Zündeinstellung Polo 86c 40 kw Bj. 92 1272 ccm | Beiträge 48+

Hi,
How did you come to that conclusion?
Unfortunately, it seems that the throttle valve potentiometer is not working correctly.
My gut feeling tells me that something is wrong.

Zitat:

Zitat:

I went to the garage this morning and the lambda value was 1.3.

Too lean due to the air leak?
Since sealing the flange had such a significant effect, I'm wondering why you didn't just take it in for a general inspection before doing further repairs.
Best regards,
Herbert

Hi Herbert
Hi,
Are you too lean due to the exhaust fumes?
Since sealing the flange had such a significant effect, I'm wondering why you didn't just go for a check-up before undertaking further repairs.
Best regards,
Herbert

If I only give it very little gas, there's initially a gap, as if the throttle is open but the mixture isn't being properly enriched.
Also, the maximum speed is just under 150 km/h, which is a bit too low.
However, I'll go back again tomorrow morning.
Regards, Frank

Hi,
I'll continue describing how things progressed so that at least once somewhere, the potential sources of error and how they were effectively eliminated are mentioned.
Yesterday, with a lukewarm engine, I experienced a slight 'head nod' while driving.
I gently pressed the accelerator pedal, and initially, there was a noticeable gap/hole.

Just now, with a really cold engine.
Started up well as usual, but the 'hole' was actually more like a crater.
At a constant speed, the first centimeter of pressing the accelerator pedal resulted in nothing, or the power decreased.
After a few hundred meters, it became so extreme that the engine stalled even with slight pressure on the accelerator.
After another short distance, it felt like I had to press the accelerator pedal about halfway down to overcome the 'hole'.
The effect disappeared above a temperature of 70 degrees.

I think it feels very similar to the throttle valve potentiometer, but why should it be so affected by temperature?
I'll replace the blue temperature sensor later, it's easier, and I'm just lazy.
Everything is fine at normal operating temperature.
No engine vibrations, no stalling, and I could even put a beer on the air filter without it spilling or foaming.
It's just missing a few horsepower, but the engine isn't brand new either...

Let's see what the inspection says later.

PS: Is it possible to test a lambda sensor?
Best regards, Frank

Hi
AU = Ouch
The lambda value is now correct and it's also regulating nicely, but the CO value is too high.
According to the inspection, the cat is leaking through the oil/shaft seals.
I also need to get a new one, but for now, I'll let everything cool down.

After replacing the blue temperature sensor, the driving behavior in the cold state unfortunately didn't change.
So, I'll replace the sensor/upper part.
Regards, Frank

Hi,

I've now replaced the cat and the CO value is now correct.
My 20-year-old Polo is now roadworthy.

What I find interesting is that both old cats looked the same on the inside.
So nothing about thick oil residue, or the oil dripping into the engine.
Tomorrow I'll replace the single point injection so it runs properly when cold.
Best regards, Frank

Finally:

I had replaced the singlepoint and all the problems were gone.
Unfortunately, the car could no longer reach its maximum speed.
The replacement engine supposedly had the same displacement, but the fuel injector was apparently different.
I have now only replaced the top part, and now the car runs better than before.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their tips and advice, which have helped me to better understand this technology.

I will also have a look at the throttle valve potentiometer at some point to see if there is anything I can do to revive it.

Best regards,
Frank

Hello Frank,

Thanks for the feedback!

It's great that someone is dealing with such a 'powerful machine'...
Some people would have already thrown it away and gotten rid of the Polo.

But now you have a new TÜV and know the car inside and out!

Hi
Hello Frank,
Thanks for the feedback!

It's great that someone is dealing with such a 'powerful machine'...
Some people would have already thrown everything away and disposed of the Polo.

But now you have a new TÜV and know the car inside and out! :P

I received the Polo as a gift, and the rust on the underside is minimal.
Therefore, it's worth keeping it for a while longer.
I paid 52 euros for the engine repair, including the timing belt, 2 hydropneumatic struts, and valve stem seals, and only 100 euros for the cross members and wishbones.
I also salvaged other parts, such as the single-point ignition, catalytic converter, and various other items like fenders, doors, the front bumper, axle shafts, and alternator, from another Polo and stored them.
I have a garage with a pit, electricity, and a complete set of tools, including a shielding gas and plasma torch, and I can do everything here except for replacing the crankshaft and boring the cylinders.
I simply don't like being told by a warning light that I'll have to take my car to a repair shop where they'll just rip me off.
However, I've previously driven cars where most of the electronics were in the blinker relay or had no problems.

In the next 2 years, VGA-Com and other similar models will also be available, as well as a more fuel-efficient car.
I'll take a look and see what's affordable, such as a Smart or a Lupo FSI.
For me, a car is simply a means of transportation and doesn't have the same importance for me as it does for other people.

Best regards, Frank

P.S.
Current consumption:
on a 2 x 280 km trip
Out: 50% country road/highway + 30 minutes of traffic/1st gear
Back: 95% highway + 45 minutes of traffic
This 20-year-old Polo consumed 6.67 liters per 100 km.
I will also add the consumption in city traffic later.

Is there somewhere a list of which sensor must have which value at which temperature?
I would like to measure the outside air temperature sensor at the fuel injector in case the fuel consumption is too high in winter.
What would be a normal average value in normal traffic in winter?

