VWDiesel.net The IDI, TDI, and mTDI source.
General Information => Troubleshooting => Topic started by: fdnyguy on May 22, 2013, 03:47:45 am
-
Talked to Tyler and he suggested I post it. My Mk2 was rebuilt by a member here (not saying names, but the initials are ilikevwdiesel). Added a Giles IP, TT d/p, 2.25" (basically everything that was recommended). Car runs GREAT (thanks, Scott!!), but even with 21k and not driving like a moron (for the most part), I am having a very hard time breaking 40 mpg. Ive gotten a high of 55 mpg and averaged mid to high 40's with older engine. Tyler told me even Giles had to put even more miles on his before he saw an improvement With a crazy work schedule (80-100 hrs/week), I still have NOT opened up the air intake. Still using the little snorkel. Have a pvc 2.5" coupling similar to a fire hose (was coincidental!) bought @ Lowes to cut into the filter housing and seal it. I am sure that will improve performance and mileage.
But would that be the issue alone? Or have others had similar situations as well? Love to hear it. Thanks in advance.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
I know I'm asking the obvious, but what about your choice of tires and keeping them properly inflated?
-
I know I'm asking the obvious, but what about your choice of tires and keeping them properly inflated?
Listen, if anyone asks dumb questions here, its me ;D . But to help solve the riddle, tires are 194/65/R14 on Mk3 5 star rims. And pressure checked weekly. Note that I had these tires on the car shortly before the compression rings went and rebuild by Scott. And stock pinhole exhaust system.
Thanks.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
Timing and transfer pressure(dynamic advance)?
-
Another thing I've notices is the use of non-German air filters in the airbox causes a noticeable drop in performance and mileage. The German (Mann, Mahle) ones which are intended for TD use (as opposed to a gas engine using the same housing) are much thicker, have more pleats, and are of a different, more cotton-like material.
-
Timing and transfer pressure(dynamic advance)?
Giles IP. Don't know the numbers.
Thanks.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
Another thing I've notices is the use of non-German air filters in the airbox causes a noticeable drop in performance and mileage. The German (Mann, Mahle) ones which are intended for TD use (as opposed to a gas engine using the same housing) are much thicker, have more pleats, and are of a different, more cotton-like material.
As I posted,I havent had time to really open up the air intake. I am still using the tiny stock snorkel. From the vast info of diesel knowledge on this site, the more air the better. Looking at it, the piece I have to insert is like 5 times bigger than the tiny OEM snorkel. But I have hooked up a 3" flex hose to the fender intake and clamped it at the snorkel. I guess I should hold off asking until I complete this task. From what I have read with the Giles IP, more power = more fuel. I can live with that. But I just got 41.4 mpg on last tank, which is 1 mpg better than what I got. With NYC driving (fast, slow, stop, repeat), I averaged 38 mpg. So competing this air intake and sealing will make an obvious difference, but when you read ppl getting 50 mpg and i cant come close to that, where else to come but the experts here?
I'll give it a shot when I find time. LOL. Anad as usual, Thanks again!
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
I imagine 38-40 is normal for NYC traffic.
I drive like an old lady on the highway to get 50mpg. Bone stock, nothing fine tuned.
-
I imagine 38-40 is normal for NYC traffic.
I drive like an old lady on the highway to get 50mpg. Bone stock, nothing fine tuned.
Sometimes in NYC, 0-60 in 15 minutes is not to good. Driving like you suggested is how I got 55.6 mpg and another time 715 miles with 1.2 gallon to spare. At least with the Giles IP and newer engine, accelerating from 60 is much nicer. I already have 21k on the engine, it's been to Canada, Syracuse, State College, PA, and the VW Fathers Day show in CT. With all the hills and breaking it in, 40 was a mark I couldnt hit. With old engine, I drove to Boston for 2 firemans funerals years ago, doing 70-75+ WITH A/C on I still got 43. Keep hitting with ideas. More than welcomed. Thank you.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
It isn't too big a leap of logic to say more fuel/power = less MPG.
Efficiency at light throttle cruise is the question I guess?
