What does ECO mode do with MRP?

[fastenova]

Well I assume more than just physically having O2 sensors, it's the difference between closed loop and open loop. In systems without O2 sensors it's always OL, so you can set the desired fueling and that's pretty much it.

In a CL system (with O2 sensors) there's only so much tuning you can do as it will tend to "learn away" any changes in its attempt to get back to factory spec'd AFR. In cruise conditions (arguably where the most fuel economy stands to be gained) a CL system will always utilize the O2 sensors, and will only use the fueling tables without input from the O2 sensors at WOT.

 

[Steve in sunny Fla]

Well I assume more than just physically having O2 sensors, it's the difference between closed loop and open loop. In systems without O2 sensors it's always OL, so you can set the desired fueling and that's pretty much it.

In a CL system (with O2 sensors) there's only so much tuning you can do as it will tend to "learn away" any changes in its attempt to get back to factory spec'd AFR. In cruise conditions (arguably where the most fuel economy stands to be gained) a CL system will always utilize the O2 sensors, and will only use the fueling tables without input from the O2 sensors at WOT.

2 of my 3 flashes for 2015 up are closed loop, and they work great. You can probably figure out how I negotiated that.

Steve

 

[mrinnocent]

I took the bike out today and did some testing with a free GPS drag timer app. I found two freeway exits and did a 30-75 mph run between them, with times and distances gathered for 30-50 mph and 50-75 mph. I did runs between them and recorded the results after each run.

Testing protocol:
- Eight total runs, four in each direction with four in each mode (see chart).
- Enter freeway at below 30 mph in 3rd gear with clear traffic and dump the throttle into wide open until exceeding 75 mph.
- No gear changes, ending the sprint in 3rd. This eliminates a variable.
- Configuration: screen low, riding solo, side and top cases on and empty, 91 octane gas.
- Weather: clear, late in day, temperature ~60F.
- All speeds were legal in the jurisdiction where testing was performed.

Results:

- Normal mode was faster on average than ECO mode in both 30-60 mph and 50-75 mph sprints.
- Normal mode took the same distance in 30-60 mph sprint but less distance in 50-75 mph sprint.
- There was a lot of variation in the results.

Potential sources of error:
- Dumping throttle rather than rolling on tended to bog the motor
- Speed at which throttle was fully opened was not always the same
- The GPS app may not be all that accurate
- Motor was getting hotter toward the end

Conclusions:
- Anyone familiar with statistics will note, there aren't enough samples to come to any confident conclusions.
- The 50-75 mph sprint numbers are probably more reliable than the 30-60 mph numbers since they are less affected by roll-on speed and technique.
- There's enough noise in the numbers that technique and circumstances are likely more important than the different between the ECU maps, if there is any.
- Further research is needed.

 

[Steve in sunny Fla]

I took the bike out today and did some testing with a free GPS drag timer app. I found two freeway exits and did a 30-75 mph run between them, with times and distances gathered for 30-50 mph and 50-75 mph. I did runs between them and recorded the results after each run.

Testing protocol:
- Eight total runs, four in each direction with four in each mode (see chart).
- Enter freeway at below 30 mph in 3rd gear with clear traffic and dump the throttle into wide open until exceeding 75 mph.
- No gear changes, ending the sprint in 3rd. This eliminates a variable.
- Configuration: screen low, riding solo, side and top cases on and empty, 91 octane gas.
- Weather: clear, late in day, temperature ~60F.
- All speeds were legal in the jurisdiction where testing was performed.

Results:
View attachment 31385
- Normal mode was faster on average than ECO mode in both 30-60 mph and 50-75 mph sprints.
- Normal mode took the same distance in 30-60 mph sprint but less distance in 50-75 mph sprint.
- There was a lot of variation in the results.

Potential sources of error:
- Dumping throttle rather than rolling on tended to bog the motor
- Speed at which throttle was fully opened was not always the same
- The GPS app may not be all that accurate
- Motor was getting hotter toward the end

Conclusions:
- Anyone familiar with statistics will note, there aren't enough samples to come to any confident conclusions.
- The 50-75 mph sprint numbers are probably more reliable than the 30-60 mph numbers since they are less affected by roll-on speed and technique.
- There's enough noise in the numbers that technique and circumstances are likely more important than the different between the ECU maps, if there is any.
- Further research is needed.