Regards, Frank

Hi!

Well, the consumption is perfectly fine,
with a more modern car (petrol engine), you won't really see a significant difference.
The engines themselves are more fuel-efficient, but the cars are also much heavier.
And much more complicated.

Regarding the temperature values:
I don't know what can be done with VCDS,
maybe you know someone who has the black-white connector + VCDS,
then you can at least check if anything is possible.

Otherwise, in the books "now I do it myself" or "this is how it's done", there may be tables with temperature and resistance values.
However, the most important thing is that the intended cooling water temperature is achieved in winter,
i.e. around 86°, so that it operates according to the "normal" characteristic curve.
Therefore, especially regarding the thermostat, this is a fairly common problem.
However, this can also be measured quite accurately with a pyrometer.

Hi!

Well, the consumption is perfectly fine,


While at a constant 80 km/h, it will probably be even lower, but I prefer to stick to the actual driving conditions, and 6.67 liters per 100 km is a dream for the old engine.

Regarding the temperature values:
I don't know what can be done with VCDS,
maybe someone you know has VCDS and the black-white connector,
then at least you can check if anything is working.

Otherwise, in books like 'Now I'm doing it myself' or 'This is how it's done', there might be tables with temperature and resistance values.
However, the most important thing is that the intended coolant temperature in winter is achieved,
i.e. around 86°C, so that it runs according to the 'normal' characteristic curve.
Therefore, especially regarding the thermostat, this is a fairly common problem.
However, this can also be measured quite accurately with a pyrometer.

That's already a usable number.
I can measure it and test when the thermostat turns on, etc.

Partially due to fuel prices and partly due to my stubbornness, I want to reduce fuel consumption in city traffic without driving particularly economically.
A cheap cardboard sheet or a adjustable sunshade in front of the radiator would be a basic requirement to get the engine up to temperature faster.
Fool the outside air temperature sensor with warmer intake air.
Either by using a resistor (I currently don't have the values) or by heating the air or sensor with a heating coil/glow plug.
As a test, you could also switch the engine temperature to Arizona.
The engine's running characteristics will probably experience too much variation at the traffic lights, but this could be reset to the normal values before the traffic light using a switch.

Talented drivers could also drive relatively cheaply in the winter, when the car still had a choke.

I simply claim that there has been no real progress in fuel efficiency from the original Golf 1 Diesel up to 40 years later.

So, after the initial outcry has subsided...

I know that you can get a Mercedes AMG for under 10 liters for long-distance driving, and that every car also carries significantly more weight than a Golf 1, etc. However, I don't really see the 40 years of development in between.

You shouldn't compensate for every desire to save with more weight and more performance, and you should still sell 'economy' cars to thrifty customers.

I just want to see what I can get out of it without spending a lot of money.

Best regards, Frank

F B hat folgendes geschrieben:

I simply claim that there hasn't been any real progress in fuel efficiency from the original Golf 1 Diesel to today, 40 years later.

Hi!
It's just a matter of opinion.
I think the first Golf Diesel came out around 1977, with the 1.5L engine, which consumed about 5 liters,
with its 50 horsepower.
Nowadays, my 4L TDI also consumes about 5 liters with very economical driving,
but it's much heavier, and has 90 horsepower.

I'm going to boldly claim that if we were to build a car like the Golf 1 today, without air conditioning or power steering,
with a 3-cylinder SDI engine, with perhaps a displacement of 1300 ccm,
it would also achieve around 3 liters per 100 km.

There was once a prototype car at the post office, a Polo 86C, which was only equipped with the driver's seat, otherwise empty and lightweight. It was powered by the 1.3-liter 4-cylinder diesel engine, and with economical driving, it achieved a fuel consumption of 3.5 liters. However, with its ~45 horsepower, it was a really sluggish car, compared to the Golf.

I simply claim that there has been no real progress in fuel efficiency from the original Golf 1 Diesel to today, 40 years later.




Hi!
Well, it's a matter of opinion.
I think the first Golf Diesel came out around 1977, with the 1.5L engine, which consumed about 5 liters,
with its 50 horsepower.
Nowadays, my 4L TDI also consumes about 5 liters with very economical driving,
but it is much heavier, and has 90 horsepower.


'As I said, progress in fuel efficiency is being eaten away by more luxury and more power.

Where is the progress in 40 years if I'm thinking about fuel savings?

It's useless if the car, in principle, consumes 20% less, but isn't offered in this performance class anymore, and with more horsepower and weight, consumes the same or more.

I'll try, just for fun and as a hobby, to reduce the consumption, and see when it becomes impractical.

Best regards, Frank'

Zitat:

It's pointless if the car essentially consumes 20% less fuel, but isn't offered in this performance class at all, and consumes the same or more with more horsepower and weight.

Few people buy them today (almost none). Have you thought about supply and demand, or NCAP crash tests, ABS, air conditioning, etc.?

A Golf I was a moving engine and a bit of a vehicle with ZERO passive safety features and was as soft as a tin can.

Today, it is more or less a safety feature with a lot of partially unnecessary trim and an engine.

However, this is a different topic (it has nothing to do with the ignition setting), so we should probably end this here.