about the effect on the trip computer. The trip computer is a guide and even more vague than the fuel gauge! It estimates fuel consumption based upon throttle position and engine load which is mapped from the ECU. It doesn't measure fuel flow to the engine because it would be too complicated. This is because only a proportion of the fuel pumped to the engine is actually used. It is a characteristic of a direct injection common rail diesel that the fuel rail has to have access to more fuel than it needs in order to supply the injectors with varying fuel. So much fuel returns to the engine that it has to go through a cooler under the car on the return to the tank. So to measure exactly what fuel is used you would have to measure how much fuel is sent to the engine and how much "change" goes back to the tank. That is why it is estimated by other means. Also the trip computer needs quite a large mileage to settle down to some representative calculations and I don't know how settled it was when Stewart fitted his chip.

Effects on other components

Whether the chip will have any wider reaching effects is debatable. We know that the 2.2 is capable of standing a 177bhp output and so the rest of the components (drivetrain etc) will have been tested to do the same - so a 136bhp engine should be safe enough there. The T180 might be a different story. However, I suspect it will be capable of standing much more than the claimed 212bhp and the torque that goes with it. We have to wait to see how the 2.2 DMF holds up but we know that the car is susceptible to oil leaks from the sump and the gearbox input seal and our Canadian friends suggest that the rear axle multi plate clutch might be an issue at about 75k. The 2.0 D4D is a bit different because it has a known issue with the DMF. On the other hand any increased load is not likely to be any worse than say towing a caravan and lots do that. We only have to consider the fact that it will impose more load on the vehicle and that may manifest itself in other problems. The concept is that with a chip fitted you have to press the accelerator less to do the same thing and in that case there would be no more load and better fuel consumption.

Whether to try one?

I have had some discussions with the manufacturer/supplier as to whether they would do us a special RAV4 owners price. The first indications are "yes" but I need to sort out a few more things which I will go through at a later stage. I can tell you that I have asked whether they are confident about the durability of that connector that shcm spotted. Shcm designs electronic on vehicle components so he knows what he is talking about and I value his opinion. If I can just check a few things out (I am waiting for the opinion of Toyota Insurance about whether it will effect premiums) I will probably try one if only to get a grip of these confounded fuel prices and if I do I will post the fitting instructions. I might also twist Wollastons arm to let me do a dummy fit on his 4.2

Regards

[anchorman]

Ooooohhhhhh

How I like an argument......

MPG figures come down to lots of factors and no 2 cars can be the same.

Also, most engines are capable of greater output and Jap cars are no exception.

Logic tends to tell me that an engine will move a physical mass at a given speed with a given power input (fuel). Making the engine 'more efficient' will increase power available. Now, if you choose not to floor the pedal, but just retain a sedatory driving style, then the efficiency figures should go up.

HOWEVER - an engine is chipped/ecu managed for a reason. You tell me what that reason might be. Its not due to the global partnership between car manufactureres and fuel companies. Sometimes, it might just be to preserve emmissions control, or even the state of the engine/ frequency of maintenance. If it wasn't then the manufacturers would ramp up their ecu accordingly.

Single cylinder diesel engines achieve good fuel efficiency and have been for decades. Nice heavy flywheels etc etc.

Some current petrol engines achieve 45+mpg (eg Fiat 1.2) on long haul, carrying lightweight and driven at the magical 56mph.

Statistically many accidents are caused by drivers falling asleep, and this driving method is one such way of achieving that state. Witness the landrover that ploughed off the road and onto the railway tracks.....................

So - the 60mpg diesel - why not? Not in town. Not on country roads. Not on short journeys. So best put things into perspective.

Me..?

Friday morning, I get the RAV number 1 re-tuned for the weekend and the boost well up.

If someone wants to try a RAV with REAL power, then I need to make sure its up to it, and it will be.

If I wanted to conserve fuel, I'd have used my disabled persons railcard where the train would achieve umpteen diesel mpg.

You posted this while I was writing my little novel. Good stuff!

I will ride in your RAV if you promise not to scare me!!!