Some real inconsistency with those results though. Look at run #5 in ECO... it covered the 30-60 mark in the shortes distance of 190 ft, but took 3.9 seconds to do so? Compare to Run #2, which covered the next shortest distance at 207 ft and did it in 2.8 seconds. Somethings way off there. Also, the ambient temp corrections don't stabilize until about 77 tp 8 degrees, below that the fueling is being richened.

Glad to see you being curious though. It's fun.

Steve

 

[Scary Harry]

Steve,

I have about a 20 mile one way ride to the local Walmart. I can just alternate back and forth between ECO/STANDARD and reset the MPG reading after each round trip. How many round trips do you think it will take to see a significant difference? I figure the MPG meter doesn't need to be real accurate, just show the difference between modes. The majority of the route is 65 MPH (14 miles), then 55 (5 miles), down to 45 before entering the parking lot.

 

[chrismpero]

ECO button still does something. The speculation is quite entertaining!

I'll throw this out there... ECO is different from the 10-14 than it is for the 15 up. WHY?

15 n up have the O2s for input? Unless they're only their for closed loop operation, idk..

 

[connie_rider]

I can't find the post where Mr Innocent tells us how he is riding? (during normal riding)
(Perhaps Steve is talking to him and got it there)?
He did attach a (source) in which Kawasaki answers questions about their bikes.
That source is pretty informative.

It sez; By pushing the handle switch, riders are able to activate the Fuel Economy Assistance Mode, switching the ECU to a leaner fuel map in which ignition timing and fuel injection prioritize fuel economy.

ie; It sez it's a "leaner fuel map" in which "ignition timing and fuel injection" prioritize fuel economy.

So;
"Ted" may have been right that it is not a Stand-alone Map, and adjusts only a few things.
But, "Ted" may be wrong that it doesn't have its own numbers to control those few things {??}.

Ride safe, Ted

 

[zarticus]

"By pushing the handle switch, riders are able to activate the Fuel Economy Assistance Mode, switching the ECU to a leaner fuel map in which ignition timing and fuel injection prioritize fuel economy."

It does not say by pushing the button the bike "modifies" the bikes map, It says it switche to a leaner fuel map

 

[connie_rider]

Zarticus/Agreed; That is why I sed; But, "Ted" may be wrong that it doesn't have its own numbers to control those few things {??}.

NOTE: I don't know how a MAP actually controls things. {Only a programmer can tell us how it operates}
In this case;
ECO may have a preset number/value that it uses, (Marty Theory)
"Or" ECO may have a preset Percentage that it uses. (Ted Theory)

If ECO "goes to" a number, that number is in the ECO Map.
If ECO "adjusts from" a number, (that number is in the Normal Map) and is changed by the percent of change that is in the ECO Map.

Testing protocol:
- Eight total runs, four in each direction with four in each mode (see chart).
- Enter freeway at below 30 mph in 3rd gear with clear traffic and dump the throttle into wide open until exceeding 75 mph.
- No gear changes, ending the sprint in 3rd. This eliminates a variable.
- Configuration: screen low, riding solo, side and top cases on and empty, 91 octane gas.
- Weather: clear, late in day, temperature ~60F.
- All speeds were legal in the jurisdiction where testing was performed.
Results:
- Normal mode was faster on average than ECO mode in both 30-60 mph and 50-75 mph sprints.
- Normal mode took the same distance in 30-60 mph sprint but less distance in 50-75 mph sprint.
- There was a lot of variation in the results.
Potential sources of error:
- Dumping throttle rather than rolling on tended to bog the motor
- Speed at which throttle was fully opened was not always the same
- The GPS app may not be all that accurate
- Motor was getting hotter toward the end
Conclusions:
- Anyone familiar with statistics will note, there aren't enough samples to come to any confident conclusions.
- The 50-75 mph sprint numbers are probably more reliable than the 30-60 mph numbers since they are less affected by roll-on speed and technique.
- There's enough noise in the numbers that technique and circumstances are likely more important than the different between the ECU maps, if there is any.
- Further research is needed.

(Background) I did thousands of Accel tests {on a Dyno} when I worked at Shell.
We discovered that the slightest variable can make a huge difference.
So, I don't think his deviations are that bad. (considering how few and how he had to do the tests)
With only a few tests, they do indicate a difference in Normal and ECO.

Question; What RPM's was the engine turning at 30 MPH?
You said that the engine bogged if throttle applied too quickly?
In the Roll-On Comparison tests, we're intentionally starting from 2000 RPM in 3rd gear with no Bog.
Assuming that your above 2000, your engine shouldn't have Bogged down.

