3 fuel tank fill-ups post IM, and I was wrong thinking 22.12% increase in MPG...
10-08-2008, 12:52 PM
#1
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
3 fuel tank fill-ups post IM, and I was wrong thinking 22.12% increase in MPG...
that I got after that 1st 100 mile test drive. My year-to-date log book I keep in the glovebox shows 18.771MPG since Jan 1, 2008. Since sealing the IM my last 3 fill-ups have produced the following numbers:
1st tank: 22.97MPG (+22.42%)
2nd tank: 23.02MPG (+22.68%)
3rd tank (today): 23.01MPG (+22.61%)
Mileage has turned out even better than I got the first test run and I wasn't complaining even at sub-19MPG averages!!
1st tank: 22.97MPG (+22.42%)
2nd tank: 23.02MPG (+22.68%)
3rd tank (today): 23.01MPG (+22.61%)
Mileage has turned out even better than I got the first test run and I wasn't complaining even at sub-19MPG averages!!
10-09-2008, 10:39 AM
#2
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
price of 91 in Kansas City ks side $3.03 in MO its down to $2.83 in areas..
wish i could go buy a couple hundred gallons to keep for when it goes back up 
hopefully it wont though
hopefully it wont though
10-09-2008, 11:21 AM
#4
AudiWorld Senior Member
she rocks like a man-hole cover with a pebble lodged in it's frame...
<center><img src="http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/internet/techniqu/73-3.jpg"></center><p>I've started to gather what's needed to do the Intake Manifold lap-job.
Got out my other I/M, I'm thinking that, although it's missing a few pieces, I can swap it out while I do the required work on the good (but never finished!) one. So what if I lose the C/O function for a while.
Just for fun, pulled the top-to-bottom gasket and put the two halves back together. Couldn't get it to go -quite- back together so, tried tapping with a mallet, no joy. Carefully removed the alignment spring pins with some penetrating oil and needle nose pliers before trying again.
Put the "lid" back on the "box" and it won't sit flat? One of these two is not like the other! Wobble-wobble from the left rear to front right corners.
Stuck my trouble-light in the T/B opening and was absolutely struck by how much light came through the joint at the front and back! They only appeared to touch along the very outer left and right hand sides. Tightening all the little bolts along the front and rear doesn't quite close the gap.
Got an old thick chunk of plate-glass from Habitat for Humanity. Laid it down on three hockey pucks. This will be my "reference surface". The "box" sits flat, the "lid" does not. Used a sheet of foolscap for feeler gauges. Got three thicknesses easily under one corner (approx eight thou.), the front right.
Photo above is BMW's interesting V8 infinately variable length intake manifold called "DIVA".
"Differentiated Variable Air Intake, this rotating drum of intertwined helical components can steplessly vary the length of the intake runners from 9.1 inches to 26.5 inches. And it can do it in less than one second. So no matter what engine speed you're at or gear you're in, the engine is always operating with the optimal runner length."
Later on apparently, when this engines displacement was increased, BMW went "back" to a simpler two-stage variable I/M design. Like ours? Note who built it for them:
Kolbenschmidt Pierburg AG
Karl-Schmidt-Straße
74172 Neckarsulm
GERMANY
Got out my other I/M, I'm thinking that, although it's missing a few pieces, I can swap it out while I do the required work on the good (but never finished!) one. So what if I lose the C/O function for a while.
Just for fun, pulled the top-to-bottom gasket and put the two halves back together. Couldn't get it to go -quite- back together so, tried tapping with a mallet, no joy. Carefully removed the alignment spring pins with some penetrating oil and needle nose pliers before trying again.
Put the "lid" back on the "box" and it won't sit flat? One of these two is not like the other! Wobble-wobble from the left rear to front right corners.
Stuck my trouble-light in the T/B opening and was absolutely struck by how much light came through the joint at the front and back! They only appeared to touch along the very outer left and right hand sides. Tightening all the little bolts along the front and rear doesn't quite close the gap.
