re. factory instrumentation accuracy & mpg

[ben swann]

Chander,

I do think there is something wrong.

Assuming your driving relatively efficiently  - which doesn't mean
driving under 55 and not using the power of the chip.  I had no problem
getting 28 on the highway and 23 around town.  In winter - short trips
with car not warming up - milege would drop to 18 - that was the worst.

I did ID some problems when my fuel efficiency dropped, and they were
corrected:
- Bad Multi-function sensor
- Oxygen Sensor
- Exhaust Manifold leaks (before I did my rebuile/upgrades

This all corresponds to the '87 5kcstqw and has nothing to do with the
new car.

There is one thing I may be missing in all of this.  I have not seen
outside temperatures this low in the four years I owned my '87
5kcstqw.  Folks living North of Annapolis, MD - usualy balmy even in
the winter may see the sub 30 temps far more frequently.  I do not
therefore know what my '87 would have done in this cold weather, as it
was not afforded the opportunity due to the crash.

Ben

----- Original Message -----
From: Chander Balakrishnan <balakrishnan3 at attbi.com>
Date: Sunday, January 26, 2003 5:53 pm
Subject: RE: re. factory instrumentation accuracy & mpg

> I have a 87 5ktq with the 1.8 bar SJM modification, and a 1990 200
> avantstock.  The best mileage I have gotten with either car with
> my daily
> driving - a combination of driving around town and highway is 20 -
> 21 mpg (as
> measured by fill ups and miles elapsed, not the computer in the
> car).  It
> drops a tad, to about 18-20 mpg in summer on hot days.
>
> Both cars have been on long trips to the East from Chicago, all
> Interstatedriving, and the best they have done then is about 24-26
> mpg.  These mileage
> numbers are consistent (as I remember) with the numbers on the
> sticker on
> the 1987 5kcsq (which I still have).  I am surprised at the 28 mpg
> claimedhere.  I consider myself a normal driver, neither heavy
> footed or very light
> footed.  IS there something wrong with my cars or my driving style ?
>
> Chander
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: quattro-admin at audifans.com [quattro-admin at audifans.com]On
> Behalf Of Phil Rose
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 3:51 PM
> To: Brett Dikeman
> Cc: ben swann; flyboysteve at usa.com; quattro at audifans.com;
> 200q20v at audifans.com
> Subject: Re: re. factory instrumentation accuracy & mpg
>
>
> At 1:10 PM -0500 1/26/03, Brett Dikeman wrote:
> >At 12:24 PM -0500 1/26/03, ben swann wrote:
> >>Yes - peeve # 2 on the new aquisition of the '91 200 20v tq
> avant.  Has
> >>SJM chip with 2.5 bar pressure transducer AFAIK.  Gas mileage
> abysmal>>on the way home - 20MPG and no I was not easy on the gas
> and probably
> >>averageing over 70.  My '87 5000 tq would get an easy 28 mpg
> under the
> >>same conditions.  I thought Motronic was supposed to be superior at
> >>engine management, including economy, over CIS (CIS/motronic).
> >>
> >>What's up with that?
> >
>
> Ben, were you referring to mileage from the on-board computer--or
> actualfill-ups? If the former, don't forget the error in computed
> MPG may be
> pretty large (mine was at least 10% low) unless the fuel-
> consumption factor
> is corrected (this is done by an IC adjustment, and I believe my
> write-up
> about this can be found on Chris Miller's web site.) If you
> measured by
> odometer and pumped amount, then I dunno.
>
> I agree that 20 MPG sounds rather low--unless your foot was really
> into it
> a lot. In my '91 200q, good gas mileage requires an extremely steady
> throttle (irrespective of speed it seems). With very steady
> cruising I'll
> routinely get 28 MPG even at 80 MPH; however with a lot of
> passing, hills,
> etc., could easily drop to low 20s.
>
> Phil
>

> Phil Rose
> '91 200q lago blue                        	Rochester, NY USA
> '91 200q tornado red                        	pjrose at frontiernet.net