Green Diesel Engineering Beta Testing Review

Mike in Anchorage said:

what RPM are you showing if you keep at a constant, say, 65 mph? .

Click to expand...

My 2013 JSW TDI 6M indicates circa 1700 @ 65 MPH. The speedometer is a little optimistic however.............................

all the best from northern California



ez

Thanks for the info. Dang. Jealous of that. At 65 mph, I'm running about 2300 RpM. I'm sure that going for a higher final gear in a DSG is not worth the effort or buck$.

Update on my beta test in 2014 JSW 6M

Initially I wasn't sent the correct info for the Common Rail, which delayed the process a day or so, and it's not listed as Jetta or JSW, but Golf VI 2000 140hp CFFB

Also the touch screen wasn't calibrated, so it was a game of hunt and peck for the correct location to touch on the touch screen. I've worked on products that use similar touch screens, and we always had the techs calibrate them before programming and sending to customers for this very reason

The next issue was getting the USB drivers to load, it took a couple of installs/uninstalls for Windows7 to get everything in the correct place for the communications to work reliable, but now it's very repeatable.

The original data was downloaded from the car, and approx 48 hours later the tune was returned from Green Diesel

During flashing, the radiator fan runs, and the tire pressure sensor light illuminates. When the flash was complete, the radiator fan turns off, and after driving ¼ miles the tire pressure sensor turns off also.

So... how does it run?
It's a manual, and I have to be more careful during hard acceleration in the first few gears or the front tires will spin. It's a lot more fun to drive than it was before, just have to be careful with the right foot.

So far the mpg is about 3mpg better than before (I have a 60 mile trip, and the average mpg was 48.8mpg, the only trip with the green tune was 52.1mpg, but I'll have to repeat a few times to see how it averages out)

My around town mpg for this tank is just over 41mpg, but I'll need to get it out on the highway to see how it compares to my 52mpg highway average on fuelly.com

So are those mpg numbers as indicated on the dash, or actual numbers after a tank?

applejacks said:

So are those mpg numbers as indicated on the dash, or actual numbers after a tank?

Click to expand...

mine were miles / gallons from fuelly, don't know about others

Got it. 52 is very good. It's pretty crazy that the wagon does so much better with fuel economy. -the manual transmission also helps.

We are working on some tweaks to DSG equipped vehicles to address early shifting and low rpm running. The software is different based on the model year and this might be the reason some vehicles shift fine and others upshift a bit early.

FYI, lower rpm typically returns better fuel economy, but the the allowable torque is less and could impact response time while waiting for the downshift to occur.

Thanks for all the feedback thus far. Fuel prices are on the rise and better fuel economy pays for itself!!

Green Diesel Engineering said:

Thanks for all the feedback thus far. Fuel prices are on the rise and better fuel economy pays for itself!!

Click to expand...

You aren't kidding! I netted an additional 133 miles on my first tank of fuel with just routine driving. -for me, this is an additional 3 days of driving.

I think 700-750 miles from a tank of fuel in a late model DSG Jetta is very possible for someone who drives 100% highway.

Not to mention the added benefit of no EGR and fewer regens.

I understand that one is very excited to report the mileage after making a potential investment on a tune specifically geared for fuel economy. But I think we need to give ourselves some time before jumping into conclusions. In my case (2004 Passat) I collected data before and after for around 11 months to get as much miles accumulated to minimize variance. Also it would be a great idea if every time you fill up to do it to the neck of the fuel line to make sure you get approximately the same amount of fuel. Besides the tank to tank averages another option is for those that have a consistent drive every day to log the before (stock tune) and after computer MPG and make comparisons in an 'apples to apples' way. Here is the link to my methodology/results for a PD TDI:

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=423256

Last but not least we need to remember that there is also the factor that when we make such purchase to improve our fuel economy we might consciously or unconsciously drive slower to 'help' the cause. This is not for sure but it is a possibility to ponder and that it can potentially bias the results. Just some food for thought.

Looking forward to many thousands and thousands of miles collected on this new tune to see how it turns out.

I do agree on being methodical. I wish I had a better baseline, but the route its driven is the exact same, week in, week out (how boring!). So the only varience would be temperature/AC use.

First tank, which had a dozen WOT pulls, with the tune being installed at 250 miles (about half tank), netted almost +3mpg over baseline. That right there was a big indication of things to come!

tikal said:

I understand that one is very excited to report the mileage after making a potential investment on a tune specifically geared for fuel economy. But I think we need to give ourselves some time before jumping into conclusions. In my case (2004 Passat) I collected data before and after for around 11 months to get as much miles accumulated to minimize variance. Also it would be a great idea if every time you fill up to do it to the neck of the fuel line to make sure you get approximately the same amount of fuel. Besides the tank to tank averages another option is for those that have a consistent drive every day to log the before (stock tune) and after computer MPG and make comparisons in an 'apples to apples' way. Here is the link to my methodology/results for a PD TDI:

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=423256

Last but not least we need to remember that there is also the factor that when we make such purchase to improve our fuel economy we might consciously or unconsciously drive slower to 'help' the cause. This is not for sure but it is a possibility to ponder and that it can potentially bias the results. Just some food for thought.

