Nissan Murano Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have noticed a number of ads on e-bay for so-called perfomance modules for the Murano that allegedly increase performance and allow the use of lower octane fuel. They are advertised at ridiculously low prices, e.g. $25.00.

I had something similar on my 2001 Avalanche, but it cost me about 300 bucks for the programming tool.

Does anyone have any experience with these things, or is this simply another you-get-what-you-pay-for scam?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,280 Posts
I have heard these are nothing more than a resistor. Maybe they would work on cars with regular ignitions and points but in the MO, with state of the art computer driven ignition system, I think its on-board computer will compensate for any of these "performance enhancers" that are added on. Plus, you are already able to use low octane fuel anyway so it is basically a waste of money IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,665 Posts
minimal-

I would be wary of any "performance module" that has only two wires coming out of it!! :28: I have seen many of those on eBay.

A performance chip from a reputable tuner is something altogether different.

-njjoe
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,402 Posts
Yeah these cheap ebay performance modules are nothing more than resistors you install on one of the intake sensors (usually the MAF). They do trick the computer into producing slightly more power for a short while, then the computer adjusts and you lose the power. The tradeoff between temporary power and the possibility of damaging an expensive sensor is definitely not worth it at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
Eric L. said:
Yeah these cheap ebay performance modules are nothing more than resistors you install on one of the intake sensors (usually the MAF). They do trick the computer into producing slightly more power for a short while, then the computer adjusts and you lose the power. The tradeoff between temporary power and the possibility of damaging an expensive sensor is definitely not worth it at all.
As Tenel Ka would say...that is a fact. Going to sticky this as it comes up all the time not only here but in many car forums. Stay away from these.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Gas Line Ionizer Processor

I got a good laugh when I saw the Ionizer Processors on ebay.com claiming up to 30% more miles per gallon of gas!!

And all they are are magnets that clamp onto your gas line.

A fool and his money are soon parted. :2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
It's true Margatenj, that you get 30% more miles out of a gallon, they just forget to wrote that these 30% you must walk to the nearest repair station as your car stops dead if you play too much with these things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Alex said:
It's true Margatenj, that you get 30% more miles out of a gallon, they just forget to wrote that these 30% you must walk to the nearest repair station as your car stops dead if you play too much with these things.
I was thinking "Involves Pushing!".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Gas Pill - review by AAA

April 17, 2006 — With the average price of a gallon of regular gas soaring to $2.68, drivers are looking for any way to cut down on costs at the pump.

Consumer groups, however, warn promotions promising quick fixes are usually too good to be true.

One of the latest ads sweeping the Internet is a "gas pill" marketed by Fuel Freedom International. Fuel Freedom International says dropping a $2 MPG-Cap in your tank with every fill up will increase mileage by 10 percent or 20 percent. When ABC affiliate WPVI asked a AAA expert to test-drive the pill, results were not as significant.

AAA saw no improvement while driving at 34 mph and just a 4 percent increase in mileage at 65 mph.

The company recommended a bigger dose, but when AAA used four pills in the tank, it didn't make a difference.

"I didn't see anything approaching any of the claims for 10, 20 or 30 percent improvement in mileage," said Tom McLaughlin of AAA.

The company suggested McLaughlin might have to burn several tanks of gas before the pill kicked in. Fuel Freedom International did not return "Good Morning America's" calls for comment.

The Environmental Protection Agency has not tested MPG-Caps, but it has tested more than 100 other gadgets and additives that say they will save gas and has found they do not work.

"Those kind of claims, we have yet to find any kind of device or additive that can produce that type of result," said Joni Lupovitz of the Federal Trade Commission.

In 2005, ABC investigated a $90 magnet that attached to your fuel line and was supposed to increase mileage by 27 percent. Lupovitz said when the product was tested, it was found to be bogus. The FTC sued the company, which agreed to pull its ads.

"We really want marketers to know we're watching them. We're monitoring the airwaves and the Internet and the print ads, and that we will take action if we see something that's egregious," Lupovitz said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
4 percent increase in mileage at 65 mph

I'd bet it had nothing to do with the pill, most likely the outside temp...etc. was involved.

