[dfeldt91]

Thank you for the information and the link!

I did a quick read over about 20 random pages from the thread. To me, it looks like the turbo and the lack of IMA might be the reason for the 51mpg VS 65mpg the OP of that thread saw(Not sure if that is the average MPG the OP eventually got the car to stay at). I'm going to bookmark the thread and read it post by post because there is a lot of valuable information there.

The big issue I see with the way he went about it was adding an alternator. As a lot of us know, an alternator consumes a decent amount of power. There have been people who have done tests with and without an alternator, which raised MPG by up to 10%. The other issue I see is the turbo installation. A turbo forces more air into an engine, which causes the ECU to add more fuel to the engine, lowering your MPG. Let's say the alternator he used(90 amps) took 10% from the cars economy, that is 6.5 miles per gallon as he states he got 65 mpg before. That put's the economy at 58.5 mpg theoretically. Then add the turbo, which causes more fuel to be consumed, and you are down to a level of fuel economy that he saw, 51MPG. Just using the DC-DC converter instead of an alternator and omitting the turbo, I am pretty confident that similar, and likely higher MPG can be reached.

If/when I do an ECU upgrade, I won't be using a turbo(On this car, the one I'm buying for an engine swap will be getting a turbo). I am pretty confident that controlling ignition timing, AFR, etc, can be changed to get more fuel economy, especially when combined with a larger battery and a MIMA-like system.

I'm going to reach out to Haltech and see what can be done for this application.