My AAZ has never got the MPG the 1.6's did(which was in the low 40's at modern road speeds),
and I've had TD and non and the AAZ has been TD and non.
But it's a larger motor with more power, so.. ?
I still ponder it from time to time.
I had an 86 Scirocco that was bone stock in an extremely good state of tune
and it got the same combined long-term average my 1.9 in a Caddy does.
And it was faster. Seems peculiar but neither myself of father have been able
to run down the theoretical issue inside a decade and over 100K miles that have included
new injectors and pump and tires and alignment and brakes, etc, etc.
I still ponder. But not a lot.
Have you verified your odometer accuracy recently?
-
I would say the 38 in town is going to be typical for NYC. These engines like to be steady state not that up and down stuff the city throws at it. Tires inflated to top PSI or just recommended PSI? Throttle up and down like an old man and you will be rewarded. With plenty of dirty looks from your fellow NYC friends but you will get better mileage. Timing is key and some of the older worn out IP's do better with the increased timing. Increased IP pressure relates to increased dynamic time so if you don't know an actual number you can measure the out flow of the IP at 1000 RPMs and you should get about 750 ml in a minute. If you don't tap in the pressure regulator on the front of the pump. Be careful to loosen it up first because if you drive it down too much you have to take it out, drive it all the way out and start all over from the beginning. It is great to have a gauge on the pump but beyond some to make that work. It is a mod of sorts.
Temperature ok? Cold engines use fuel. Start cable work or not? Compression good on all cylinders? injectors all spray at the right bar and equally across the board? Come to think of it the fuel itself is a variable, 2 stroked or waxed. So many things that can change MPG. Hard to get them all flushed out in a summers time. Takes to much driving to change one at a time but that is what you have to do to be sure you are not changing one against the other.
later DAS
-
With the Giles pump, I'd assume dynamic advance is good, but another few degree on the base timing might help economy.
-
That's a good point, have you checked the compression? Do you know how many mm of advance you are running?
-
It isn't too big a leap of logic to say more fuel/power = less MPG.
Efficiency at light throttle cruise is the question I guess?
My AAZ has never got the MPG the 1.6's did(which was in the low 40's at modern road speeds),
and I've had TD and non and the AAZ has been TD and non.
But it's a larger motor with more power, so.. ?
I still ponder it from time to time.
I had an 86 Scirocco that was bone stock in an extremely good state of tune
and it got the same combined long-term average my 1.9 in a Caddy does.
And it was faster. Seems peculiar but neither myself of father have been able
to run down the theoretical issue inside a decade and over 100K miles that have included
new injectors and pump and tires and alignment and brakes, etc, etc.
I still ponder. But not a lot.
Have you verified your odometer accuracy recently?
Well, Wolf. I was very much aware of the more fuel/power= less mpg. Much appreicated. But some here have posted a nice jump in MPG with the Giles IP. And FWIW, I may be wasting everyones time because I have NOT opened the air intake to its max. Was thinking about an AAZ but this 89 is like an old shoe. POS, but fun to drive. And I put a ton of miles a week on it.
As for the odometer, I think its pretty accurate using the mile makers on the roads AND used a GPS. Funny thing was it jumped 30k in 1 week. For some odd reason the 10,000 moved along with 1's. Has 245k but now reads 275. I have heard of the guy in Florida who rebuilds them, I can look into it. Scott replaced a lot for me, and the suspension and front end is preactically new.ball joints Shafts, control arms, brakes, radiator, ball joints all done by one or another ( I used a "guru" off the TDI forum and was VERY satisfied).
Keep the ideas coming. You guys are the best.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
That's a good point, have you checked the compression? Do you know how many mm of advance you are running?
We would have to ask Giles and Scott. They would know.
Or we (you...lol) can look it over when and if I get there.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
People say a lot of things about MPG.
They brag a lot about how many women they pick up too. ;)
But I think a lot of it is honest error.
I think VW said something about 42 or so being "normal"
for an old NA 1.6 in one of the tech books. I always found that to be
about right but I've seldom had to deal with the traffic you have.
