• Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

What does ECO mode do with MRP?

mrinnocent

Member
Member
What does ECO mode do with MRP? Is it intended to do anything in particular? Or is it functionally inoperative because of the flash? Or does it work with the flash in an undefined way?

Just curious because I did a few fill ups this weekend and, with one run done pretty much entirely with ECO mode, I only noticed one difference. Gas mileage was about the same, performance was about the same. The only thing I noted was prominent popping on closed throttle engine braking. When I say "prominent", my non-gearhead wife noticed it independently. From memory, I noticed it maybe in the 3-5k range but not below. This seems strange since I think it means unburnt fuel in the exhaust, which isn't very economical or ecological. Is ECO mode just popper mode now? Cool that I can turn it on and off, but really I'm just interested in how all this stuff works.

Thanks, and I wish you the best in the new year!
 
My mileage does not seem to improve in ECo so I quit using it. I definitely have more power with a smoother delivery.
 
Well, since this question wasn't emailed to me directly, i guess I'll sit back and learn how it all works. This should be interesting.

Steve

I posted the question to the Shoodaben Engineering forum because I wanted your input, and I thought the community might find the answer useful. However if you prefer questions to be emailed directly to you in the future, I can do that instead.
 
I posted the question to the Shoodaben Engineering forum because I wanted your input, and I thought the community might find the answer useful. However if you prefer questions to be emailed directly to you in the future, I can do that instead.
either way is fine. This way gives me an opportunity to see how others have decided to deal with the same question. Kzz1King has told us his take on it, I hope others will too. I'll learn something. You want to hear what I have to say, but this is an opportunity for me to hear what y'all have to say.

BTW, what year is your bike?

Steve
 
My bike is a 2014. It sounds like you also aren't sure what ECO mode does in combination with the MRP. Which is fine, I'm just surprised since I figured it was an engine map thing and MRP is your engine map. Maybe I'm wrong, idk. Anyway, if it helps you learn, that's cool too (y)

So the effect of ECO mode + MRP for me has been exhaust popping on closed throttle engine braking. Premium gas, 10% ethanol, normal weather, no exceptional circumstances other than a Delkevic exhaust and midpipe. My bike does get terrible gas mileage for reasons that I can't figure out though (like low 30s), so if you're getting actually good mileage, it's possible the strange conditions affecting my bike won't apply to your own. Fwiw the mileage hasn't changed noticeably since before and after the flash.
 
My $0.02 is that since getting the MRP there's been no interest on my part to experiment with the ECO mode. But now that you've brought it up, on my next ride I'm going to see if there's any difference on my '21 that has 11,000 miles on the odometer for which my aggregate MPG is 36 (even though I'm liberal with the throttle almost always).

Tomorrow is supposed to be 78F here in Houston with mostly sunny skies, so I believe it'll be a good time to take a "mental health day" and get my wind therapy.

I'll report back if I remember. LOL AB

p.s. If I were a betting man I'd lay $20 on SISF not messing with Mama Kawa's OEM ECO mapping as it isn't adding value. He's tuned the primary map for optimal cooling/timing/fuel/air which is why we see our machines running cooler and smoother than from the factory.
 
I have recorded all my gas mileage from when my bike was new. I used to use ECO mode because I liked the increased gas mileage.
When I was using it, I noticed 2 things about it, 1. it gave me better gas mileage, 2. it restricts the power when you really get into it.

I played around with it after I got my first re-flash from Steve and didn't notice any better gas mileage using it -vs- the Shoodaben flash.

I haven't used it since.
 
My bike is a 2014. It sounds like you also aren't sure what ECO mode does in combination with the MRP. Which is fine, I'm just surprised since I figured it was an engine map thing and MRP is your engine map. Maybe I'm wrong, idk. Anyway, if it helps you learn, that's cool too (y)

So the effect of ECO mode + MRP for me has been exhaust popping on closed throttle engine braking. Premium gas, 10% ethanol, normal weather, no exceptional circumstances other than a Delkevic exhaust and midpipe. My bike does get terrible gas mileage for reasons that I can't figure out though (like low 30s), so if you're getting actually good mileage, it's possible the strange conditions affecting my bike won't apply to your own. Fwiw the mileage hasn't changed noticeably since before and after the flash.