Ride safe, Ted

 

[Scary Harry]

I SWARE...this is like comparing top shelf wine to the bottom shelf wine.
All I know for sure is I'm not cracking skulls with my rider and I'm not being thrown over the handle bars during deceleration with my MR flash.

I'm going to collect data using my riding style to Wally Wurld and back, and report back if I survive the weather, scamdemic, drunk drivers, deer, and other undesirables.

 

[mrinnocent]

Some real inconsistency with those results though. Look at run #5 in ECO... it covered the 30-60 mark in the shortes distance of 190 ft, but took 3.9 seconds to do so? Compare to Run #2, which covered the next shortest distance at 207 ft and did it in 2.8 seconds. Somethings way off there.

I agree, the numbers really call into doubt the data gathering method, which was the free app I used. Probably a dedicated Dragy device would do the trick, but tbh I don't feel like spending $160 to find out.

Also of note, the eastbound runs had me come off a cloverleaf and go under an overpass, which could easily mess with the GPS readings, which are already unreliable for this kind of work.

I have about a 20 mile one way ride to the local Walmart. I can just alternate back and forth between ECO/STANDARD and reset the MPG reading after each round trip. How many round trips do you think it will take to see a significant difference?

If you can reset the average fuel economy in the display (I forget if that's possible), I think you should see a pattern emerge within 8-10 readings, so 4-5 in each mode. Sort of like when you zero a rifle, there's always a flyer, so four minus the one flub will give you three readings, which to me is the absolute minimum (even when your rounds cost $2/ea or your gas is $5/gal).

But if you are doing trips on different days, you'll have different bike configurations and ambient conditions, introducing noise into the results. You can see from my own results, gathered as consistently as I could, the numbers were all over the place. If you really want an answer you can trust, you either need to get lots of readings (like dozens) over time, or a handful of really consistent readings for a given set of conditions.

I can't find the post where Mr Innocent tells us how he is riding? (during normal riding)
(Perhaps Steve is talking to him and got it there)?
He did attach a (source) in which Kawasaki answers questions about their bikes.
That source is pretty informative.

It sez; By pushing the handle switch, riders are able to activate the Fuel Economy Assistance Mode, switching the ECU to a leaner fuel map in which ignition timing and fuel injection prioritize fuel economy.

In my OP (ECO vs normal, 2-up on same day) I was riding sedate, with occasional blips to scare my wife, with about even miles split between freeway, twisty backroads, and very twisty paved mountain roads (single lane, 1st gear switchbacks, occasional washouts).

As you've gathered, while the Kawi statement is indicative, it isn't authoritative. It's just ad copy. I'm imagining the engineer said something to the PR person, and that got translated into whatever they submitted just before deadline that day. Is that really how Kawi rolls? Who knows. I just consider the statement to be a data point within a larger narrative that we are building in order to get our mental models closer to reality.

 

[Steve in sunny Fla]

As you've gathered, while the Kawi statement is indicative, it isn't authoritative. It's just ad copy. I'm imagining the engineer said something to the PR person, and that got translated into whatever they submitted just before deadline that day. Is that really how Kawi rolls? Who knows. I just consider the statement to be a data point within a larger narrative that we are building in order to get our mental models closer to reality.

For a fact, Kawasaki has no problem engaging in dis-information.

Steve

 

[zarticus]

I have had that I remember at least 6 variations of flashes, I currently have the Hammer & it continues to blow my mind how much power my bike now has !. With all variations of flash I have always got better MPG with ECO mode on the Highway and using my Rostra Cruise control. Literally thousands of miles on trips.

 

[Steve in sunny Fla]

I have had that I remember at least 6 variations of flashes, I currently have the Hammer & it continues to blow my mind how much power my bike now has !. With all variations of flash I have always got better MPG with ECO mode on the Highway and using my Rostra Cruise control. Literally thousands of miles on trips.

no kidding... you were there right from the start... we sure did plenty of roll - ons during the initial building phase! Do you have an idea how much better the eco mileage is on a cruise vs the flash on a long haul? I personally have only seen about a 2 mpg gain, and that was more with my newer flashes, the early ones were pretty tightly tuned afr's for economy - as you know!

