I've come across "chips" supposed to get better "MPG & Power". Built for your specific make & model of vehicle. The ads make clear they are only altering the sensor readings to 'fool' the OEM software. When looking into the installation instructions it becomes apparent that these 'chips' are IAT foolers... I rejected buying one for my daily driver... because it is 'only' an IAT fooler... and WAY over priced. Their MPG & power claims are pure horse pucky at least as far as my experience with the IAT fooler on my CTD. On the other hand, my experience with my home built IAT fooler is a gain of about 1mpg in cool to cold weather... with 410 gears. I'm certainly not interested in paying over 100$ for a resistor in a little plastic box & a couple of plugs. I'm now thinking of a DIY IAT fooler for my Cirrus. I'd propose to install a toggle switch to turn it off for cold starts just like the Cummins. I wonder what the resistance range would need to be to make it work?Any ideas?

Like the study work I'm doing now with the 1996 Dodge Ram 1500 and my friends Chevy 6.0L V8 truck. We are both finding that extremely low IAT temp will reduce MPG's. Now with temperature near zero this morning he's getting roughly +10-15*F and even his ScanGauge is follow the rule of thumb "For every 10* drop from 140*F you'll lose about 1 MPG" it still holds true even on his truck for the time being. I know even mine is fighting to get near 12-14 MPG now for the 1996 Dodge Ram 1500 the IAT's continue to fall...Cold Air isn't all that its cracked up to be... Maybe for racing but not for the daily driver. Back in the 60-70's we use to have exhaust manifold risers that went to the air filter to pre-heat the air and help vaporize the fuel on a cold day. Now all the modern vehicles are all about Cold Air Intakes and no longer about making the fuel efficient to burn. In both diesel and gasoline engines the whole trick is to convert the liquid fuel to vapor so it can be burned. Either engine can't burn liquid fuel properly or effectively...

Mike, this is a good thought. The Cirrus airbox & filter is up against the radiator support with a fairly small snorkel aimed forward. Outside of a screen to keep the mice out, stock air box. I've never run winter front on this one... something to consider. Or adding rear facing holes to suck warmer air from the engine side??? Actually increasing the intake air temp would certainly aid fuel mixing. Maybe something as simple as a flap to cover the hole through the radiator support. I'm going to pop the hood for a look see. If your data carries over from Diesel to Gas we could use the same 143* resistor to fool the IAT sensor...

Mike, this is a good thought. The Cirrus airbox & filter is up against the radiator support with a fairly small snorkel aimed forward. Outside of a screen to keep the mice out, stock air box. I've never run winter front on this one... something to consider. Or adding rear facing holes to suck warmer air from the engine side??? Actually increasing the intake air temp would certainly aid fuel mixing. Maybe something as simple as a flap to cover the hole through the radiator support. I'm going to pop the hood for a look see.

If your data carries over from Diesel to Gas we could use the same 143* resistor to fool the IAT sensor...

As for the IAT sensor that data is unknown. Like I know after testing the IAT and ECT sensors on the Cummins they are the same. But still haven't done the IAT on the gasser yet. So I don't know if the same thermistor was used or not. So this will require testing and a live data tool. How I did it with the Cummins is unplugged the IAT and kept stuffing resistors in till I made the scale list in the article page. But you'll get you answers from a live data tool that reports the IAT temp for said resistance. As for the absolute high spot of each engine I not sure of that either it will take time and study work to find how each engine like IAT temps at what level. But as for the 96 Dodge Ram 1500 it shown to like above 100*F intake air temp for MPG's.

I would say that the cold airs effect on wind resistance and fluids is FAR greater than IAT. Just like the fuel mileage hit in winter is only slightly from winter fuel, and mostly from the effects of cold on the vehicle. Using a a rheostat like you did on the 02 and finding a long flat stretch of road without wind would be the best way to test it, as I am sure you know.

Sad to say the cold air drag I don't exactly believe in. Being I'm one of the few that has defeated that old saying and able to keep 19-20 MPG for the most part through the winter with minus temps up here, petroleum fluid in everything. But that's on the diesel now tackle the 96 gasser and figure that out too.

Yea I am going to have to agree. From a pure math standpoint, fluid mechanics yes are temperature dependant but air resistance depends on shape and surface friction.Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

I admit there is a certain amount of drag created by the geartrain while cold but even with the cold the oil still heats up and thins down. I can see this being a huge problem for a person driving 3-5 miles and shutting down. Not the case for me when I fire up I typically roll at least 50-100 miles. Now as for oil viscosity I tend to look back at the weight of oils. Like 15w-40 engine oil will have the thickness of 15 weight oil in the dead cold. Just like gear oil its going to have the same 80 weight in the cold. Since all my fluids where changed in the fall of the year I'm not worried about "thick oil" like Wild & Free talked about ND.

From am aerodynamic and wind resistance standpoint winter has a far greater effect than you are giving it credit for, and it takes 30+ miles to warm the running gear up. There are several places that came up when I googled air density 80 vs 0, it's a decent shift. The truck is heavier, but mainly it takes more force to obtain the same speed. If you watch you SG closely you can see the truck warm up, but even then it never gets as hot as summer driving.

From am aerodynamic and wind resistance standpoint winter has a far greater effect than you are giving it credit for, and it takes 30+ miles to warm the running gear up. There are several places that came up when I googled air density 80 vs 0, it's a decent shift. The truck is heavier, but mainly it takes more force to obtain the same speed. If you watch you SG closely you can see the truck warm up, but even then it never gets as hot as summer driving.

Ok. But your missing another point. My truck normally sit in a unheated shops which is typically above +32*F so the fluids are not as cold as outside to start with. So it only goes up from there. Of course as the truck sits outside park it will cool but it will warm up again. Still remember I'm one of the few that master the low 20's and high teens for winter MPG's. I don't feel the impact as bad in the diesel. This where I vary from you I don't drive 65-75 or even 80 MPH in the winter like today I'm might be lucky to get 40-45 MPH safely so wind density is still well below any thoughts. As of this morning the high is completely snow covered I'm not going to drive anywhere near speed limit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air Nice plugin calculator. http://www.denysschen.com/catalogue/density.aspx 12*F at 2,800 ft 92% humidity = 0.0755 (winter as of today) 100*F at 2,800 ft 12% humidity = 0.0635 (summer) Oh... We just had another 3 more slide off this week alone from people trying to do speed limit on black ice. It doesn't work. One was fished out of the Little Salmon River.

Isnt 19-20 about a 20% hit from summer mileage? You think that's all BTU related? Especially when most stations chemically winterized their fuel instead of blending #1. I can go weeks, or even longer without seeing over 65. Most my driving is on speed limits less of 50 or less, and even thou there isn't any traffic there are turns and stops. It's vary apparent when the truck finally warms up, but it still has to work harder in colder air.