1) I know what ECO does after I've flashed a bike, but I have some flashes that use 02 sensors, which is why I asked.

2) do you have a full delkevic exhaust now?

Steve
 
I was under the impression that it (ECO mode) does the same exact thing it did before the reflash.
Except it just gets used much less. ...so we could say it gets more ..rest? :giggle:

Gas mileage was about the same, performance was about the same.
OH Boy!..... now he went and done it. Perhaps not so innocent? :unsure:

:)
 
My guess;

#1 The ECO mode doesn't change the AFR.

#2 ECO is not a complete/separate engine Map/Program.

#3 ECO uses the primary Map and adjusts only a couple of things.
ie; I think it adjusts only spark timing, (possibly) valve timing, and other {??}.

So, if you have a MRP Flashed ECU and select ECO, your using the Primary (MRP Map) and adjusting only those few things slightly.
and; Because the MRP Numbers are superior to the OEM Numbers, the change in performance is less noticeable.

Because ECO isn't an engine Map/program, it does not have its own numbers to use.
It only adjusts the numbers that are used in the primary (MRP) Map.

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:
Another reason I quit using the Eco mode is that it's a bit like riding 2 different bikes. If you forget you are in ECo and your buddy hits it you may get left behind šŸ˜„
 
Well I think Ted is wrong. (sorry Ted)
I think it is two completely separate maps and a reflash of the default map has no effect on the so called ECO mode (officially called the Fuel Economy Assistance Mode). However, I've never looked inside a CPU like a reflasher would to see what is going on....so until Steve tells us what is going on (and I think he is enjoying our guessing and isn't going to say anything until one of us asks him)...I guess we can just speculate away. :D
 
Well I think Marty is wrong about me being wrong. (sorry Marty) šŸ¤Ŗ
And Harry, if I'm in ECO all the time, I'd hate to see what happens if I use the MRP program.
(See Roll-on discussion)

Steve. Will you please get me out of this? At least say if I'm close or not on the ECO capabilities.

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:
Ok, we had a few hours of decent weather today that I took advantage of. Only got rained on for about 15 mins on my way home.
During my adventure I applied ECO mode to see if there was truly any seat-of-the-pants difference, as well as observed the numerical Current MPG at different speeds in different gears. Here's what I noticed:
1) power wasn't really down, but perhaps a bit retarded / lethargic when rolling on the throttle in OD... in lower gears and in higher RPMs I felt no difference in the motivation... also only noticed a bit more gurgling from the exhaust on throttle closure once, while the rest of the time it sounded and felt the same on deceleration;
2) mileage appeared to be about 5-7 MPG higher than without ECO on... at first I thought I was imagining it, but then switched it off and on a few times to check the numbers... it was almost like I could artificially inflate my MGP just by switching on ECO even though I didn't notice having lost any torque or power.

I'll continue to explore it more now that I'm curious, once we get cooperative weather in a week or so.

Steve, we can't unring the bell so I'm on the edge of my chair in anticipation of getting a snippet of your wisdom about how this works! :^ ) AB
 
2) do you have a full delkevic exhaust now?
I still have just a Delkevic midpipe and exhaust. The stock cat is still there. I think the header is stock.

2) mileage appeared to be about 5-7 MPG higher than without ECO on
I don't trust any MPG numbers that aren't the distance between two fill ups divided by the gas bought at the second fill up.

The Kawi press materials say Fuel Economy Assistance Mode is "switching the ECU to a leaner fuel map" (source). This is hardly authoritative, but assuming it's true, it means ECO is either a Shoodaben custom map, or it's the original ECO map. Since performance doesn't seem to change, I'm guessing it's a custom map and similar to MRP. Since ECO mode isn't a selling point on the map product page, I'm guessing it's not different enough to bother mentioning. Since there is a distinct change in having a popping exhaust, that would make the map either leaner or richer (source).

The ECO map could be a lot of things. It could be slightly leaner to get that last little bit in case it's gonna be a close one. It could be an old trial map written to the ECU by mistake. It could be standard MR in case 91 octane isn't available. I'm just going to take a wild stab at it and guess the ECO map is an MRP with stoich calibrated for 100% gasoline (instead of 90% with 10% ethanol).