Looking forward to many thousands and thousands of miles collected on this new tune to see how it turns out.

Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to contribute but your comments sound as though you didn't read the whole thread before posting. This is a beta test that has pretty much just started. Nobody performing this beta test is jumping to conclusions about anything, but rather simply reporting initial experiences at this point. Also, I don't think anyone was "helping" the cause by driving slower, especially during the first tank with the tune.

1001 lb-ft said:

Thank you for taking the time to contribute but your comments sound as though you didn't read the whole thread before posting. This is a beta test that has pretty much just started. Nobody performing this beta test is jumping to conclusions about anything, but rather simply reporting initial experiences at this point. Also, I don't think anyone was "helping" the cause by driving slower, especially during the first tank with the tune.

Click to expand...

Agree completely.
I've never driven the car as "spirited" as I've driven it these past week or so.
Pre-tune, I've had 6 tanks (out of 86) where I've driven over 800 miles, including my max of 851 miles.
Pre-tune and post-tune I always fill the tank to the top, the max gallons I've pumped into the tank are 15.994, and 34 of the 86 tanks have been more than 15 gallons (I think the JSW tank is 14.5 gallon capacity, or at least something less than 15 gallons)
It's going to be interesting to see if the GDE tune can beat those numbers

tikal said:

I understand that one is very excited to report the mileage after making a potential investment on a tune specifically geared for fuel economy. But I think we need to give ourselves some time before jumping into conclusions. In my case (2004 Passat) I collected data before and after for around 11 months to get as much miles accumulated to minimize variance. Also it would be a great idea if every time you fill up to do it to the neck of the fuel line to make sure you get approximately the same amount of fuel. Besides the tank to tank averages another option is for those that have a consistent drive every day to log the before (stock tune) and after computer MPG and make comparisons in an 'apples to apples' way. Here is the link to my methodology/results for a PD TDI:
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=423256
Last but not least we need to remember that there is also the factor that when we make such purchase to improve our fuel economy we might consciously or unconsciously drive slower to 'help' the cause. This is not for sure but it is a possibility to ponder and that it can potentially bias the results. Just some food for thought.
Looking forward to many thousands and thousands of miles collected on this new tune to see how it turns out.

Click to expand...

Theres always "that guy"-

A little background information before this started. All of the beta testers went through a screening process prior to receiving the beta test gear from GDE. There were a few requirements and an agreement which everyone is following. That agreement is we had to prove data on previous MPG and we discussed our driving habits with GDE. We also had to agree to continue to drive our normal routines as we normally would to gather accurate data. Furthermore, this is a beta test. Test is the key word. Our tune isn't final and tweaks are being made.

GDE asked for some different testers in different areas of the country and you can see that there are things arising to contradict your statement of jumping to conclusions. There are great reports from those who have netted a great FE jump and even a tester who completely jumped ship after his first tank. To say that we are helping the cause is quite a ridiculous claim. If anything, the first tank from most testers is an understatement. An extra ~70fttq is a great thing to play around with.

As the data is collected over time, conclusions will certainly begin forming. You have provided data collected over a 5 month span, which is great information. We are all doing the same, you aren't seeing it on the thread.

It's still very early and this thread is on-going.

Just a quick update:

Third full tank on the tune, and my driving has become more steady. I finally have a job again!

Numbers from this last tank (from Fuelly) are:

Miles Gallons MPG Price %city
412.00 10.775 38.24 2.079 75%

My normal fuel economy is 34.7 over the lifetime of the vehicle (pre-tune), and my last 3 tanks on the tune have all been at least 2mpg above that.

Very happy with the tune. My DSG has finally sorted itself out, even in reverse. I still have the occasional hard downshift when I REALLY get on the throttle, but the shift points have definitely remapped. I loved driving this car before, and now I REALLY love it!

Hats off to GDE!

Wayne

Waynoooo said:

Just a quick update:

Third full tank on the tune, and my driving has become more steady. I finally have a job again!

Numbers from this last tank (from Fuelly) are:

Miles Gallons MPG Price %city
412.00 10.775 38.24 2.079 75%

My normal fuel economy is 34.7 over the lifetime of the vehicle (pre-tune), and my last 3 tanks on the tune have all been at least 2mpg above that.

