Mileage issues

[srgtlord]

I watched a video on youtube of a vw golf gti 16 valve with no miles on it and a 16 valve gti with 100,000 miles on it. The car with 100,000 miles on it beat the car with 0 miles on the engine. I have a sneaking suspicion the N/A car that beat the tdi had well over 100,000 miles.

[wolf_walker]

Takes time to break any motor in, some longer than others.

[fdnyguy]

Takes time to break any motor in, some longer than others.

Which was discussed in original post. Tyler told me it took Giles a long time for his to break in. I thought 21k would be more than enough. I'll take the snorkel off in the am and run it to see if there is any difference. Keeping it @ 60 mph most of the time, I am getting close to 600 miles per tank, which isn't bad.. Now the damned odometer is working when it wants, and I can't find the friggin GPS. Which figures with my luck, I missed the $600 million Powerball by 6 numbers....

As always, if anyone knows, it would be found here. Thanks for the input.

Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.

[8v-of-fury]

I saw someone mention that they get best mileage at 80+ mph. Not. You will get best mileage at ~40 to 45 mph. I typically use 4.5-5L per 100km in my 90 TD.

Yeah that was me. Of course you are going to go further if you are only cruising it at 2400rpm, but the vw T3 has dick all for balls at that point and it takes a downshift if you need to accelerate at all. I too use roughly 5L/100km in my gf's 88 TD, always on the go-go -pedal and cruising the highway between 3200-3400rpm (124km/h - 77mph Or 132km/h - 82mph).

Doesn't matter what you have under the hood. Increased speed = Lower mileage once you pass about 40-50mph. A bit more for low drag vehicles, VWs not included. But I couldn't care less whether you agree with physical reality or not, so go on believing whatever you like.

I don't know if you are aware or not.. but the Mk1 (boxiest one of them all) actually has less drag coefficient than a person on a bicycle..

Mk1 Jetta = 0.36 drag coefficient.

Bicycle man = 1.1 drag coefficient.

3.05X less drag than a person on a bicycle.

What does a mk1 Jetta's cd compare too??

A 1986 Ferrari Testarossa

A 2006 Porsche 997

A 1990 Lamborghini Diablo

A 1992 McLaren F1

A 2008 Ferrari California

A 2001 Lamborghini Murcielago

It is not as "boxy" as one might think.

[wolf_walker]

I'm surprised it's so aero-able.  I always thought the Scirocco I had, later 8v one, was a lot less prone to wind resistance
then my Caddys.  Course a Caddy is a truck...

VW made a big deal about the 16v's aero package way back when. 

[tyb525]

Not to mention an mk1 is quite a bit lighter.

[8v-of-fury]

Not to mention an mk1 is quite a bit lighter.

Than all the cars I listed. BAM, hence the reason why the diesels pull stupid mileage out of them! lol

[wolf_walker]

The 997 in plain form with the spoiler down is in the high .2x territory.  Just saying..

And it's worth noting, though I assume most do, that when a high end car has a
worse drag coefficient than an 80's VW econobox, it's usually because of
functional drag.  The P-car for example, the higher end GT2/3 and Turbo
models generally rate less slippery than the plain models.  But there's intentional things
going on there.

And Tucker had a car in the late 40's that was way low .20's.. 

[745 turbogreasel]

Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines

Doesn't matter what you have under the hood. Increased speed = Lower mileage once you pass about 40-50mph. A bit more for low drag vehicles, VWs not included. But I couldn't care less whether you agree with physical reality or not, so go on believing whatever you like.

I don't think either of my autos will stay in lockup going that slow.
The Cummins  runs 1750 @ 74, and gets 18 MPG doing it, not sure how much I can really gain by going slower.
IMO I might see bigger gains by removing the 35"  knobbies, and moving somewhere  flat.

The F body is a different story,WOT shifts are ~50, 80, 120, and  I don't think it will do full throttle 4th gear upshifts.
4th is much fore effective above 55.
With the carbed 400 I did  get 25 MPG on a slow highway trip, but it's hard to get that many consecutive slow miles.

[wolf_walker]

Those crafty engineers also manage to design cars to function in the environment they are sold into.
My 81 back when it was a plain ole 1.6 with a 4spd was pretty chipper at 55mph for example, which was coincidentally
the speed limit pretty much everywhere till what, 88 or so?  Not many people drove that speed, but one
could get away with running 55 or 60 and get less-run-over.  It was nice.
The quoted fuel mileage savings way back when were barely 1% nationally with the reduced speed limit.
Less than half of what was expected.  If that is from it just plain not working or from people
going faster anyway I can't say myself.
 
I don't drive many newer cars other than a Porsche here and there but I assume they are
built to cruise as happily and efficiently as possible at 70mph or so.

[tyb525]

My car is only doing about 2850 rpm @70mph, and it's somewhat peppy, or at least I don't have trouble on the freeway, or the on-ramps. The 4 speed is awkward though, gears are just spaced too far apart to accelerate very fast.

[wolf_walker]

I think that was the attraction of the 5spd's, an extra gear in there.  5th was same as 4th on a number of them.
There's one really tall 4th box too.  I can't remember what my 81 came with but I don't recall it being
crazy tall.

[R.O.R-2.0]

I think that was the attraction of the 5spd's, an extra gear in there.  5th was same as 4th on a number of them.
There's one really tall 4th box too.  I can't remember what my 81 came with but I don't recall it being
crazy tall.

the original 5 spd was a GC trans, with a 5th gear added on..

many of the mk1 5 spd trannies have the same gearing as 1-4 on a low geared 4 spd, but with an extra OD..

the GP and 4A were actually HIGHER geared than the 5 spd trannies, but they had a WIDE gear spread..

driving a 4A trans is much like driving a 5 spd car with a blown up 4th gear..

[wolf_walker]

I always thought a 4spd with the right gearing, which might not exist, would be the ticket for reliability and simplicity.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[tyb525]

It's a GP. 3.89 final, 0.71 4th. It's pretty tall. I get great mpg's out of it, just doesn't shift like a sports car. There's about a 1100rpm difference between 4th and 5th at the same speed. In order to go fast you have to rev it out longer than normal in a gear order to get into the next gear at a decent rpm.