Looking for a vendor someone anyone to help me burn or get a chip for a

1991 3.1 v6 looking for the best fuel economy.

I have a extra 91 computer I can mail as well if anyone wants to take this up.

I can PayPal $ or transfer,

More details below

 

More than likely ,that is one of those resistor in a box tricks. It tricks the IAT or MAT sensor into thinking the incoming air is either hotter or cooler,thus the ecm responds by either telling the injectors to inject less fuel or more fuel. If you want a chip for better mileage. You need to get a custom chip burned.

 

I was told to buy the v6 3.1 chip from summit it just plugs right into my computer.

Was told I will get 14hp more and I need to use 91 gas but I will get 1 more mpg ???

Has any1 used this chip

 

Guy on the Buick boards leaned out a chip himself for his Grand National, and geared it appropriately, and averaged over 50 miles to the gallon during Car Craft's "Real Street Eliminator" years ago, so it is more than possible. Don't expect a Summit chip to lean it out that much though, perhaps find a local tuner that can burn you one, and don't expect any performance out of it if your only concern is to maximize mpg...

 

So would u suggest me to return the summit chip it was 166$

And where do I find someone who can burn me 1 because I do t want more HP I'm looming for better over fuel economy in my cruiser.

 

Ouch, $166.00? There are vendors out there that will burn you a chip in which will target a more lean air/fuel ratio at both idle and part throttle, then bring you back where you need to be at wide open throttle. Just gear it appropriately so you can balance out where you need your RPM to be during cruising, some opt for lower gears (higher numerically) out back for every day street use, whereas they may go higher (lower numercially) if they see a lot of highway...

 

Where can I contact a vendor ??

So should I return the chip from summit?

 

There are a couple out there, but we really don't discuss that on the boards. If you PM me I can lead you in the right direction though...

I would...

 

the chips summit sells are worthless one of the members here compared the chips to stock chips alls they do as add about 4* of ignition timing and turn the fan on lil earlier

the fuel map is only changed at wot and only byy a neglible amount

there are a few v6 tuners on this forum that may be willing to help u out

 

Ok so I will return the chip much rather have a tuner burn me a custom chip for my goals of achieving better fuel efficient car. Rather give the tuner 166$ than summit and I would get better results

 

Most chips are non refundable. Summit might take it back though, they are like walmart.

What is your MPG currently?

 

Currently 21.7mpg

I used to get 27mpg

My timing was at 8* in process of changing it to 10*

I already replaced the EGR,02,air filter, my gear ratio is 3.27, it was 3.08,

 

Why did it drop? Was that after the gear change? Did you change your speedo gear too? If not your speedo is off and your milage will be off too.

 

I changed my rear end from stock 3.08 gears drum to a 1989 3.27 gears with disc.

My speedo is perfect.

I think I'm losing mpg a little with my gear change maybe a little with my timing being off and a little from changing my rim size from stock 16x8s now I have 2006 C6 19x10 rears 18.5x10

 

The lower gear will certianly impact milage .


Those big heavy 19" wheels are killing it, probably hurt acceleration a good bit too.

You say your speedo is perfect, did you cahnge the gear? Are you comparing it to GPS or something?

 

Well when I drive past a speed sign my speed matches it when I drive by. But what I need to check is if I drive a mile does my mileage reflect that. I just changed the tach mod cuz I have a 145mph cluster instead of a 110.

Not sure if you follow what I'm saying.


Never changed that gear because my speed was correct not sure if my miles are correctly reading.

 

he didnt go from 3.08 to 3.27 gear

3.1 v6's all came with 3:23 stock with an auto trans
3.1's with the 5 speed came with 3.42's

the 3.1 also has electronic speedo and can only be corrected with a tune or special box to correct the pulse per mile from the vss

gear swap is the best way to increase milage in a v6 car
my 2.8 car picked up 7 mpg in town and lost 2 mpg highway with a 3:42 to 4:10 gear swap
mioxed driving improved by 4 mpg

 

Those wheels are whats killing your mpg imo.

 

i agree , if u wanna keep those wheels id swap to a 3:42 or 3:73 gear , u also need to have the speedo corrected if if u swaped to 3:27's and now that u have different sized tires/rims

 

Well my speed is correct.

19x10 rears
18.5x8

My miles might be off though. Like if I drive 1 mile it might not be really 1 mile right?
When I drive 50 and I pass a speed reader or whatever my speed shows the same.