Very happy with the tune. My DSG has finally sorted itself out, even in reverse. I still have the occasional hard downshift when I REALLY get on the throttle, but the shift points have definitely remapped. I loved driving this car before, and now I REALLY love it!

Hats off to GDE!

Wayne

Click to expand...

Wayne, Thanks for the report Brother. It is kinda fun to play with now aint it?

Green Diesel Engineering said:

We are working on some tweaks to DSG equipped vehicles to address early shifting and low rpm running. The software is different based on the model year and this might be the reason some vehicles shift fine and others upshift a bit early.

FYI, lower rpm typically returns better fuel economy, but the the allowable torque is less and could impact response time while waiting for the downshift to occur.

Thanks for all the feedback thus far. Fuel prices are on the rise and better fuel economy pays for itself!!

Click to expand...

Are you guys going to send out the tweaks to testers? I'm thinking I have a little pre-mature upshift.

I'll be excited to get the update. The recent extreme heat has the car feeling uncomfortably slow to launch from a stop so I was able to put the stock tune back on and hasn't had any issues but fuel economy has been low. I want to go back to testing again but as I have passengers frequently in the car I don't want to take any extra risks. As soon as the shifting is sorted out I'll test again and report back. Also I am pretty certain my intercooler is very heat soaked here in the desert and cutting into my fuel economy. At night it reads always above 45 mpgs when temps are cooler.

man02195 said:

Agree completely.
I've never driven the car as "spirited" as I've driven it these past week or so.
Pre-tune, I've had 6 tanks (out of 86) where I've driven over 800 miles, including my max of 851 miles.
Pre-tune and post-tune I always fill the tank to the top, the max gallons I've pumped into the tank are 15.994, and 34 of the 86 tanks have been more than 15 gallons (I think the JSW tank is 14.5 gallon capacity, or at least something less than 15 gallons)
It's going to be interesting to see if the GDE tune can beat those numbers

Click to expand...

When you say "to the top", do you mean until you see the fuel come to the brim of the fuel neck?

1001 lb-ft said:

Thank you for taking the time to contribute but your comments sound as though you didn't read the whole thread before posting. This is a beta test that has pretty much just started. Nobody performing this beta test is jumping to conclusions about anything, but rather simply reporting initial experiences at this point. Also, I don't think anyone was "helping" the cause by driving slower, especially during the first tank with the tune.

Click to expand...

You make a good point about this being a beta test. I think, in general terms, in any kind of fuel economy testing and to make the comparisons as unbiased as possible with your baseline, it is imperative to be as consistent as possible. It helps of course to systematically log your data and get as many tanks/miles as possible to take advantage of the central limit theorem (CLT) and minimize variance.

Sorry but I did not state that the testers are driving slower. I said that it is a possibility and one needs to be aware to drive the same way as before.

I am sorry if my post was not clear enough in this regard.

applejacks said:

Theres always "that guy"-

A little background information before this started. All of the beta testers went through a screening process prior to receiving the beta test gear from GDE. There were a few requirements and an agreement which everyone is following. That agreement is we had to prove data on previous MPG and we discussed our driving habits with GDE. We also had to agree to continue to drive our normal routines as we normally would to gather accurate data. Furthermore, this is a beta test. Test is the key word. Our tune isn't final and tweaks are being made.

GDE asked for some different testers in different areas of the country and you can see that there are things arising to contradict your statement of jumping to conclusions. There are great reports from those who have netted a great FE jump and even a tester who completely jumped ship after his first tank. To say that we are helping the cause is quite a ridiculous claim. If anything, the first tank from most testers is an understatement. An extra ~70fttq is a great thing to play around with.

As the data is collected over time, conclusions will certainly begin forming. You have provided data collected over a 5 month span, which is great information. We are all doing the same, you aren't seeing it on the thread.

It's still very early and this thread is on-going.

Click to expand...

1001 lb-ft said:

Wayne, Thanks for the report Brother. It is kinda fun to play with now aint it?

Click to expand...

You bet! I love driving this thing!

2nd tank

My second tank with the tune netted 47.39 mpg. This tank was more consist with my driving routine about 80% highway. Before the tune I was averaging around 42.3 mpg. I was not expecting to see such a gain from just a tune. I thought I'd have to delete the dpf to see these kind of numbers.

tikal said:

When you say "to the top", do you mean until you see the fuel come to the brim of the fuel neck?

Click to expand...

Takes 5-10 clicks of the nozzle to get past the foam, let foam settle down between clicks, so just liquid is coming past the gasoline nozzle flap door, and then liquid up to the point where it's ready to spill into the catch basin. It's the only way I think you can make individual tank readings meaningful because diesel foams so much compared to gasoline.