Though as far as I'm concerned, at this point ECO just stands for "explody can: on".
 
Eco is Kawasaki's map, Nothing to do with MRP !. Yes there are 2 seperate maps on the ECU. MRP replaces the regular map. There is a night & day difference between the MRP map & the Eco map. If you can't tell then you need to twist the throttle a bit more !
With that thought when one finds oneself without premium just run the eco and stay a little lighter on the throttle?
 
Well I might be slightly wrong in thinking Marty is wrong about me being wrong. (whut?) šŸ˜µ
ie; Marty is still wrong about me being completely wrong.
But, I did some re-thinkin' and made some refinements to my last guess.

Primarily, I still think the ECO is not a stand-alone Program.
It uses info from the primary (MRP) Map and makes small adjustments.
See below.

My guess;

#1 The ECO mode doesn't change the AFR much.

#2 ECO is not a complete/separate engine Map/Program.

#3 ECO uses the primary Map and adjusts only a couple of things.
ie; I think it slightly adjusts only; spark timing, Fueling, and (possibly) valve timing {??}.

So, if you have a MRP Flashed ECU and select ECO; the ECU is using the Primary (MRP Map) and adjusting only those few things slightly.
and; Because the MRP Numbers are superior to the OEM Numbers, the change in performance is less noticeable.

ie: Because ECO isn't an engine Map/program, it does not have its own numbers to use.
It "adjusts" only the (spark/valve timing, fueling) numbers that are used in the primary program. (MRP Map).

Ride safe, Ted

PS: If your using the MRP flash with 02 sensors, the ECU will continue to make small changes to the AFR {based on the 02 readings}.
(ie; Assuring that the AFR remains stoichiometric)
 
Last edited:
Well I might be slightly wrong in thinking Marty is wrong about me being wrong. (whut?) šŸ˜µ
ie; Marty is still wrong about me being completely wrong.
But, I did some re-thinkin' and made some refinements to my last guess.

Primarily, I still think the ECO is not a stand-alone Program.
It uses info from the primary (MRP) Map and makes small adjustments.
See below.

My guess;

#1 The ECO mode doesn't change the AFR much.

#2 ECO is not a complete/separate engine Map/Program.

#3 ECO uses the primary Map and adjusts only a couple of things.
ie; I think it slightly adjusts only; spark timing, Fueling, and (possibly) valve timing {??}.

So, if you have a MRP Flashed ECU and select ECO; the ECU is using the Primary (MRP Map) and adjusting only those few things slightly.
and; Because the MRP Numbers are superior to the OEM Numbers, the change in performance is less noticeable.

ie: Because ECO isn't an engine Map/program, it does not have its own numbers to use.
It "adjusts" only the (spark/valve timing, fueling) numbers that are used in the primary program. (MRP Map).

Ride safe, Ted

PS: If your using the MRP flash with 02 sensors, the ECU will continue to make small changes to the AFR {based on the 02 readings}.
(ie; Assuring that the AFR remains stoichiometric)

I followed the instructions on the ECU re-install guide provided by SISF, so my question is if this is one of the reasons I didn't experience as much of the gurgling mentioned previously?

Also, does the ECO setting adjustments make THAT much difference for mileage calculations? 5-7 MPG is a significant difference when running at 80-90 MPH. The RPMs are the same and I sense nearly no significant loss of torque (maybe just a slower rate of climb in the RPMs when opening the throttle in OD).

Thx, AB
 
Last edited:
...5-7 MPG is a significant difference when running at 80-90 MPH...
Agreed, that's quite significant! Is this just what the digital display reads? I agree with @mrinnocent that I don't really trust those MPG numbers.

If you want to come anywhere close to it being 'scientific'... What I have done with my other bikes is this: top off the tank, run a stretch of highway at a particular constant speed (note the day of week, time, traffic levels and outside temp) in both directions (or do a loop), then head to the same petrol station, top off again and note the exact miles traveled and fuel used. Make the changes (in this case just changing over to ECO mode), then at the same day/time/traffic/temp and do the same trip at the same speed. If any of your conditions change (unexpected heavy traffic or wild temperature swings) then you gotta do it again for an accurate result.

