Unless the engine mapping were totally rewritten, I doubt if you'll improve much on the compromise that exists between performance and economy in the OEM maps.
I've spent a lot of time using a datalogger connected to cars' ECUs, and if you want to drive for economy, then you have to adopt a totally different driving style, and this is shown by the readings of the Airflow Rate through the MAF. You need to keep the engine RPM between 2k - 2.5k rpm and select your gears accordingly, and use an "all or nothing" throttle application, so that you let the revs drop to 2k rpm then apply full throttle up to 2.5k rpm and then lift off and coast until the revs drop back down to 2k rpm, and so on. Likewise, you should use the topography of the road to assist you, by accelerating before reaching the bottom of hills rather than starting acceleration on the hill itself.
Since the ECU can only inject the appropriate amount of fuel commensurate with the Airflow Rate, applying full throttle at 2k- 2.5k rpm, less fuel will be used than if you are travelling at the same speed at higher revs in a lower gear. Likewise, when the car is coasting in gear, it uses very little fuel to keep the engine turning, and in fact, it uses LESS than it does if the engine is idling in neutral, or free-wheeling!
Driving for best fuel economy is a bloody horrible way of driving and I wouldn't advocate it at all, but you will see better fuel economy if you use an all or nothing throttle technique rather than constant even pressure to maintain a steady speed at all rpms.
If you REALLY want economy, get a little runaround that returns 70mpg and keep the ///M for proper driving.