So this was kinda fun, I had a 70 mile trip to make today. I filled up at a station right at the exit onto the highway. Drove the 35ish miles up and back, filled back up at the same station, and hand calc'd the mpg.

2014 Jetta Sportwagen 6 speed manual
Miles driven, 71.9
Gallons used, 1.224
MPG 58.7
MFI MPG 64.2
Temp 93F
MPH 65
Other variables, relatively flat, have to check tire pressures and other fluid levels in the morning to compare to my pretune setup.

Not much traffic until the exit, MFI dropped from 68mpg to 64mpg creeping along the last ½ mile or so

Dealing with small numbers, I can see how the MPG and MFI don't agree. But I used the same pump, the same car orientation, the same slow fill until the diesel is ready to spill over into the fuel door drain so it's about as accurate as it could be. I'll continue to add data to my initial 53K miles logged without the tune to the miles with the tune

On the downside, the last ½ mile of creeping along revealed a potential problem with the GDE tune. The accelerator mapping or the fuel cutoff point made it nearly impossible to drive smoothly. I'll have to follow up with an email / call to GDE on Monday to discuss the issue and see if there's any way to remap the accerlator input so it's not as much of an on/off switch

Mike in Anchorage said:

Just for gits and shiggles, what RPM are you showing if you keep at a constant, say, 65 mph? I think the final drive ratio is for lower RPMs in the later models than in the earlier models. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I didn't have my OBD reader plugged in today, but when I was driving 65mph the rpms were 1700 to 1750 based on the needle being close to 3-¾ tick marks between 1000 and 2000 rpm. Not very scientific, but I'll plug the OBD reader in this week and get some better data. Also, an indicated 65mph on my speedo is less than 65mpg according to gps, I'll record that data also.

440.4 miles, 10.683 gallons : 41.22 MPG.

Almost 16% above baseline untuned.

tikal said:

Sorry but I did not state that the testers are driving slower. I said that it is a possibility and one needs to be aware to drive the same way as before. I am sorry if my post was not clear enough in this regard.

Click to expand...

It certainly wasn't clear at all. I (and I think the other testers) took your post that you think we are jumping to conclusions and that some of the results are actually fudged to help the cause. To be fair to you, it's quite possible you may be speaking for others as well.

Let's clarify a few things that maybe should have been mentioned before:

1) Before becoming a tester, we had to agree that we would drive the same as we did pre-tune, to get consistent before and after readings. Prior fuel economy had to be proven by way of fuelly or another source of a data log. The longer the record, the better.

As others have mentioned, if anything, we are using the right foot a little more to play with the additional power, and sometimes because there's no other choice. The right foot had to be used a bit more to get the DSG to shift when we needed it to. That said, it's very possible our early readings may be a bit low to the true potential this tune has.

The only variables I see in this mix is now we are moving into the hot season. Ambient temps of course play a roll in how the engine operates. Also, using the AC of course creates a drag on the engine and can reduce fuel economy. Good fuel logs should point these items out. It is also possible that fuel blends may have changed. But you can also argue that here is no perfect time to do beta testing for something like this.

2) There are mixed reviews on this thread from the testers, and that is exactly what a beta test should do. -this thread isn't a review of the tune, it's findings that we as the testers are experiencing.

3) This tune is currently a development in progress. This thread will be ongoing for several months and the tune will likely change a bit.

Carry on...

Just filled up this afternoon.

43mpg

1.5mpg decrease from previous 2 tanks.

That being said, previous 2 tanks had 300 mile all highway runs, where as this is my first all "commute" tank, with about 25% city driving.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pulled a 5x10' uhaul trailer from boise idaho to Lincoln Nebraska. Could pull every grade at 65mph in 6th easily, but I would downshift to 5th when I saw instant MPG's drop below 15mpg's in case there was some EGT issues (no gauges). Car pulled great, even in the mountains. Could easily pull 70+ mph up grades. Fuel economy, with AC on, was about 27-29MPG depending on where we were. We actually got our worst fuel economy in the flatlands or Nebraska, but we had strong headwinds. Speed for entire trip was 65 mph. The cars MPG readout was actually about 5% low for a fillups. I don't have sto keep tune baseline numbers to compare, but it should give you an idea of what it can do

Just finished off the second tank and all is well. No complaints at this time. The newness of the tune has worn off a bit so not as much "playing" going on. Driving has normalized to pre-tune status. This tank full had the best mpg since owning the car at 37.6861 mpg (as a reminder, this is city driving folks). That gives me a two tank tune average of 36.6574 mpg. That's an improvement of 3.414 mpg or 10.35% over the stock tune. The way this is going, it will be three weeks before I can provide more data. Not necessarily a bad thing