I usually figured my MPG in 20K mile lump averages. They all
did 42 give or take 1mpg, except a really, really, really crazy worn the hell out
1.6TD, and it got 37, and my 81 LX when it was nearly new and one could drive 55 or 60mph
on the interestate with the 4spd and not get run over, it would just touch on 50.
It's a wispy tenuous thing, MPG. Unless
you resort to running fuel from metered containers, or use really
long term numbers.
-
Ja, if you don't have graduated containers, samples gotta be big. I fill up at the same pump, averaging over a few tankfulls. (Which can take a long time when you get closer to 50mpg. :-\ )
-
(Which can take a long time when you get closer to 50mpg. :-\ )
I have that problem with the 82 now, I've been poking at it and would like to see if I can make it better, or worse,
but it takes a couple months to run out a tank of fuel and it's mostly around town at that.
At this rate it will take a solid year to see if any changes have lasting effect. lol
That also has me not caring if it gets 38 instead of 42 to be honest. I ride my bike
wherever I can these days. Back easy everything was twenty miles from everything
else so the miles racked up pretty well.
Another prob, on Caddys anyway, is diesel foams like hell and the angle of the filler neck
isn't helping. Even on the lowest click on a regular pump I can put in a gallon if not two
after it clicks off, and the click off isn't consistent, even at the same pump.
I've enjoyed using Fuelly to track stuff quite a lot, much better than the boxes and boxes of
notepads I have from the previous fifteen years..
-
I think the only reliable way to get mpg figures with the high mileage rigs is to have a small one gallon container to draw and return to. You know that volume will get you to and from a days drive perhaps and if you fill it to the same level all the time you can measure it correctly in ounces, do the math, you can do math right? And bingo MPG for the day.
-
Yep.
Might be worth doing OP.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
-
People say a lot of things about MPG.
They brag a lot about how many women they pick up too. ;)
But I think a lot of it is honest error.
I think VW said something about 42 or so being "normal"
for an old NA 1.6 in one of the tech books. I always found that to be
about right but I've seldom had to deal with the traffic you have.
I usually figured my MPG in 20K mile lump averages. They all
did 42 give or take 1mpg, except a really, really, really crazy worn the hell out
1.6TD, and it got 37, and my 81 LX when it was nearly new and one could drive 55 or 60mph
on the interestate with the 4spd and not get run over, it would just touch on 50.
It's a wispy tenuous thing, MPG. Unless
you resort to running fuel from metered containers, or use really
long term numbers.
Nice comparison..lol. I used the fill up as much as i can method. I got 15.6 gallons in it the other day (14.5 with a 1 gal+ hold??) Takes a while to top it off, but I get it in there. Also try to use the same fuel every chance I get, even if I pay more at the pump. FWIW, I'll try the GPS again and see what I get. But filling it up till the vent is full has been my preferred method. No problem trying something else for the Hell of it.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
After I rebuilt my engine (actually just new bearings, gaskets, rings, injectors and minor things) for awhile I was getting 37-39 all winter, I couldn't break 40. But as son as the weather warmed up and I took the car on a 6 hr trip, it's been getting a pretty consistent 44-45, that's about 50/50 city/highway.
So I take it as warmer weather, and a more broken-in engine helped. Note I'm still running 155-80-13 snow tires, and I don't drive particularly easy or fast, just what I'd call average. I'm sure I could get better with some low-resistance tires and some fine tuning. I probably have 10,000 on the rebuild now, off the top of my head, I have it wrote down in one of those handy VW notebooks.
And for the time being I'll have to drive my gas hog truck until I get the new clutch put in. I was happy to let that thing sit for months, it's 14mpg seems ludicrous compared to 44mpg.
Oh, and every time I fill up, I always fill it up to where I can see it in the neck, same spot. It takes a little while to let the foam go down, but usually when I fill up I'm not in a hurry, I'm almost never late for something and almost out of gas at the same time, different story for my truck...
-
Some folks say that summer fuel provides a few extra miles. (I can't tell since I'm always tweeking.)
-
After I rebuilt my engine (actually just new bearings, gaskets, rings, injectors and minor things) for awhile I was getting 37-39 all winter, I couldn't break 40. But as son as the weather warmed up and I took the car on a 6 hr trip, it's been getting a pretty consistent 44-45, that's about 50/50 city/highway.
