What increase/decreases fuel consumption?

drive slowly. makes direct impact on my diesel. sometimes by over 2l/100.
 
Naks said:
Jah, but u're not supposed to be using a Jeep to commute :rolleyes:

Says me who commutes in a Disco2 Td5. I drive 50km every day, I put 30L of diesel each week and get 250-260km, sometimes even 275km. So consumption is between 11-12l/100km. After the 160Kkm service last month, it dropped to 10.5 for one week :eek:




It's a general rule. But in your case, if the 'new' engine is consuming more than the old one, I would look into it. Could be that it's not opened up yet, but still, something does not sound right.
Click to expand...

hahaha. i know but i only commute 15kms everyday to work and back... before i had 31" bfg km2s i used to fill R150 for the whole week..... now it's more...
 
Last edited:
also engine configurations have to be taken into account...

E.g like a V6 vs I6... the I6 will always use a bit more than the V6 counter part...
 
kevinswan007 said:
what car is it, and what mods did you do?
Click to expand...

I'd be very interested to know too.

I suspect some mild modding might help a lot on a car like mine where the small engine currently has to work quite hard to get the car going.
 
kevinswan007 said:
what car is it, and what mods did you do?
Click to expand...

A3 2.0T --> Phase II (Phase II software, Cold Air Induction and Downpipe.)

Before all these mods I would get around 380km on a full tank, now I get close to 480 - even driving it hard!

There is no cat converter now with the downpipe installed, which I'm sure plays a big role in fuel consumption....
 
StrongTurd said:
Why?
Click to expand...

I6 - better harmonics, better airflow (intake/exhaust), packaging difficult

V6 - better packaging, compact

I6 engines are an older technology. I6 are simple for the manufacturer to work with, it's like a cheap way of getting power at the expense of the buyer/consumer... where as V6 engines are shorter and more a newer technology than the I6......

google I6 vs V6
 
limnos said:
I noticed after modding my car, my fuel consumption decreased. I now get min 80-100KM more on a tank...
Click to expand...

Yip mine to. Makes sense though. You get used to a certain speed and with some mods yo using less power when driving normally.
Im getting 7l per 100km, I have no idea how it does that...

I always said driving a 1.8T is like driving 3.2 V6... fuel consumption is the same.
To get better consumption from a turbo car, dont drive in the turbo power band for too long, then youll do fine.

I dont understand this Dolby guy... you buy a 2.5T and now you worried about fuel consumption, same like that Ford St owner somewhere on this forum...
:erm:
 
I'm not worred ; I'm curious. I ask to learn so I don't sprout **** when chatting about cars in future like a few others on here ... :)

You get, 2.0 N/A, 2.0T and 3.0 N/A pushing near 200KW - which is better consumption wise? These cars are HYPOTHETCIAL
 
Dolby said:
I'm not worred ; I'm curious. I ask to learn so I don't sprout **** when chatting about cars in future like a few others on here ... :)

You get, 2.0 N/A, 2.0T and 3.0 N/A pushing near 200KW - which is better consumption wise? These cars are HYPOTHETCIAL
Click to expand...

2.0 N/A pushing 200 kw. Nope.
2.0T and 3.0 V6 is probably a better comparison.
Again it depends on how your drive it.
A 3.0L is constantly eating more fuel, why, cos its a bigger capacity, duh:p
But engage the Turbo and fuel will sky rocket.
But on average you wont, especially on long trips where u driving at a constant speed - the turbo will always be more efficient.
So i guess the 2.0T wins.
 
koeks said:
I6 - better harmonics, better airflow (intake/exhaust), packaging difficult

V6 - better packaging, compact

I6 engines are an older technology. I6 are simple for the manufacturer to work with, it's like a cheap way of getting power at the expense of the buyer/consumer... where as V6 engines are shorter and more a newer technology than the I6......

google I6 vs V6
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense, a V6 of similar capacity with the same level of technology already has 2 disadvantages, first a I6 is perfectly balanced in any configuration, so the crank shaft and connecting rods can be made lighter. V6 is unbalanced as it is 2x I3 engines combined, so you have primary imbalance of the crankshaft rocking from side to side which either requires a balancing shaft or requires that the crankshaft strength be increased dramatically.

Secondly, on all V6 engines except incredibly narrow angle (like VR6), you have 2 overhead camshafts, so if the engine is DOHC, you have 4 cams to drive VS. 2 for a I6. You can go and google camshaft and you'll see it accounts for mayor loss in power for a engine to overcome the valve spring and open valves, now you have that x2.

Thirdly very few manufacturers still use I6 because it is very long so it cannot be mounted transversely. Hence it's pretty much BMW that still makes them. Those BMW inline 6 engines are the lightest 6 cylinder engines available, they rev up to 8000rpm and they have valvetronic (which means the car has no parasitic loss in the intake manifold on partial throttle). Valvetronic is similar to running a Petrol engine like a Diesel engine without a throttle plate (wikipedia has more).

Some of those engines are even fitted with ITB's, power and efficiency wise, V6's don't compare, nevermind smoothness.

superskully said:
2.0 N/A pushing 200 kw. Nope.
2.0T and 3.0 V6 is probably a better comparison.
Again it depends on how your drive it.
A 3.0L is constantly eating more fuel, why, cos its a bigger capacity, duh:p
But engage the Turbo and fuel will sky rocket.
But on average you wont, especially on long trips where u driving at a constant speed - the turbo will always be more efficient.
So i guess the 2.0T wins.
Click to expand...

Generally Turbo charged engines can be more efficient, pumping loss at partial throttle is no-existent on a Turbo Petrol engine so it has the efficiency advantages of a Diesel engine with the power of a Petrol engine, but in reality they usually run the engine with a richer mixture to prevent knock, so it depends on the manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Gnome, you saved me a lot of time there. I couldn't have said it any better myself.
 
What Increases/Decreases fuel consumption

1: Your right foot
2: Any additional engine load (towing, aircon, heavy sound mod, etc.etc.)
3: Fuel quality
4: Fuel density ( try filling yearly in the morning, you'll get more fuel for your buck)
5: Road surface and tyres
6: Wind resistance
7: Weight
8: Engine Power mods
9: Regular vehicle service
10: list never ends so I'll stop here :D

p.s. list is not for comparing different vehicles
 
limnos said:
A3 2.0T --> Phase II (Phase II software, Cold Air Induction and Downpipe.)

Before all these mods I would get around 380km on a full tank, now I get close to 480 - even driving it hard!

There is no cat converter now with the downpipe installed, which I'm sure plays a big role in fuel consumption....
Click to expand...

wow, You must have a brick of a foot then, I have the Jetta 5 with the same engine in it, and its a heaver car as far as I know, Driving it like a mad man most of the time I seldom if ever got less than 500kms on a tank, and often could get near 600, Max ever was to Craddock on 1 tank, 864 kms with 3 people and luggage in the car, on my new car with the new vw 2.oT 155kw engine I get 600kms everytank, and thats with hardly any lightfooted driving :eek:
 
It's chipped already ...

He's got the Audi DTM taking it from 147kw to 162kw
 
Dolby said:
It's chipped already ...

He's got the Audi DTM taking it from 147kw to 162kw
Click to expand...

Thats not a chip, its a Pringle.
Revo ftw!:)
50% of is about R2000, well worth it.

Wait did you race a BWA A3 DSG?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X