Help increasing gas mileage and HP on 2003 Chevy S-10

[philb]

Hello all,

After searching the net, I noticed that this forum was very informative when it came to performance parts. I read about the "Turbonator" article and found this forum interesting.

I have a 2003 Chevy S-10 2.2L, I am not largely concerned on going extremely fast but I want more power so I can get up the mountain faster and more efficiently when I go snowboarding as well as when I carry a dirt-bike in the bed.

I was interested in purchasing these mods? Any suggestions comments or anything I am missing or should be swapped?

-AEM Intake
-Flowmaster Muffler, and I will have my local muffler shop put a custom catback on
-Possibly DC headers? Are these necessary?

That's generally what I was looking at. But I also came across these products on the net?
Do they work? Do they cause loss in gas mileage?

Seems fishy to me.

http://www.20horsepower.com/
http://www.revchip.com

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[Slanter]

You're right to be suspicious of those "chips." Actually, they're resistors, not chips, even though they're often marketed as though they are chips. The idea with them is to make the computer add more gasoline by altering a sensor reading. They'd only improve horsepower on a car that was tuned to inject too little gas at every RPM. In some cases, the computer might ignore them. I suspect in other cases, they might set off a Check Engine light, especially on '96 and newer cars. Here's a link to more information about "performance chip" scams.

Ok, now for mods that actually work. A free-flowing exhaust can make for slightly better mileage in some cases. Headers may improve mileage, but usually only if they are tuned to improve low RPM torque. As a general rule, mods that make the engine perform worse at the RPM range where you normally cruise are likely to hurt gas mileage. Ones that improve power there may be beneficial if they work by making the engine more efficient at that RPM.

Cold air intakes are more of a performance mod than a mileage one. I've heard of a few cases where an engine had special features in the stock intake to make it work better at low RPM that aftermarket intakes removed - in that case, it would probably hurt mileage. Cold air intakes can also hurt performance if they make it more tempting to floor it more often. Other than those warnings, though, it probably won't hurt.

Other relatively easy mods that can improve horsepower include reducing weight and installing underdrive pulleys. These pulleys deliver less power to your accessories, so you don't have to burn as much gas to keep them going. If you have a mechanical radiator fan, replace it with an electric one.

Then there are basic maintenance items. Be sure there aren't any broken hoses or similar issues under the hood. Spark plugs and wires need to be replaced periodically (except platinum plugs, which might still benefit from occasional cleaning). A bad oxygen sensor can hurt mileage, too. And when you change the oil, use the thinnest weight the manufacturer recommends. Look for the "Energy Conserving" mark next to the service grade logo.

On, so that's the easy stuff. If you want some more advanced work, you can install an aftermarket wide-band oxygen sensor system. I'm fairly sure that the S10 does not use a wideband sensor. You'll have to upgrade to an aftermarket unit that can interface with it. This will allow you to tune your engine to inject less fuel during cruising, improving your fuel economy.

Tuning your engine to use a wideband sensor is not cheap, in terms of either time or money. The sensor and its controller often runs around $200. Most ECU's that support these cost upwards of $1,000, except the Megasquirt, which is priced at under $200 but comes with about eight hours of assembly required. After installing this, which may take some minor rewiring, you will need to spend hours of tuning time getting the settings correct. In this case, you will be adding parts that GM decided were not worth the extra cost for improved mileage, so be prepared to spend accordingly, and put in the same kind of effort to making it work that GM's engineers had to do.

Good luck.

[philb]

Thank you for your time and quick response, I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to do that.

I simply put a drop-in KNN air filter in my stock airbox to help mileage and hopefully give me maybe a bit more power.

I will stay away from turbonators and resistors because they seem extremely too sketchy to buy.

One last question:

If I were to buy an aftermarket intake with the larger pipe and cone filter, such as KNN or AEM and possibly just a flowermaster exhaust and catback, in regards to adding some extra horsepower, would that produce a somewhat drastic change? Maybe 20+ horse and better high-end performance? Or since my truck is slow, just leave it alone?