I'm trying to buy the 1989 iroc rims double line. The 16x8 size ones.

200$ a tire gets expensive for a daily driver.

 

If you changed your gear ratio then your speedo will be off.

If the speedo is off the mileage will be incorrectly indicated.

But you said your speed is spot on to what your speedo indicates....

Something is wrong. Either your tire height changed enough to make the change in gear ratio cancel out, or your gear ratio didnt change, or the sign that told you how fast you were going was indicating another car or wrong.

Big, heavy tires will hurt mpg. Gears will affect it, but not that drastically. I used to get well over 21mpg highway with my 305 TBI but I had a chip that was basically stock, but had the lean cruise mode enabled. Not sure if the V6's have that capability in the ecm, but it would be worth looking into. Lean cruise mode was disabled by GM from the factory because it increased emissions, but it definitely helps gas mileage. I would get 19 mpg with 70/30 city/highway driving.

 

The transmission still uses a drive & driven gear for the VSS. It may be a magnetic sensor, but still needs to be driven at the correct mechanical rate. The other info about the rear ratios is good-to-go.

RBob.

 

My speed is 100% correct.
My gear ratio was stock at 3.08 my gear ratio now is 3.27 it's a 9 bolt.
I did change tire size to a larger tire size. I need to get and see if my mileage is correct. I'm going to sell my C6 corvette rims chrome 19x10 rears and 18.5x10 fronts. I'm putting back 16x8. My timing was retarded I just set my timing back to 10* it was way off. So between my timing, gears, heavier tires, and my mileage being off maybe. I think that's where I lost 6-7 mpg.

O2 changed, egr changed,

And I believe my CAT is pretty much toast as well not looking forward to buying another CAT !! :/

 

the car was never factory equiped with 3.08s no v6 car ever cam with anything other then 3:23's or or 3:42's

all 2.8 cars got 3:42's
the cars got what i stated above


if it had 3.08's somone else replaced the original gears or rear end
3.27's should be close enough to what u should have along with the tire size change ur speedo may be reading correct

if u know the diamiter of the tire we can calulate that but u would also need to know the diamiter of what was originally on the car from the factory

 

1991 RS 3.1 v6 was stock gear ratio at 3.08 drum?

Can anyone back me up on this

I will get the diameter tire right now

 

Only manual LO3's and LB9's (w/out G92 option) received the 3.08's in '91...

 

Well what gears did a stock 91 RS 3.1 auto4 have then?

Current: front rim 18.5x8 tire info: 245/40ZR18 97Y (C6 corvette rim original)
Current: rear rim 19x10 tire info: 285/30ZR19 98Y V12 Evo Hancock brand

Rims and tires are for sale I'm going to put 16x8 irocs on for Better gas mileage.

 

3.23

 

bigger tires turn less revolutions,providing beter mileage. The smaller 16" will get worse mileage.

 

:facepalm:

Fuel usage is not in a direct relationship with tire revolutions, or even engine revolutions. There are other variables such as load, that changes fuel delivery requirements.

A larger tire, with no other changes will require, more force to turn, than a smaller tire, due to moment of inertia. The catch here is that an engine's power output is not linear, and therefore, might have a higher degree of efficiency and lower load at a higher RPM, requiring less fuel, than the load presented at a lower RPM. This could cause the smaller tires to increase fuel economy. There is also the change in leverage caused by the different sized tire that can also change load on an engine.

 

well said^

 

Hence why my 2006 C6 corvette chromed rims beautiful flawless rims at 230$ a tire I'm selling even though they look sexy !! Because I'm looking to save money since this is my commuter and only car and gas mileage is California is 4.40 a gal.

Rear tire specs: 19x10 Hancock evo
Front tire specs: 18.5



Also what's the best gear ratio I'm looking to sell my 1989 iroc-z rear end with posi 3.27 gear ratio has new rotors and breaks have plenty on the pad. When I get my new rear end I want to get different rotors or the best rotors for mpg?

Does this bring up another issue better break system can affect mpg as well
True/False ?

PM me or email if you interested in my rear end or rims u can drive my rear end before I pull it if you live I'm California.


Thanks for all the help really love this forum !!!!!

