RE: 200tq boost...

[Peter Henriksen <peterhe@microsoft.com>]

I see about 17mpg/tank from the computer - translates into about 18mpg
when calculated. I drive about 15 miles to work every day of which 5 or
so are on the freeway...
- peter

>----------
>From: 	owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net[SMTP:owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net] on
>behalf of Mike Miller (Volt Comp) (Exchange)
>Sent: 	Friday, June 28, 1996 1:37 PM
>To: 	'linust@interramp.com'; 'mallick@orion.crd.ge.com'
>Cc: 	'Quattro'
>Subject: 	RE: 200tq boost...
>
>I certanly hope the worst case is not true!!!. Not sure how far my
>warranty goes and don't want to find out!! 
>Just out of curiosity, what kind of fuel economy are you seeing? I drive
>mostly freeway in rush hour - average speed for the last tank was 39 and
>MPG was 24. And I don't spare the throttle!!! Not bad for a car with
>this performance!!
>
>Mike Miller
>Bonney Lake, WA.
>91 200Q (Pearl) mine
>91 Caprice Classic (maroon) wifes 
>87 GMC Jimmy wifes - for sale (now the we have a "real" 4x4)
>81 4k 5+5 (blue) - parting
>81 4k 5+5 (white) 200k mi - for sale
>74 F350 Camper Special with 10 ft camper.
>
>>----------
>>From: 	mallick@orion.crd.ge.com[SMTP:mallick@orion.crd.ge.com]
>>Sent: 	Friday, June 28, 1996 5:47 AM
>>To: 	linust@interramp.com
>>Cc: 	Mike Miller (Volt) (Exchange)
>>Subject: 	RE: 200tq boost...
>>
>>Hi Linus!
>>
>>If I run the test you describe, I see boost hit about 1.3 at 1900 RPM
>>and build to about 1.5 at 3000+ RPM.  The Bentley manual test says to
>>start out in 4th gear at about 37 mph (which is roughly 1900 RPM) and
>>then nail it, watching the boost build until you hit 3000 RPM.  They
>>give various readings vs. elevation above sea level, but the bottom
>>line is you should hit 1.8 bar somewhere in that region.
>>
>>I think Mike and I both have a problem.  If we are lucky, it is the
>>same problem, so one of us will solve it and help the other.  If we
>>are *really unlucky* both of us have plugged catalytic converters and
>>shot turbos :-).  I don't want to think about it...
>>
>>Thanks for the info.
>>
>>John M.
>>
>