Thank you again.

[Slanter]

20 horsepower is rather optimistic for just a cold air intake, header, and cat-back on a relatively low powered four cylinder. Expect to see something more like between 5 to 10 hp. It's your call whether this is worth it or whether you should leave it alone.

[philb]

20 horsepower is rather optimistic for just a cold air intake, header, and cat-back on a relatively low powered four cylinder. Expect to see something more like between 5 to 10 hp. It's your call whether this is worth it or whether you should leave it alone.

Thank you.

[jlcpo]

hmm, the topic is "help me increase mileage" and then immediately it goes into discussion of things that actually dicrease it. what do i know.
anyway, here's your bible of what you can do to increase your MILEAGE, not power.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...ge_Enhancement
you will find references to much so anything people came up with to fight them oil companies and car manufacturers in kahutz with them.
from my practical experience: i run on acetone as additive and halo plugs. they work. if you want to know how and all that, i'm posting a developed post in turbonator thread here as soon as i'm done with this.
my suggestion - buy a carburated car. you can do much better off modifying it for a high mpg than an injected one.

[Slanter]

There's one thing I should point out if you want to run acetone in a car. Acetone is a very aggressive industrial solvent, and can leak through most types of rubber. Engine fuel systems weren't designed with this in mind. Acetone attacks Viton, nitrile, PVC, neoprene, and many other sorts of rubber. The only sort that I know is a safe bet is butyl rubber, but there may be others.

Buying a carbureted car to increase gas mileage? It's true that these often have more room for improvement, but that's usually because many OEM carbs do not work very well. I don't expect one to top what you can accomplish with a correctly tuned EFI system. There's a good reason that the recent hybrids are injected and not carbureted. Many of them use almost every trick in the book to get better mileage... and I have yet to see a hybrid with a carb. Could you please explain why you claimed that someone should start with a carbureted car?

As for that link you posted, I have to say it looks like something of a mixed bag. Some of the things listed in there are genuinely useful, but others look questionable. For example, cryogenic spark plug treatment. That's normally a method used to reduce wear, and if you change your spark plugs regularly it should not make any difference as to how the plugs work. Others sound much more plausible - for example, Eagle Research claims that their carburetor mods are simply an example of careful tuning and installing the same technology used in '80s carburetors into older systems.

[jlcpo]