Steve

 

[zarticus]

no kidding... you were there right from the start... we sure did plenty of roll - ons during the initial building phase! Do you have an idea how much better the eco mileage is on a cruise vs the flash on a long haul? I personally have only seen about a 2 mpg gain, and that was more with my newer flashes, the early ones were pretty tightly tuned afr's for economy - as you know!

Steve

Only by on average 2-3 MPG. Cruise set between 70-75. I only use ECO on long trips on the Highway, Other than that I always leave it set on the Hammer flash. The different Flashes always got the same or better MPG than the factory regular flash. Anything over 75 and the Connie starts to drink fuel heavily no matter what flash it's running including ECO. If your going to average over 75 don't bother with ECO since their is no gain in MPG.

 

[connie_rider]

Zarticus; Do you recall if ECO Mileage improved after you added the various Flash's?
ie; If so, it indicates that the Flashed numbers are being used/adjusted.

Ride safe, Ted

 

[zarticus]

Zarticus; Do you recall if ECO Mileage improved after you added the various Flash's?
ie; If so, it indicates that the Flashed numbers are being used/adjusted.

Ride safe, Ted

ECO Mpg stayed the same no matter what flash I had . Mpg changed on the flash map's but NEVER on the ECO map

 

[kzz1king]

Only by on average 2-3 MPG. Cruise set between 70-75. I only use ECO on long trips on the Highway, Other than that I always leave it set on the Hammer flash. The different Flashes always got the same or better MPG than the factory regular flash. Anything over 75 and the Connie starts to drink fuel heavily no matter what flash it's running including ECO. If your going to average over 75 don't bother with ECO since their is no gain in MPG.

That's my problem!

 

[connie_rider]

ECO Mpg stayed the same no matter what flash I had . Mpg changed on the flash map's but NEVER on the ECO map

Also sed;
I only use ECO on long trips on the Highway, Other than that I always leave it set on the Hammer flash. The different Flashes always got the same or better MPG than the factory regular flash.

So, does that mean you no longer need ECO, as the flash you have gets better mileage?

Ride safe, Ted

 

[zarticus]

Also sed;
I only use ECO on long trips on the Highway, Other than that I always leave it set on the Hammer flash. The different Flashes always got the same or better MPG than the factory regular flash.

So, does that mean you no longer need ECO, as the flash you have gets better mileage?

Ride safe, Ted

ECO still get's better overall MPG over ANY flash that i've had. So YES I do STILL use ECO, All Steve's flashes got better MPG than the factory REGULAR map.

 

[Scary Harry]

Anything over 75 and the Connie starts to drink fuel heavily no matter what flash it's running including ECO.

When I go up to 84 (legal here in Wyoming), I sware there is a hole in the gas tank. I keep looking at my mirrors to see if fuel is spewing out behind me.

 

[Steve in sunny Fla]

Well, it's been fun but I know y'all are wondering, soooo.... I don't make changes to the ECO maps. For all intentions, ECO is still stock.

During my building / testing it was 1) enough work to perfect the full power map; and 2)my intent was to get full power very close to ECO in fuel economy, so there was no need for redundancy.

I think most folks can tell a marked difference in the full power map, pre and post flash. If you can't, or if you think it's the same as ECO... then I have to say to refer to the dyno charts.

Over the years I've flipped back and forth on steady state cruising to see if there was a significant difference. ECO would usually be 1.5 to 2 mpg better. I can deal with that. In fact the fuel economy on the 08/09's that don't have an ECO map will generally improve by 12 to 15% with the flash, and that's significant.

On the 2015 up, the fuel maps on full and ECO are exactly the same. Yes. Remember, fueling is being trimmed by the 02 sensors. On the 10 to 14, the map is leaner until the higher throttle openings. where it becomes the same. BTW... currently my 2015 up flashes (other than Hammer) enable 02 sensor monitoring, so I doubt there's any advantage between ECO and my flash.

ECO also has it's own independent mapping otherwise... if you notice the power difference that's really because of the severely retarded secondary throttle opening. Remember that if the fueling is leaner and the timing is advanced (it is) then sudden, hard throttle openings can build cylinder pressure to the point that the lean mix can't resist detonation. So slowing the throttle opening helps control those spikes. And remember, you're flipping to this map "to ride in an economic manner" .

Steve

 

[fartymarty]

ECO may have a preset number/value that it uses, (Marty Theory)
"Or" ECO may have a preset Percentage that it uses. (Ted Theory)

On the 2015 up, the fuel maps on full and ECO are exactly the same. Yes. Remember, fueling is being trimmed by the 02 sensors. On the 10 to 14, the map is leaner until the higher throttle openings. where it becomes the same.