 

i'm gonna say false, breaking period is wasting energy and makes you have to accelerate again and waste more gas (why highway mileage is always better then in town stop and go traffic)

 

Heat is an issue with breaks I feel like breaks can affect mpg

 

how would your breaks increase your mpg then? aside from driving in such a way you'd never need to use them (which is impossible)

 

When you brake, you are turning gas into heat and brake dust. Since burning the least amount of gas is our game, the brake pedal is our enemy. Braking indicates that you have accelerated more than you really needed to.

 

exactly, do you still not get that its your driving that is the problem, if braking too much is killing you mpg? a "better" brake system would do nothing whatsoever for mileage

 

Rotor weight size any weight under the car you can remove ?

 

nice try, but the weight difference would be negligible, and bigger rotors would weigh more, not only that but its unprung weight, look an engine is an air pump (technically speaking) the best way to increase mileage is to increase flow, when was the last time you changed all your filters? parasitic drag is bad, how about your tensioner and belt? are you running a good quality synthetic? that'll help mileage and engine wear (wear can cause bad mileage through loss of compression) how about your AIR system? it kinda does nothing and removing it will reduce (not enough to make a strong difference but still) weight and drag on the engine, you have the 3.1 its a 60* engine, in terms of reliability with regular maintenance i'd say its one of the best engine gm ever put in a car, chips? playing with the timing? these things are for performance (which the 3.1l sadly just isn't without major work i.e forced induction) and you can't have performance to an engines full potential and retain driveability/mileage (this is where someone jumps in about an lsx making XXXX hp while retaining XXXX mileage, noone cares it pertains nothing whatsoever to this thread) unless your gonna ls swap, in which case your looking at 5 grand and up (lets get real there is no cheap ls swap) if you want better mpg do what EVERYONE is saying, get different gears, maintain whats already there, try some of the gimmick spark plugs (splitfire, E3, pulstar) none of them really work, but atleast you can say you tried something that should've worked, swapping brake setups however for mileage reasons, is just asinine

 

Yes new belt new pulley new harmonic, all stock, new radiator,

 

Average speed 68mph. (@65mph my RPMx100 =20 exactly)


My car specs: 91 RS frame
3.1L Auto4, 700r4 stock, 89 iroc 9bolt 3.27 gears, Rear rims 19x10 fronts 18.5 (2 in spacer on rear 1 1/2" frt) new 02 egr timing set at 10* never ran ac, radio yes with 2amps ? Have any affect?) new stock air filter, used 91 gas, car weight stock except for my rims, no idle time, flat road, completed topped off before trip, oil level ok running 10w-50, 280k mileage on engine, stock exhaust, stock computer, fuel injectors 5-6 months old,

What improvements can I make.

Exhaust size pipes size,Do tips on the exhaust has any affect with fuel e or just noise?
Under drive pulley
Heads
Drive shaft ?
Already getting 16x8 rims or 15 ?
Dual snorkel cai
When I rebuild my 3.1 what should I pore it out to and what parts can I change
For better Fuel E,
Any weight reduction that won't affect anything , cruiser car only.

--

With all that being said currently I'm getting .........

27.10 mpg



With all those changes I will get easy over 30mpg !!!

Now I'm pretty excited my timing was off retarded that's huge.

 

what is your compression ratio? Unless it's more than 10 to 1 you don't need 91 octane.
That wasting 20 cents a gallon right there.

 

Didn't know that thank you? How do I find out my compression ratio?

 

If the engine has not been built, run 87 octane.

Start with a good tune up, good plugs, wires, cap and rotor.
K&n air filter will help.

Brake rotors will have no effect.

Exhasut tips will have no effect.
A complete exhaust system may.

 

i disagree, the oiled cotton gauze filters really aren't worth their price, its what 10.99 for a stock style paper filter for a 91 rs v6 why spend 54.99 on a k&n and then have problems with your maf?

 

My issue was my timing was way off

My current gas mileage is now 27.1mpg

I'm still going to get a AL drive shaft and I'm trying to find that dual snorkel cold air intake but I can't find it anywhere online.

 

because your motor is an air compressor and better air flow=better efficiency.

 

 

According to the chart found at the bottom of page under model year 91 a stock V6 has a compression ratio of 8.5:1 so 87 octane is perfect.

 

the filter make as little as no difference. its just a waste of money, and if you put one on a vehicle you just bought, you void your warranty. k&ns let dirt into your engine, they don't filter as well as what was designed to be used on the car, it may "feel" faster but i can almost guarantee that he will gain no power or mpg from a k&n filter