Clearly this does not tell you real world MPGs across a variety of conditions; rather it's best case and is more used to track how a particular change affects fuel economy. But still a useful tool. There's obviously variability (are you riding into a slight headwind? What's the humidity?) but this is as close as I've gotten to reliable, measurable data. I have straight, fairly level freeway route I use, about 60 miles round trip, and I'm happy with the numbers I've measured, exploring the differences of everything from carb jet tuning to adding a thermostat bypass (ThermoBob) on my KLR650. I've even tried to measure MPG changes from tire pressure changes! None of these exact numbers mean anything to anyone else except your bike, but the % change is generally a good guess for how it might affect others with the same setup.

On all of my bikes with digital fuel economy indicators, they have shown different MPG changes than manual calculations when I make modifications, in the 10% error range. Often times the change is less than 10%, so it is useless in that regard.

As far as the discussion about whether ECO mode is a totally separate set of ECU maps, I'd guess not, but rather applies fueling/timing modifications on top of the existing tables. I do not know whether SISF modifies the ECO mode mod tables though I'd lean towards not. Just my 2 cents.
 
Agreed, that's quite significant! Is this just what the digital display reads?

Yes, I didn't invest the time time to establish a consistent / repeatable route to check the old fashioned. I don't remember if my ZX10 had the MPG meter available, but at that age I wasn't too much interested in that info anyway. These days I'm only interested in it so far as it calculates my Range remaining, which we all know fluctuates based on the amount of throttle we decide to use at any given time.

Frankly I put very little faith in what it reads because as far as I can tell the algorithm constantly updates the display based on an average of throttle positions over the previous few mins + current. You can tell there's a delay from when you crank WOT to when the display drops to 8.5 MPG from standstill or to 14.4 from 46.7 when you downshift from OD to 5th to pass some cager who's driving 5 MPH below the speed limit in the left lane.

Thanks BTW to everyone who's weighing in. This topic has piqued my interest for the time being. :^ ) AB
 
Are you saying that ECO does not use any of the Normal numbers, or not using any of the Normal (that are now MRP) numbers?

(I think we can agree that)
In a MRP flashed ECU; the MRP Map develops more toque/power than Normal/OEM Map.
In an unflashed ECU; the "ECO" Mode develops less torque/power than Normal/OEM Map.

With that in mind;
One would think that (in a MRP flashed ECU) the step-up from ECO to Normal would be significant?

But people have tried it (using a MRP flashed ECU).
They've stated that the step-up from ECO to Normal (with a MRP Flashed ECU) is minor. (Whutttt??)

The reported minor step-up makes me think that ECO "is" using the MRP Flashed numbers and adjusting those numbers.
ie; Using MRP Numbers, not using the OEM Numbers.
Or; Their Butt dyno is out of calibration. šŸ¤Ŗ

Err; If someone would do a Roll-on test (with these parameters) we would actually know how much the step-up is,,, wouldn't we. (Hint, hint)
<evil grin>

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:
This thread is proving the worthlessness of butt dynos.

Want to really screw up a butt dyno? Take a very linear power curve, like a concours can generate and make the low end power soft, like a big header would. Don't add any top end power. Everyone will SWEAR the bike really gained a bunch more top end power.

I'm finding this an interesting thread.

Steve
 
This thread is proving the worthlessness of butt dynos.

Want to really screw up a butt dyno? Take a very linear power curve, like a concours can generate and make the low end power soft, like a big header would. Don't add any top end power. Everyone will SWEAR the bike really gained a bunch more top end power.

I'm finding this an interesting thread.

Steve
Yep, they're impossible to calibrate and almost always 'validate' the rider's expected outcome of the change.

Very curious to know your thoughts, when you're ready to share them =)
 
For y'all to calibrate your butt dynos... here's a dyno chart from a stock, unflashed ecu, comparing full power to eco mode. Still think it's all the same?

Steve
 

Attachments

  • fullvsECOstock.png
    fullvsECOstock.png
    48.7 KB · Views: 252
Yep, they're impossible to calibrate and almost always 'validate' the rider's expected outcome of the change.