So I take it as warmer weather, and a more broken-in engine helped. Note I'm still running 155-80-13 snow tires, and I don't drive particularly easy or fast, just what I'd call average. I'm sure I could get better with some low-resistance tires and some fine tuning. I probably have 10,000 on the rebuild now, off the top of my head, I have it wrote down in one of those handy VW notebooks.
And for the time being I'll have to drive my gas hog truck until I get the new clutch put in. I was happy to let that thing sit for months, it's 14mpg seems ludicrous compared to 44mpg.
Oh, and every time I fill up, I always fill it up to where I can see it in the neck, same spot. It takes a little while to let the foam go down, but usually when I fill up I'm not in a hurry, I'm almost never late for something and almost out of gas at the same time, different story for my truck...
To be honest. I cannot recall if my higher mileage was with the 13's. But I would suspect a drop in mpg with 14's then?
I love this site..
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
I almost always stuck with 13's, alloy, and stock size tires on the A1 chassis, I could really feel increased unsprung weight
and see it in the MPG results. I ran some 14" BMW bottlecaps on the 81 the other year for awhile and they weren't too bad, but
they are pretty light. Still a good bit heavier than a little 13" tire and rim though.
I don't think it'd account for more than 2mpg though, given rolling resistance and accelerating them
up to speed repeatedly in city driving.
-
I almost always stuck with 13's, alloy, and stock size tires on the A1 chassis, I could really feel increased unsprung weight
and see it in the MPG results. I ran some 14" BMW bottlecaps on the 81 the other year for awhile and they weren't too bad, but
they are pretty light. Still a good bit heavier than a little 13" tire and rim though.
I don't think it'd account for more than 2mpg though, given rolling resistance and accelerating them
up to speed repeatedly in city driving.
Good points. As most know, I have piss poor skills and don't have the diesel knowledge shared here. One member here who dropped a 1.6 NA into a Cabby recorded 61 mpg with a GPS. I don't expect mileage that high, but much better. As you said using 195/60.R14's being a wider tire along with the 5 star rims add some weight and resistance over a 175/R13 tire and rim, with maybe a small drop in mpg. But knowing diesels run better with more air, I tend to think my engine is working harder with only air coming through the OEM intake. I still wonder if that smaller intake is killing the MPG, so getting varied opinions is why I posted. Car runs great, and as posted the NA likes a steady ride, that's tough to get around the NYC area, be it traffic or altitude. Long Island is pretty level, its the trips upstate with different grades and altitudes that prevent that steady ride mentioned.
With crappy weather and work, work, work, I will find sometime to get that air intake altered, Maybe that, along with a little more break in for the engine, will increase the mpg. And maybe I'll switch back to 13's for the Hell of it.
You guys are tops. Can't thank you enough.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
If you lack time a quick increase in inlet area can be gained just by removing the OEM snozle beak. That oval at the air box is like twice the opening at the end. You won't get as cold of air but you can try it just the same. Mine is on with one small screw. Thirty seconds under the hood and it is off.
I tried several different hoses and contraptions. Finally went back to the OEM part but cut it off on an angle about 7 inches from where it attaches. Tried to mimic the surface area at the final end. Works good enough for me.
-
If you lack time a quick increase in inlet area can be gained just by removing the OEM snozle beak. That oval at the air box is like twice the opening at the end. You won't get as cold of air but you can try it just the same. Mine is on with one small screw. Thirty seconds under the hood and it is off.
I tried several different hoses and contraptions. Finally went back to the OEM part but cut it off on an angle about 7 inches from where it attaches. Tried to mimic the surface area at the final end. Works good enough for me.
Ill give it a shot. Nothing to lose, right? Except for the loss of cold as as you said, it is still more air. Enjoy the weekend.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
Will do. Got a new set of rings in the 1.6 that need to be broken in. Got a line on another 500 dollar special that won't run. Low compression he says. Well gee I just fixed that for about 70 dollars and a weekend at a buddies. Nice shape otherwise.