damn, touched a R button on the mouse and all my previous message went down the sewers. and i'm a very slow typist.
anyway, go to my previous post, go to link, go to acetone page, go to the acetone acetone page, read what guy says. it speaks for itself. of course, for one who wants to listen. no man is more blind than one that does not want to see.
i have noticed it's a notorius problem with any forum: folks do not read posts, just glance at them, then post a dissing post twisting what the guy said. it's like what's his face here, uneed2know, or some. he never said they had 85 mpg improvement. he said - 85 miles extra per tank. on something like a 30 gallon tank. then he got ridiculed for 85 mpg.
anyway, why a carb? well, i'm a toxicologist and a CPO, not a mechanic or a pseudomechanic or a "engine enginere" . i am a very good tree shade mechanic and a very educated person, yes. i'm, also, a common sense person. if it makes common sense - i'll give it a shot.
so, to see why i said that, you'll have to spend weeks on the peswiki website and maybe weeks on xresearch. there's a mountain of ideas that were developed for carbs. and i leave it up to reader to find out for themselves what fits their bill. look at the burke engine, for instance. i don't think us of a will keep issueing patents left and right to loons and idiots. so, pretty much i said so because of the many choices one have (and claims and facts in some cases that go with them) with a carb than one has with a fuel injected engine. so yes, you can post another well ironed and full of techy terminology post, and diss mine. which i do not care, but what i do know is simple: i did improve my mileage with plugs and acetone in a very mileage unfriendly area. see my post in turbonator. i, also, know that if i go back to stock box with high flow air filter inside, remove my ballast, and go into a, say, indiana, which is mostly flat, i'll have around 30 mpg on my cr-v. that's your highlander hybrid mileage, except that mine was $19K, not 45. that's what i know, because i had a gut to go and do it. and i am just positive, should i get a carb motor that did about 18 mpg, i could twick it to 35 - 40. maybe in combined way. that's where my discussion on the topic stops, prove me wrong by doing something, not just by slick talk.
there's a lot of money involved in oil and car business. resulting in wars etc. any common sense person knows how true epa mpg is. they don't even run their tests on gas. any common sense person knows how much trust most of the auto jornalists have, with them being sponsored by oil and car bigwigs. so i see only one way of resolving this kind of discussions: step out of your cubicle and, actually, do it. then find out if it works or not. then say - i did it. it does. or i did it, it does not. my wife's lexus rx300 did not like acetone at all. my honda does. 10% mileage increase? why not, costs me nothing. will it kill my engine? maybe in 300000 miles, i'm not going to drive it that long anyway. i, also, know that you can't judge that link by 1 hr. visit. it took me weeks and weeks to get through it and i am still working on some ideas.
no offence to anyone. i'm just so much tired of corporate ********. it's like all the car forums i am member in: honda suv, superhonda, water injection, now this one. all made by the same webdesigner, all boilerplated, all have the same mentality moderators (your car manufacturer knows what's the best for you), it starts looking like one big corp message board. of course, they tout one idea - oooh, do not experiment, buy what we sell you. traders, damn....

[jlcpo]

slanter, man, i looked at your vehicles. dude, you have water injection plus fuel atomizer written all over 2 of them. i would. of course, halo-brisk plugs won't hurt, he-he...
no, i do not sell them. i don't give. but they are nice plugs! wish i could try krupa's plugs!

[Slanter]

I did read the page about acetone. I did not mean to imply that it your experience is invalid. However, I also felt that the author of that web page may have been a bit cavalier in dismissing the potential hazards of using acetone in fuel system not designed to handle it. I've worked with a fair number of industrial strength solvents. There are a few times that I've put on the wrong rubber gloves and had a solvent go straight through them. Not something you easily forget, so I simply thought it would be fair to post a warning and some tips on how to "correctly" set up a fuel system to handle acetone.

As for uneed2know, one of his exact quotes that was, "The sports car's had the best increase, the bhp on average was 28-33 gain, and had a 60-85 mpg increase." He also made enough other suspicious claims that I concluded he was probably an Internet troll, not a sincere poster like you. So I called his bluff.

If you believe that you can take a carbured vehicle and go from 18 mpg to around double that, it's up to you to prove that by actually putting such a car together. The burden of proof lies on you, since you have claimed this is possible. If you really do go and build something like a 40 mpg Volare, I will definitely be willing to listen.

Now that you mention it, maybe I should try water injection on the Dart. The ECU I'm in the process of installing has a feature for water injection control if I decide to use it.

[jlcpo]

actually, i might some day. retirement time, maybe? i don't have mechanic shop good enough an i do not like to spend money. i like to save them.
but here's a good one for you:
http://www.rexresearch.com/webheisv/1whvalve.htm
and even a better one:
http://www.rexresearch.com/auto/carbusp.htm
now you understand why i said carbs? look at the well of patents!!
besides, my cars run fine. also, i do not trash any idea that did not come out of my mouth. i am secure in my life, so i do not think i have to prove anything. but - i'll think about it. it might be a very very rewarding project.

as of what the other guy said: oh lordy, you know how to copy and paste?