The LR on the railway tracks proves to me that the M180 is not wide enough to accommodate the free play in a LRs steering - he needed the field as well - plus he had been awake for about 3 weeks

[PinkMinkee]

praps i should have added we were travelling at a consistent 70 - 80 mph on the motorway, AND the DMF was replaced last year, plus its got a new turbo and new injectors and cat, i was only posting the info out of interest for you peeps, didnt expect to be knocked about it, almost smacks of jealousy tbh, thought I had left this sort of attitude behind when i left the gt turbo club behind :P

[bothwell_buyer]

praps i should have added we were travelling at a consistent 70 - 80 mph on the motorway, AND the DMF was replaced last year, plus its got a new turbo and new injectors and cat, i was only posting the info out of interest for you peeps, didnt expect to be knocked about it, almost smacks of jealousy tbh, thought I had left this sort of attitude behind when i left the gt turbo club behind :P

Nonsense - yer cheating. Cumoan - admit it. Yer probably english as weel so ye have an excuse. An ye never mentioned the snout ye bought from a scrapped concorde plane thats noo fitted tae the front o yer RAV :yes:

An hoo come that even the cat gets brocht intae it??? Bet its called Jet!

Did ye provide yer references frae the GT Turbo club when ye came here? Mind, tae be a member o this forum requires being insane and embellishment o the lies is pairt and parcel o it. So well done - yuv EVOked fawks passions ;)

[Hoovie]

Pinkminkee, I will admit it ... I AM jealous of your economy :) - as you would expect as I have RAV4 Petrol version that averages about 28 MPG on a normal run (so I did the test I mentioned earlier to see just how much I possibly COULD get).

When I was doing this test, I had the computer on INST MPG so I could keep an eye on what was happening (something to help pass the time driving at 60-65MPH on Motorway/Dual Carriageway) and found as one would expect that a very steady throttle made the difference.

Do you have Cruise Control on your RAV4 - and if so, used if on this super-economy run? It is something I have been wondering about getting retro-fitted to make the drive more enjoyable on longer motorway runs, as well as helping to keep my speed within better limits.

Oh - and of course, if you live in Plymouth and most of this journey was on M-way, then assuming you were on the way home, it was obviously all downhill, as anyone looking at a road map could tell

[02skn]

praps i should have added we were travelling at a consistent 70 - 80 mph on the motorway, AND the DMF was replaced last year, plus its got a new turbo and new injectors and cat, i was only posting the info out of interest for you peeps, didnt expect to be knocked about it, almost smacks of jealousy tbh, thought I had left this sort of attitude behind when i left the gt turbo club behind :P

I was not knocking you, i'am certainly not jealous of you. If you get this improvment for £99 lucky you. What i question is your figures. Nobody has yet come up with another similar car that achieves anywhere near the figures you are quoting.

I wish other forum members would speak their mind more and then we might get a more open debate.

540 miles for just over 3/4 tank of fuel. Brilliant.

[Hoovie]

...... The trip computer is a guide and even more vague than the fuel gauge! It estimates fuel consumption based upon throttle position and engine load which is mapped from the ECU. It doesn't measure fuel flow to the engine because it would be too complicated. This is because only a proportion of the fuel pumped to the engine is actually used. It is a characteristic of a direct injection common rail diesel that the fuel rail has to have access to more fuel than it needs in order to supply the injectors with varying fuel. So much fuel returns to the engine that it has to go through a cooler under the car on the return to the tank. So to measure exactly what fuel is used you would have to measure how much fuel is sent to the engine and how much "change" goes back to the tank. That is why it is estimated by other means. Also the trip computer needs quite a large mileage to settle down to some representative calculations and I don't know how settled it was when Stewart fitted his chip.

Anchorman, re your comments above:

What would the position of the ScanGaugeII that has been talked about be? Will that suffer from the same inaccuracies as the standard trip computer? I really fancy buying one of those, but if it is as accurate as the built-in, wondering if it would provide anything useful?

[mr wayne]

...

I wish other forum members would speak their mind more and then we might get a more open debate.

...

Ok. I've been monitoring fuel economy of my wife's RAV since we got it at start of February. We've been getting about 38MPG, averaging about 380 miles before we fill it up (usually just as the fuel light first comes on). The OBC is saying just below 40MPG, so it's actually not far out in this case! This includes a bit of motorway driving, but mostly quite short journeys around town. We ain't got any aftermarket chips fitted (to my knowledge!).

This is quite a bit better than what I get in the Supra - since the start of the year, averaging about 20MPG. This is nearly all very short infrequent journeys - it absolutely kills the fuel economy. Of course, you don't have something like a Supra and complain about fuel economy - and in my opinion, the same applies to something like a RAV4.