-
Will do. Got a new set of rings in the 1.6 that need to be broken in. Got a line on another 500 dollar special that won't run. Low compression he says. Well gee I just fixed that for about 70 dollars and a weekend at a buddies. Nice shape otherwise.
Sweet. No time, talent or place to do that work. I got a kid @ my P/T job that wants this Jetta. It's like old shoes, I just can't get rid of it.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
Don't get rid of it Jimmy!!! You'll regret it the same day! lol.
I have a bone stock 88 Jetta 1.6TD that me and my woman commute to work in 5 days a week. It is 100km on the dot round trip per day, and with other driving after or before work and on the weekends we usually total about 600-650km for the week. We get 40L of fuel a week from work and we can't run through it all for our weeks worth..
That puts us in the 5.5-6L/100Kms, and this is with cruising the highway at about 135-140km/h (83-86mph) for a good chunk of it both ways.. Our engine gets seems to get its best mileage right at 3200-3400RPM.
-
Don't give it away. You will be kicking yourself as he says.
Lost out on the 500 dollar darling. Seller decided to pull it back and spend the time rebuilding it himself this summer. So close and no Cigar.
-
Lost out on the 500 dollar darling.
It's ok, I made up for your loss ;).
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm307/J_holubek/88%20Jetta/20130423_175819_zps063f13a3.jpg) (http://s299.photobucket.com/user/J_holubek/media/88%20Jetta/20130423_175819_zps063f13a3.jpg.html)
-
If it isn't in my drive on Saturday for 500 then what good is it to me? Do not tell us you bought it for that. We kill for less you know.
-
Reminds me of my first TD, was an 85.
I haven't driven one in years but I remember them
being a lot more like a car than a Rabbit/Caddy and less
like a go-cart. The pass rear door took a fire hydrent into
itself about a foot whilst spinning @45mph or so. Drove it
home after patching the water sep tank that broke on impact.
-
I saw someone mention that they get best mileage at 80+ mph. Not. You will get best mileage at ~40 to 45 mph. Above that and the air pressure begins to eat up power exponentially. I typically use 4.5-5L per 100km in my 90 TD -- regular freeway driving at ~60-65mph. (100-110kph) I can tweak it and get better mileage but I like to have power when needed so I split the difference. I keep all 4 tires at 44psi, but what I find affects mileage the most is my right foot.
-
The NA motors are much less effected by driving style as far as fuel mileage.
I always liked that, having to drive easy to get good MPG is annoying.
Course they are slow, but hey..
-
The NA motors are much less effected by driving style as far as fuel mileage.
I always liked that, having to drive easy to get good MPG is annoying.
Course they are slow, but hey..
Agreed, except I think you meant affected?
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Affected_vs_Effected
-
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.
-
Don't get rid of it Jimmy!!! You'll regret it the same day! lol.
I have a bone stock 88 Jetta 1.6TD that me and my woman commute to work in 5 days a week. It is 100km on the dot round trip per day, and with other driving after or before work and on the weekends we usually total about 600-650km for the week. We get 40L of fuel a week from work and we can't run through it all for our weeks worth..
That puts us in the 5.5-6L/100Kms, and this is with cruising the highway at about 135-140km/h (83-86mph) for a good chunk of it both ways.. Our engine gets seems to get its best mileage right at 3200-3400RPM.
I hear you. I had it off the road for almost 3 years till Scott put the engine in. He also put in a ton of stuff like the new radiator, the Giles IP, and tons of stuff I cant even recall. And had a "guru" from TDIclub do even more work to it. As we all know, these cars are addictive. It is a blast to drive, and even with vinyl covers, the Recaros in there I got off the Vortex are more comfortable than the seats in my 09 TDI. I had the floorpan worked on, and would love to spiff it up. Like you, I do a ton of driving, and with the TT D/P, 2.25 exhaust, it still is slow. Scott had a TD with 180k he would have thrown in but I went with the rebuilt N/A with no regrets. I would love to drive this across Country in November and know it will make it. Still needs a few minor things, and a weekend trip to Canada and a visit to Tyler is in the plans to get them working. This car is like an old pair of shoes or a favorite t shirt, you wanna throw it away but you just can't..........