Got an old thick chunk of plate-glass from Habitat for Humanity. Laid it down on three hockey pucks. This will be my "reference surface". The "box" sits flat, the "lid" does not. Used a sheet of foolscap for feeler gauges. Got three thicknesses easily under one corner (approx eight thou.), the front right.
Photo above is BMW's interesting V8 infinately variable length intake manifold called "DIVA".
"Differentiated Variable Air Intake, this rotating drum of intertwined helical components can steplessly vary the length of the intake runners from 9.1 inches to 26.5 inches. And it can do it in less than one second. So no matter what engine speed you're at or gear you're in, the engine is always operating with the optimal runner length."
Later on apparently, when this engines displacement was increased, BMW went "back" to a simpler two-stage variable I/M design. Like ours? Note who built it for them:
Kolbenschmidt Pierburg AG
Karl-Schmidt-Straße
74172 Neckarsulm
GERMANY
10-09-2008, 01:23 PM
#5
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: price of 91 in Kansas City ks side $3.03 in MO its down to $2.83 in areas..
now i know why youre cars don´t move...91? the 12v is made to work with 98...even 95 takes a bit of power of since it dropes the timing by 3degrees...it´s done by the ecu i´ve seen it doing it if you have the vag plug in it gives you the information of injection map nr2...
10-09-2008, 01:24 PM
#6
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
heheheh... at least one here thinks that's fine and no sealant should be applied...
EVER! But you're on the right track. Nothing hard about making it right. Just time.
My bet is EVERYONE of these on the road today is warped and unsealed to a greater or lesser degree at this point in time. Even the "better running" cars!
And don't discount the lower half being warped until you've marked it's upper mating surface with something then lightly lapped it to check for high/low spots. My bet is it's warped as well.
My bet is EVERYONE of these on the road today is warped and unsealed to a greater or lesser degree at this point in time. Even the "better running" cars!
And don't discount the lower half being warped until you've marked it's upper mating surface with something then lightly lapped it to check for high/low spots. My bet is it's warped as well.
Trending Topics
10-10-2008, 03:02 PM
#8
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who said anything about "youre cars don't move"
I believe you are confused with ron vs octane we use octane and the # i gave is an octane rating for example iirc 95 ron = 87 octane. Get your facts correct.. another reason i said in Kansas city in the subject of the post so everyone knew its a us figure.
10-11-2008, 10:22 AM
#9
AudiWorld Senior Member
Re: ignition timing retard display...
...that would be interesting to have that information while underway. Even if it was just a simple idiot light to let you know that for what ever reason, the timing was being backed off.
10-11-2008, 11:49 AM
#10
AudiWorld Senior Member
You've exceeded the "rated" consumption which is not always possible...
...According to the Canadian National Research Coucil, your car is rated at:
22/33 (city/hwy) mpg (however that's Canadian gallons).
For us that's 12.4/8.5 ltrs/100 km.
In U.S. gallons (20% smaller, therefore divide by 1.2) that would be:
18.3/27.5 mpg.
Because Transport Canada's labs use a dynamometer to get their figures, the're usually hard to exceed.
Your USA EPA's new ratings are:
17/23 & 19 combined;
EPA's old ratings (pre 2008 method) are:
19/25 & 21 combined;
I really liked this part of their site:
"MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You
Average based on 1 vehicle (from new Hamshire!).
21.6 mpg 39% city/61% hwy"
(see: "View Individual Estimates")
I guess you can write in and skew the averages!
22/33 (city/hwy) mpg (however that's Canadian gallons).
For us that's 12.4/8.5 ltrs/100 km.
In U.S. gallons (20% smaller, therefore divide by 1.2) that would be:
18.3/27.5 mpg.
Because Transport Canada's labs use a dynamometer to get their figures, the're usually hard to exceed.
Your USA EPA's new ratings are:
17/23 & 19 combined;
EPA's old ratings (pre 2008 method) are:
19/25 & 21 combined;
I really liked this part of their site:
"MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You
Average based on 1 vehicle (from new Hamshire!).
21.6 mpg 39% city/61% hwy"
(see: "View Individual Estimates")
I guess you can write in and skew the averages!