4% increase and needing a new fuel pump, fuel filter, fuel injectors or a new engine would not be worth it if it does work.

This is the first review I've seen where AAA states there was an improvement

BTW, gas is $9 USD in the UK. :eek: so with this fact you might not feel that bad paying 3 bucks a gal
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,280 Posts
Re: 4 percent increase in mileage at 65 mph

Margatenj said:
BTW, gas is $9 USD in the UK. :eek: so with this fact you might not feel that bad paying 3 bucks a gal
Yeah but I bet they don't drive the long "commute" distances that we do, and their public transportation system is up to par. My fuel cost alone is $425 a month now - and that is just my car - With wife's car we pay $800 a month just going to work and that does not include any maintenace costs.....:3:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
I haven't researched the MO mod, but as for other car/truck mods, the resister simply "tricks" the fuel system into thinking its much cooler outside than it is. there by thinning or richening the mixture.
(cooler air is denser, so more fuel will be added to obtain the correct mixture.)

You can get some extra pony's out of the motor by doing this, but the cost could be added carbon in the cylinder wall.
I have seen many mods like this. overall, not a great idea for a daily driver. (the better one was actually a tuner box that had a reostat dial and an on/off. Not too bad for a little added fun but not good to run all the time.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
How low of octane do you want to use. The Murano calls for 87

From the owners manual "Use unleaded regular gasoline with an octane rating of at least 87 AKI (Anti-Knock Index) number Research octane number 91)."

In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the "headline" octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in the United States and some other countries the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2. Because of the 10 point difference noted above, this means that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in the US and Canada, would be 91-95 (regular) in Europe.


The computer will adjust and stop the engine from knocking if needed, but it will be at the expense of efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
jaggy13 said:
I haven't researched the MO mod, but as for other car/truck mods, the resister simply "tricks" the fuel system into thinking its much cooler outside than it is. there by thinning or richening the mixture.
(cooler air is denser, so more fuel will be added to obtain the correct mixture.)

You can get some extra pony's out of the motor by doing this, but the cost could be added carbon in the cylinder wall.
I have seen many mods like this. overall, not a great idea for a daily driver. (the better one was actually a tuner box that had a reostat dial and an on/off. Not too bad for a little added fun but not good to run all the time.)
This won't work on the VQ and modern ECU engines like it. It has a closed loop learning ECU, think of it like an adaptive control system such as a kalman filter. It adapts its control loop parameters on the fly accounting for changes in sensors and conditions, there is no fixed fuel map. Even on older cars they have a closed loop control based on the O2 sensor meaning all these devices do is affect the acceleration fuel map, not steady state power where emissions control is controlling to stoichiometric. On the VQ and similar however, within 20 minutes you'll be back to square one on even the fuel map. And thats assuming you don't destroy a really expensive part in the process of installing this waste of $25. All lessons learned from the Z.

Let me reiterate, these don't work, stay away from them.

There is power to be had from the VQ in the MO however. Nissan did a good job of aspirating the VQ in the Z. Both it's intake and exhaust. Many dynos have been performed on the Z aftermarket components and most net essentially zero (within measuring limits of the dyno) after about 20 minutes (adaptive ECU). The MO is not as well tuned stock. So better aspiration and the ECU will relearn to achieve stoichiometric but the additional aspiration will yield additional power. But to achieve this, you will need to modify both the intake and the exhaust as neither is as well tuned stock on the MO as the Z.

If anybody ever runs across MO dyno results especially with mods, please post them up as I have never seen any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
Nomad33fw said:
The computer will adjust and stop the engine from knocking if needed, but it will be at the expense of efficiency.
And possibly more. Remember, for the knock sensor to detect knock the engine has to be knocking in the first place. I have never seen any values for how long the ECU holds a timing change when knock is detected. So it could knock over and over again every 10 seconds for all I know. And...there is a limit to how far timing can be adjusted. Meaning with bad enough gas, you could still be in a constant knock condition. I've never seen any numbers published from Nissan on this.