Stay safe,stay well. Jimmy.
-
I hear you. I had it off the road for almost 3 years till Scott put the engine in. He also put in a ton of stuff like the new radiator, the Giles IP, and tons of stuff I cant even recall. And had a "guru" from TDIclub do even more work to it. As we all know, these cars are addictive. It is a blast to drive, and even with vinyl covers, the Recaros in there I got off the Vortex are more comfortable than the seats in my 09 TDI. I had the floorpan worked on, and would love to spiff it up. Like you, I do a ton of driving, and with the TT D/P, 2.25 exhaust, it still is slow. Scott had a TD with 180k he would have thrown in but I went with the rebuilt N/A with no regrets. I would love to drive this across Country in November and know it will make it. Still needs a few minor things, and a weekend trip to Canada and a visit to Tyler is in the plans to get them working. This car is like an old pair of shoes or a favorite t shirt, you wanna throw it away but you just can't..........
Stay safe,stay well. Jimmy.
"with the TT D/P, 2.25 exhaust, it still is slow."
Please define slow. Have you timed it? My 92 Jetta with gov mod beat out a 1999 TDI on 1/4 mile pull on a dyno. You're in Suffolk I'm in Queens. We should get together sometime and compare our cars.
-
I hear you. I had it off the road for almost 3 years till Scott put the engine in. He also put in a ton of stuff like the new radiator, the Giles IP, and tons of stuff I cant even recall. And had a "guru" from TDIclub do even more work to it. As we all know, these cars are addictive. It is a blast to drive, and even with vinyl covers, the Recaros in there I got off the Vortex are more comfortable than the seats in my 09 TDI. I had the floorpan worked on, and would love to spiff it up. Like you, I do a ton of driving, and with the TT D/P, 2.25 exhaust, it still is slow. Scott had a TD with 180k he would have thrown in but I went with the rebuilt N/A with no regrets. I would love to drive this across Country in November and know it will make it. Still needs a few minor things, and a weekend trip to Canada and a visit to Tyler is in the plans to get them working. This car is like an old pair of shoes or a favorite t shirt, you wanna throw it away but you just can't..........
Stay safe,stay well. Jimmy.
"with the TT D/P, 2.25 exhaust, it still is slow."
Please define slow. Have you timed it? My 92 Jetta with gov mod beat out a 1999 TDI on 1/4 mile pull on a dyno. You're in Suffolk I'm in Queens. We should get together sometime and compare our cars.
NP, I'll buy the first round. I work in Brooklyn with the FD and LGA with P/T. Would love to see ur car and drag.."The Tortise vs. the Hare"....lol
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
The NA motors are much less effected by driving style as far as fuel mileage.
I always liked that, having to drive easy to get good MPG is annoying.
Course they are slow, but hey..
Agreed, except I think you meant affected?
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Affected_vs_Effected
I'm from the popeye school of grammar and spelling..
-
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.
Volumetric efficiency. Check it out. You aren't exactly wrong but there is more to it than that.
Forced induction motors are somewhat of a different animal as well. There's some really good
data out there if you go hunt it up.
-
....
NP, I'll buy the first round. I work in Brooklyn with the FD and LGA with P/T. Would love to see ur car and drag.."The Tortise vs. the Hare"....lol
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
Sounds good! I'm 10 min from LGA. Lmk when you'll be there and we can hook up and drag. I may be the Tortise haha u never know.
-
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.
-
Takes time to break any motor in, some longer than others.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Not to mention an mk1 is quite a bit lighter.
-
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
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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
-
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.
-
That's why I love the FF in mine, same 3.89 final but with the extra gear getting to the .71 fifth the splits between 1 - 4 are not so high in RPM's.
-
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
The only way that is going to happen is if you commit to operating between about 7 and 50 MPH.
My FF was a great tranny, but another gear on either end would have made it twice as good.
Ever struggle up a mountain grade in a 50 HP Na weighing only 2,000LB, and wonder they the 10 wheelers with less than 500 HP are coming up on you so fast despite weighing in at 50,000LB or more?
-
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
The only way that is going to happen is if you commit to operating between about 7 and 50 MPH.