Very curious to know your thoughts, when you're ready to share them =)
I'm glad you added almost to that. Back in the days when the Guhl flash was all the rage...well maybe not rage.... but it had traffic on the forum, I was thinking of "the Emperors New Clothes" story was going on, with me (or anyone buying it) being the emperor. I really didn't notice any detectable difference. My wife had been telling me for years that I was an insensitive a$$, and the Guhl flash made me think she might be right. Fortunately the decel flash was detectable to my butt dyno the first time I pulled away from a stop sign. It wasn't a "roll on" take off, it was just a normal departure from a stop sign on a 30 mph side street, but I could tell right away there was more oomph down low. First thing I thought was "This is going to be really popular with those riding two up and fully loaded". Of course then mama Kaw decided to make first gear lower, so I guess it never became a must have for the couples.

In addition to the scenario that Steve mentioned, where something is changed (softer low end from larger pipes) but the wrong conclusion is made from that change, I think that those adding slip on mufflers to their bikes are also fooling themselves and have more noise and not much else even if their butt dyno says otherwise.
 
Harry;
On that chart, Red is ECO Mode, and Blue is Normal Mode.
The steepest/tallest pair of lines is the Horsepower Plot.
The flattest pair of lines is the Torque plot.
(Glad I could help) šŸ¤ 

More Butt Dyno "Calibration" numbers.
Visualize these MRP numbers with the OEM numbers.
{see where they fit on the Plot that Steve posted}


At approx. 3000 RPM's; The MRP/Flashed engine makes approx. 97 Ft lbs of Torque, and approx. 54 HP.
At approx. 3000 RPM's; The OEM/Normal engine makes approx. 77 Ft lbs of Torque, and approx. 44 HP.
At approx. 3000 RPM's; The OEM/ECO engine makes ,,,,,, approx. 63 Ft lbs of Torque, and approx. 36 HP.

MRP Numbers "guestimated" by using a plot on the Shoodaben site.

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that it (ECO mode) does the same exact thing it did before the reflash.
Except it just gets used much less. ...so we could say it gets more ..rest? :giggle:


OH Boy!..... now he went and done it. Perhaps not so innocent? :unsure:

:)

I didn't take Mr Innocent's comments in any manner to be "less than innocent". It's all in the reading of his post.

If you read HOW he is riding, he's on a tour, several tankfuls, 2 up. He's not acellerating briskly, or he wouldn't have even thought to put the bike in ECO in the first place. He's riding steady rpms, mostly below 5k, and rolling the throttle easily. This is why he can't tell a difference between the flash and ECO mode... he's riding very conservatively, and the flash is designed when ridden like that to be gentlemanly and sedate, not frantic or even hinting that "there's more under the skin". This is exaclt how I did that tune. It's the MRP,not the Hammer. So Mr Innocent's observations are in line with what I would expect.... I don't feel there was any nefarious ulterior motive for his post.

Steve
 
I've been thinking about this a little bit more, and let's consider WHY Kawi added ECO mode in the first place: improving fuel economy for the those who desire that, at the expense of lower power output in light- to mid-throttle sub-7K RPM applications... This seems pretty clear and is validated by SISF's dyno chart.

I'd guess that perhaps they leave top end power unchanged, so that if you're in ECO mode and need to pass, you still have similar power output when downshifting and increasing the revs, then going back to cruising it produces less power.

So, how do you get better (dynamic) fuel economy? Literally the only way with the push of a button is to put less fuel into the engine.

From my experience with automotive tuning, stoich is not rich enough for maximum safe power. Very generally speaking, most tuners would target a 12-13:1 AFR in a high compression motor, while stoich is 14.7:1. Running stoich provides the most complete chemical reaction per amount of fuel in a perfect world... But the IC engine is far from perfect, and it never burns 100% of the fuel. So to get closer to having enough actual fuel burned, you have to run a slightly richer AFR.

So all of this being said, I hope we can agree that ECO mode simply reduces the amount of fuel put through the injectors vs. non-ECO mode. Other things that change, like spark timing, intake valve timing, etc would be modified to compliment this leaner AFR.

I think that OEMs typically run richer AFR than needed under heavy throttle for safety reasons... It provides a larger buffer in the case of engines not being maintained properly (think dirty air filters, old worn out spark plugs, misadjusted valves, etc.), not to mention variation between individual engines - all pistons are not created equal! So they might take 10% performance off the top to ensure they blow fewer engines when under extreme stress.