On average the suv's gained 8-12 bhp, and an increase of 20-30 mpg per tank. The sports car's had the best increase, the bhp on average was 28-33 gain, and had a 60-85 mpg increase. The ss silverado had 27 bhp increase and a 50 mpg increase per tank and the srt-10 had a 24 bhp increase and a 35 mpg increase per tank.

what did you say? why you did not mention that "per tank"? not nice, man.

guy is so obviously using "mpg per tank" meaning "miles per tank" that only illwishers will think otherwise. even caused a good samaritan to mention this in a next post or two.
but i'd say: let's wrap it up, why fight? i think boys at peswiki did great research and left door open for any one to take their route and follow it. guys at rexresearch did also a fantastic job. i am still amazed at human ingenuity they pulled together for every one to enjoy.
slanter man, is there a way to attach a pdf to a post? i have a full description of wateratomiser sitting on my harddrive and can not find it again on the web. it's ridiculously cheap and might have some merit to it. would be nice to try it i can't figure out how to hook it up to injected car. you see, after i removed stock air box, i have huge opening under the hood asking for something to be installed in there. something useful, maybe? fuel saving?

oh, and by the way, be very careful with water. it's a very potent ..... wetter, you know. it may get your engine wet, lord save! ease up, i'm just messing with you. no, i think water/alcohol injection will work fine for your dart. water per se does very little unless you run turbos. but windshield washer fluid - ye, it's some other thing. just don't forget to add a ted of lubricant to fluid so it does not flush away your engine oil, methanol is notorious for that. either way, it all shows at gas pedal floored and high revs only, you will have nothing in the low range. i am saying once again - halo plugs gave me nice agility at 30 - 40 mph speeds, exactly when you have to make a fast manouver, like an evasive one. before it was "don't even try it", now i just zoom to where i want or where it's safe.

and for the guy that wants to improve his chevy truck:
http://www.streetandperformanceelectronics.com/lead.htm
they have mucho interesting things for trucks.

[Slanter]

I'll be the first to admit that I did not play nice with uneed2know... but when a guy is that obvious at faking his qualifications and clearly wants to start an arguement, no, I don't play nice.

I think I actually recognize a couple of names on that patent list. But that's just a list of mechanisms that could be tried, not evidence that these things actually produce large gains in gas mileage.

The one about the valve is a bit more interesting, although I really wish I could see the actual test results rather than magazine write-ups. It appears the writers who tried to summarize the report seem to have interpreted it differently, with some stating that a particular figure applied to horsepower and others to torque. Typical sloppy reporting... I've had the press botch details of an invention I was working on, too.

However, it seems that the gains from the Webster & Heisse valve were fairly modest. The reports said it was somewhere on the order of a 6% to a 20% improvement in fuel efficiency. That's a far cry from the claim that you could take a carbed car getting 18 mpg and increase that to 35 or 40. Have you actually tested a system that doubled the mileage in a carbureted car, yourself?

[jlcpo]

http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm
this article should pretty much do for doubters. of course, not for mongers.
my mpg today: 30.3 mpg on 02 honda cr-v, automatic, real time 4 wheel drive, 265 lb driver, 210 lb ballast, in seattle area (ups and downs). on cheapest gas i find in the area, usually it's ampm. chevron did not work with acetone too good. opposite of what lois laponte says, by the way. that's with typhoon high air flow intake, mind you. car is rated at 25 by epa.
i am convinced - and it makes common sense - various cars respond in a different way. mine is tuned for best performance on 86, i think it's why she likes cheap gas better. so do i.
once again, no eyeballed calculations, data are streight off the digital ecu reader that calculates and averages daily commute for today and previous day.
not to be blaimed of single sidedness and density, here's other links:
http://www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm

and this one (or 2?) i have just found:

19. To seal maximum warmth inside the exhaust pipe, insulation in the form of Reynolds Aluminum Foil is employed by us to insulate the oxygen sensor. We wrap three inches in front and three inches after the sensor to keep it much warmer. We double a one-foot section of foil to wrap that around the pipe and around the sensor itself. Do not remove the sensor. Then we repeat the process four more times per each sensor. Finally we use .030" copper or aluminum wire to wind around the aluminum foil about one-inch apart to keep it from blowing away and be sealed against water. The wire comes from any welding supply. The goal is to fool the car's computer into sensing too rich a mixture so it adjusts with a slightly leaner mixture and possibly a slight advance in timing. The end result is smoother engine operation and better MPG. This trick is especially important in severe winter climates.