If anybody ever runs across any post em up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
z verses murano

Enforcer said:


This won't work on the VQ and modern ECU engines like it. It has a closed loop learning ECU, think of it like an adaptive control system such as a kalman filter. It adapts its control loop parameters on the fly accounting for changes in sensors and conditions, there is no fixed fuel map. Even on older cars they have a closed loop control based on the O2 sensor meaning all these devices do is affect the acceleration fuel map, not steady state power where emissions control is controlling to stoichiometric. On the VQ and similar however, within 20 minutes you'll be back to square one on even the fuel map. And thats assuming you don't destroy a really expensive part in the process of installing this waste of $25. All lessons learned from the Z.

Let me reiterate, these don't work, stay away from them.

There is power to be had from the VQ in the MO however. Nissan did a good job of aspirating the VQ in the Z. Both it's intake and exhaust. Many dynos have been performed on the Z aftermarket components and most net essentially zero (within measuring limits of the dyno) after about 20 minutes (adaptive ECU). The MO is not as well tuned stock. So better aspiration and the ECU will relearn to achieve stoichiometric but the additional aspiration will yield additional power. But to achieve this, you will need to modify both the intake and the exhaust as neither is as well tuned stock on the MO as the Z.

If anybody ever runs across MO dyno results especially with mods, please post them up as I have never seen any.
has anbody used an engine or haedunit from a Z in a Murano
our kiwi Z put out 220Kw against muano's 172 Kw
would there be improvement.
this is using 96 octane fuel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
Re: z verses murano

muranokiwibru said:


has anbody used an engine or haedunit from a Z in a Murano
our kiwi Z put out 220Kw against muano's 172 Kw
would there be improvement.
this is using 96 octane fuel
Not that I have read, maybe others have. And if you are talking about the VQ35DE then it is the same engine, even with the Z ECU the intake and exhaust are the major limitations here. However the Z is now using the VQ35HR. Without artificial aspiration the HR develops power a little earlier. I would imagine you would need the Z ECU, but certainly it would be best to work the intake and exhaust as well. The main question I think is the effect on the CVT. This thread may be of interest:

http://www.nissanmurano.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=245&perpage=15&highlight=cvt email&pagenumber=2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,665 Posts
muranokiwibru-

I am sure that as the MO gets older and used ones can be had for less and less, someone will inevitably mod it with "Z" equipment or a blower or NOX. I hope I will still be around on this board to see it because I am curious to know how the drivetrain handles/survives the added torque.

-njjoe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Enforcer said:


This won't work on the VQ and modern ECU engines like it. It has a closed loop learning ECU, think of it like an adaptive control system such as a kalman filter. It adapts its control loop parameters on the fly accounting for changes in sensors and conditions, there is no fixed fuel map. Even on older cars they have a closed loop control based on the O2 sensor meaning all these devices do is affect the acceleration fuel map, not steady state power where emissions control is controlling to stoichiometric. On the VQ and similar however, within 20 minutes you'll be back to square one on even the fuel map. And thats assuming you don't destroy a really expensive part in the process of installing this waste of $25. All lessons learned from the Z.

Let me reiterate, these don't work, stay away from them.

There is power to be had from the VQ in the MO however. Nissan did a good job of aspirating the VQ in the Z. Both it's intake and exhaust. Many dynos have been performed on the Z aftermarket components and most net essentially zero (within measuring limits of the dyno) after about 20 minutes (adaptive ECU). The MO is not as well tuned stock. So better aspiration and the ECU will relearn to achieve stoichiometric but the additional aspiration will yield additional power. But to achieve this, you will need to modify both the intake and the exhaust as neither is as well tuned stock on the MO as the Z.

If anybody ever runs across MO dyno results especially with mods, please post them up as I have never seen any.



have a look at :
www.remus.at
then look under cars- nissan- murano
it shows standard 172kw exhaust going up to 178kw
it also allows you to listen to the exhaust.
here in New Zealand it cost about $1500.
still not sure if I will spend the money but it is tempting.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top