So with Steve's tubes, the assumption is that you're taking care of your bike, so maybe he adds a little bit of that power back. That's not to say it's dangerous, but every tuner I've heard of says "tune at your own risk". He's able to get more power with the same amount of fuel, or the same power with less fuel. So I'd assume most of us, when comparing the MRP flash to the stock ECO mode would not see as large an improvement in "the MPGs" as ECO vs normal on a stock flash. Plus with MRP you have more power everywhere.

I still am not sure of whether SISF modifies the ECO map at all, but if the ECO map just modifies the base values and MRP has very different base values, it would hold that the resulting "MRP ECO mode" would produce a different output than factory ECO mode, though perhaps closer to MRP normal mode.
 
ithought the slip ons shaved off about 15 pounds of heavy metal. Does that not help is some way?

Harry in Wild and Windy Casper, WY - 2015 C14

From along ago memory I think every 6lbs of weight loss frees up a pony....

Murph
 
I thought the slip ons shaved off about 15 pounds of heavy metal. Does that not help is some way?
Theoretically yes. It wouldn't show on a real dyno, but would it show up on a butt dyno?
Depends on the butt I guess. If perhaps one can tell the difference in performance between a full tank of fuel
and a half a tank of fuel (not talking about parking lot maneuvering) then perhaps it might be noticeable to a butt
much more finely calibrated than mine. With a curb weight of 690 lbs and a rider weight of 165, the 15 lbs saved is approx.
1.8% of the total weight or about 2.4 gallons of gasoline.
So does your C14 seem noticeably more nimble with half a tank of gas?
...and do you like noise for noise's sake...then a slip on is for you. :)

edit: I hope mrinnocent has received a direct response from Steve about his original post question, 'cause I certainly
have contributed to some off topic posting here, and I apologize for that.
 
Last edited:
I actually weighed the area p slipon and the stock muffler I was removing, the difference was 11 pounds. i also dyno'ed stock vs with the area p slipon, there was a +3 HP gain with the slipon. I remember my first ride with the slipon, I was riding / testing A LOT at that time and I remembr coming in from my first ride thinking "is there more power with the slip on? ERRRR.... maybe" . I needed to see what the dyno showed, I could tell if there was more it wasn't much.

I'll get to the ECO tuning sooner or later in this thread.

Steve
 
Hunh.....I do not know what is true now. I was under the impression that my Flash had the characteristics I wanted and that hitting ECO used the stock flash when it was turned on. I have always thought I got better gas milage with the Mountain RUnner than with the ECO mode engaged. I can not remember the last time I ran ECO on the 13.

Now that I have 87K on the 13 with Mountain Runner I find myself totally forgetting to turn on the ECO on the 18. When I do remember to push the damn button there is a noticable difference in gas milage with it engaged. To be sure....I am waiting for the cold weather as I am going to send the new unit down to get flashed before spring. I said I would not ride without a flash ever again yet I have racked up 6K already waiting for winter to come.
 
Now wouldn't that be something?
ECO button that doesn't do anything!

Already brainstorming to see what farkle I can tie that into...

  • MISSILE LAUNCH
  • LEO CHAFF
  • OIL SLICK
  • MACHINE GUN
  • TED-B-GONE
 
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?
 
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?
Interesting.

My 13 and my 18 are different beasts? hmmmmm. Things to ponder while watching NFL and NCAA hoops

I am still feeling out the difference between the gear ratios in first between the 2
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
1642906610528.png
- 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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
"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
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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; 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
 
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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? :D
 
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? :D
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
 
Last edited:
"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. šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£ 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. šŸ¤” šŸ˜…
 
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
 
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?
 
Now wouldn't that be something?
ECO button that doesn't do anything!

Already brainstorming to see what farkle I can tie that into...

  • MISSILE LAUNCH
  • LEO CHAFF
  • OIL SLICK
  • MACHINE GUN
  • TED-B-GONE
I just now reread this thread and I can't believe that I missed that 5th option on the first reading. :LOL: :ROFLMAO:
Good one Harry.
 
You don't need a button for TED-B-GONE. It's automatic.
.
ie; When we do a Roll-on, (with Harry on the Green Thing and Ted on Red)
Ted
"will" be gone.. (far, far, "FAR" ahead of you)

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:
Top