20 The car computer system reads engine vacuum and the throttle position sensor as you drive. The less you depress the throttle, the less fuel is sent to the injectors. The higher your manifold vacuum, the less fuel is received by the engine. When you have a ScanGauge on your car, you soon see that backing off the accelerator while going down a slight hill sends the ScanGauge an immediate reading over 100 MPG. Of course this is averaged into the overall reading on trip setting. But the immediate reading shows a huge MPG reading during this condition. Do not put the car into neutral. Just try to keep your foot off the accelerator as much as you can and still maintain a reasonable speed. Make it a habit. It helps to have a vacuum gauge on your dash.

The author knows it is a trivial thing to obtain great mileage. He has done it over and over for 50 years by many different methods. The honest tips above could DOUBLE your mileage. These are really valuable hints in these difficult days of bad gasoline.
http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/tips.htm

[Slanter]

A couple of my cars had MPG gauges on them. Watching them could give some pretty interesting results. For example, my Probe would completely shut off fuel when going downhill with the throttle closed. The MPG reading would go off the scale.

Some aftermarket ECU's can duplicate this if the one already in the car does not.

Also, Tom's Guide to Fuel Saving, while mentioned in the wiki and the Turbonator thread, is a good enough resource that I thought I'd repeat the link here for the benefit of anyone just skimming the thread.

[jlcpo]

something peculiar cought my eye in TONY'S GUIDE TO FUEL SAVING GADGETS, mentioned here in several posts, by myself and slanter. look at this quote:

In terms of specific products, the Broquet device was tested in 1994 by the UK consumer group Which?. They ran three different cars at three different test speeds on a rolling road - as standard, with the Broquet fitted, and with it removed again. (This is not quite as satisfactory as "proper" cycle-based rolling road tests, but far better than uncontrolled on-road measurements.) The results were as follows:

Citroen AX 1.1
Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std
30 69 70 71
50 54 56 56
70 40 40 41


Rover 620i
Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std
30 49 52 53
50 41 42 43
70 32 33 33


Mitsubishi Galant 1.8
Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std
30 55 57 58
50 46 46 47
70 35 35 34


It can be seen that the improvements after fitting the Broquet are extremely small, and in most cases the benefit remains after the device has been removed. Which? believed that this was because the cars were relatively new and still running-in - economy is therefore improving as the engine friction reduces. If the improvement were really due to the Broquet, the economy should have returned to "baseline" after it was removed.

reason i pasted this here is simple: all those are european or european edition vehicles. reason i highlited eclipse is because i owned one for years. though it's a great hwy mileage car, i never had it to this good a mileage, even with cruise shot from nashville to indianapolis, it'll average maybe 28/29 at the best. just an observation. not placing any assumptions as that'll trigger slanter into his "opinion". i was trying to get in touch with TONY but his website does not host any means of contacting him, and i do not blaim the man. and look at that citroen!! a friend told me that his buddy is routinely going to britain and drives their cars, he says that he averages 90 mpg on a diesel minivan and hates to go back to usa mileage.

[Slanter]

No "opinions" in this post, just facts.

One thing to keep in mind about the British magazine is that the UK gallon is smaller than the US one. A British gallon is about 1.2 US gallons. Brings that 41 mpg in the Citroen down to 34 American MPG.

And I've managed some pretty high mileage figures by steady cruising at low speed myself. Once when I was trying to drive a LeBaron with a trashed radiator through the Apalachaian Mountains, I had to hold it below 50 on the Interstate to keep it from overheating. I averaged about 36 mpg for the trip.

And while Tony doesn't have a clickable link, he's got his email address there on the contact page.

[patrick076]

very nice post i like this