My FF was a great tranny, but another gear on either end would have made it twice as good.
Ever struggle up a mountain grade in a 50 HP Na weighing only 2,000LB, and wonder they the 10 wheelers with less than 500 HP are coming up on you so fast despite weighing in at 50,000LB or more?
More times than I can count but not a lot of wondering to be had.
Like I said, the gearing probably doesn't exist. 4th too low, 5th too tall, 1st all but useless. I never found a trans I liked in these things. 7a, fn, ags, or was it X, been too many. Can't make a purse out of a pig ear and all that, but still.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
-
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
ive owned one of all of the 4 spds, and i liked none of them..
the gearing is either close enough, but the trans is too low geared in general.
or the gearing is way too far apart, but the trans is geared nicely in general..
the 4A was probably the best, but i couldnt just leave it in 4th gear on the hills, if i needed to pass someone.. it would hold speed just fine, but wouldnt accelerate.
the GC was definitely the worst.. with a stock governor, 83mph is as fast as you can go with this bad boy.
i much prefer the 5 spd boxes over the 4 spd.. i could never get over the length of the gear splits.
my favorite 020 trans is the ACN, but the jump from 5th to 4th could be a little shorter. if 4th was .91 instead of 1.03, things would be great..
-
I don't seem to find any trouble with the FF with the 1.29 in third, .91 in 4th and the .71 in fifth. Plenty of passing power on the routes I drive to get by folks in the passing lane if I start in third and wind it a bit towards a shift in fourth as I get around or next to them. The fifth is for cruising only. Like it has been said, Holds speed just fine, but wouldn't accelerate. I can't imagine a taller than .71 in these.
Yeah RPMs would be down but I think it would be forever getting 5 mph more out of it as you approach a hill or want to pull up to a faster speed.
-
Since my mechnical skills are next to none, where can I find my tranny code? Curious as to what ratio I would have in my car.
Thanks in advance, AGAIN.
Stay safe,stay well. Jimmy.
-
Since my mechnical skills are next to none, where can I find my tranny code? Curious as to what ratio I would have in my car.
Lowest part of the bellhousing (inside the yellow rectangle).
(http://www.brokevw.com/126_2686.JPG)
-
Since my mechnical skills are next to none, where can I find my tranny code? Curious as to what ratio I would have in my car.
Lowest part of the bellhousing (inside the yellow rectangle).
(http://www.brokevw.com/126_2686.JPG)
Can't get more simple than that... lololol. Thanks.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
-
Since my mechnical skills are next to none, where can I find my tranny code? Curious as to what ratio I would have in my car.
Lowest part of the bellhousing (inside the yellow rectangle).
(http://www.brokevw.com/126_2686.JPG)
Can't get more simple than that... lololol. Thanks.
Stay safe, stay well. Jimmy.
thats only accurate if nobody has opened up the trans and rebuilt it with the wrong parts..
my buddy just got rid of an 87 Jetta that would turn ~3200 revs @ 60mph, with an ACN TRANS!!
he was soo excited when he got the car, because it had a long geared ACN trans..
boy, it burst his bubble when i ripped thru the gears, and was turning ALOT more than 2450 RPM @ 60mph...
it had an ACN trans case, but it had a close-ratio gear set swapped into it.. felt alot like drivin a 9A trans...
-
To read the code on the bottom you have to have the magic decoder ring. I think the code comes first FF ACN then the yr it was built the last two numbers 84 then the day and then the month 03 04 would be April 3rd.
Correct me if I have the last part turned around. I can't find the picture of my code on the computer in short order or I'd have linked it here.
-
To read the code on the bottom you have to have the magic decoder ring. I think the code comes first FF ACN then the yr it was built the last two numbers 84 then the day and then the month 03 04 would be April 3rd.
Correct me if I have the last part turned around. I can't find the picture of my code on the computer in short order or I'd have linked it here.
I think it decodes to month/ year, not day/ month.
-
I knew I would be wrong. What isn't with a hard day at the office that makes it hard to think at home. No wonder our wives think we are a bunch of duffs. We are by the time we walk in the door.
Thanks for the correct. I knew that just didn't say that.