ECO also has it's own independent mapping otherwise...

So Ted, assuming we were talking '10-'14 since mine is a '10 and your ol' red thang is a '14....did I win a sip o yor pallet wood aged 'shine?

 

[Scary Harry]

BTW... currently my 2015 up flashes (other than Hammer) enable 02 sensor monitoring, so I doubt there's any advantage between ECO and my flash.

Performance vrs. fuel management.
So, it may come down to the size of your BUTT dyno, riding style, cargo, fuel, tires, windscreen, and maybe color of your bike for the best gas mileage.
Interesting.

 

[connie_rider]

So Ted, assuming we were talking '10-'14 since mine is a '10 and your ol' red thang is a '14....did I win a sip o yor pallet wood aged 'shine?

Ya could have a sip, but I don't have any.
My Kuzin isn't currently available to make any.

But, I'll let ya have a bottle of TeXaS finest Beer. (Shiner Bock)

Ride safe, Ted

 

[Pr356]

"In fact the fuel economy on the 08/09's that don't have an ECO map will generally improve by 12 to 15% with the flash, and that's significant."

Oh crud, ever since this thread was started I've been out in the garage looking for my ECU button on my neutron silver (faster than '14 red) 2008. jk

On the serious side, my 2008 has always been flashed since I've owned it and the mpg has never been good (mid thirties) Might also explain why I go through tires so fast.

 

[connie_rider]

Tire wear and gas Mileage are directly proportional to the "Twist of the Wrist".

Ride safe, Ted

 

[zarticus]

Now if you all would of listened to me near the beggining of this thread ! Lol

 

[Steve in sunny Fla]

Now if you all would of listened to me near the beggining of this thread ! Lol

It's almost as if you had some inside information!

Steve

 

[zarticus]

It's almost as if you had some inside information!

Steve

To be honest I never new anything about the ECO map other than it NEVER changed no matter what Flash I had. That alone told me it was a seperate map all together. Also if the ECO was going to change at all you would of mentioned it on your website so buyers would know about it.

 

[Steve in sunny Fla]

To be honest I never new anything about the ECO map other than it NEVER changed no matter what Flash I had. That alone told me it was a seperate map all together. Also if the ECO was going to change at all you would of mentioned it on your website so buyers would know about it.

Very Astute. I assume(d) we has talked about it at some point in development.

Steve

 

[waynesworld194303]

Well, it's been fun but I know y'all are wondering, soooo.... I don't make changes to the ECO maps. For all intentions, ECO is still stock.

During my building / testing it was 1) enough work to perfect the full power map; and 2)my intent was to get full power very close to ECO in fuel economy, so there was no need for redundancy.

I think most folks can tell a marked difference in the full power map, pre and post flash. If you can't, or if you think it's the same as ECO... then I have to say to refer to the dyno charts.

Over the years I've flipped back and forth on steady state cruising to see if there was a significant difference. ECO would usually be 1.5 to 2 mpg better. I can deal with that. In fact the fuel economy on the 08/09's that don't have an ECO map will generally improve by 12 to 15% with the flash, and that's significant.

On the 2015 up, the fuel maps on full and ECO are exactly the same. Yes. Remember, fueling is being trimmed by the 02 sensors. On the 10 to 14, the map is leaner until the higher throttle openings. where it becomes the same. BTW... currently my 2015 up flashes (other than Hammer) enable 02 sensor monitoring, so I doubt there's any advantage between ECO and my flash.

ECO also has it's own independent mapping otherwise... if you notice the power difference that's really because of the severely retarded secondary throttle opening. Remember that if the fueling is leaner and the timing is advanced (it is) then sudden, hard throttle openings can build cylinder pressure to the point that the lean mix can't resist detonation. So slowing the throttle opening helps control those spikes. And remember, you're flipping to this map "to ride in an economic manner" .

Steve

Steve, I have a 2009 Connie. I would like to get it Tuned. But I have a couple of questions could you send me a message With your number so we could text?

 

[Steve in sunny Fla]

Steve, I have a 2009 Connie. I would like to get it Tuned. But I have a couple of questions could you send me a message With your number so we could text?

I don't text for work, email me at my website addy Steve at shoodabenengineering dot com (preventing bots) and I'll respond from there.

Thanks, Steve