max Verbrauch 6.Gang beim ASZ? | Posts 64+

I've made the same observations regarding fuel consumption and performance. Furthermore, I've noticed the following: When the engine is only partially warmed up (the temperature gauge briefly shows 90 degrees), it performs very well on the highway. However, after just half a minute under higher load, it becomes sluggish. When going from the train tracks onto a country road with a light load, it starts biting again.

I've already done some troubleshooting based on the diagnosis, but nothing obvious is showing up. I also replaced the diesel filter and the air filter. Since it seems to be temperature-dependent, it might be... I'll focus on the coolant or fuel system specifically when the weather is warm and conducive to working on cars, and I'll replace the sensors with fixed resistors or potentiometers.

A factual, yet currently unprovable, suspicion arises in me that this involves a form of "engine protection" that was introduced into the MSG with the newer anti-jerk data. This whole issue only started after a visit to the workshop. Before that, the thing always ran like a dream, no matter how long it was stressed. The workshop was completely unaware of what was happening.

Hi Roger,

Have you ever checked the intake air temperature? It does happen sometimes that the wrong bumper is installed (like in my case).

Best regards, Rainer.

Roger wrote:

I've already done a lot of troubleshooting based on the diagnosis, but nothing obvious is showing up. I've also replaced the diesel filter and the air filter. Since it seems to be temperature-dependent, possibly related to coolant or fuel, I'll focus on those areas when it's warm enough to work on the car, and I'll replace the sensors with fixed resistors or potentiometers.

I'm experiencing something similar - my ASZ is also "weather-sensitive." Sometimes, even with the automatic transmission, it responds so well to the throttle that it's a real pleasure (*almost* like my beloved AJM - and then it seems to be better in terms of fuel consumption according to the MFA). Unfortunately, he tends to be rather "gloopy" and viscous most days.

I've also logged several days in a row (fuel injection amount, boost pressure, MAF sensor values) and couldn't find anything unusual . I've always had this behavior; and I believe I have a relatively old data version (1576). Since I drive the same route every day, I think I at least have a relatively good benchmark. "Weather-sensitive" doesn't quite capture it either, because, in my opinion, the weather doesn't have a significant influence (the behavior changes both in summer and winter, regardless of whether it's dry or humid).

In that regard, I am curious about your observations and would like to play the role of the devil's advocate .

EDIT: I also once thought that the performance might improve as the fuel tank gets almost empty (regarding the pre-pump and tandem pump). But nowadays, I think that the popometer is being confused by the weight gain caused by completely filling the tank.

Hello Rainer,

Thank you for the information. We also considered the liquid level temperature (LLT), which was within the normal range, up to a maximum of 30-40 degrees Celsius above the outside temperature (as recorded). The opening in the apron has the TDI-specific grille. I saw your report about it and checked it immediately. I have also reviewed the topic of "LuFi intake snorkels for Nordic countries."

I initially suspected the LLT (Low-Level Turbine) as well, because around the time this issue started, I had installed the V6 lip, which led me to suspect an unfavorable LLK (Low-Level Compressor) airflow. The V6 lip isn't larger, but it's slightly steeper, and it tends to deflect the airflow that passes under the LLK slightly further downwards, away from the LLK-outlet. I will probably open the previously closed opening on the passenger side of the lip to restore the original airflow conditions.

Unfortunately, I'm reading about this topic for the first time.
The ARL engine is essentially the same as the ASZ (excluding the ATL and LLK variants, etc.), and it also has the ERF transmission.
Well, I'm quite surprised by these high values for your ASZ (Annual Standing Charge) in the current consumption.
The fuel consumption, according to the ARL standard, is approximately 14.6 liters per 100 kilometers for all vehicles in their standard configuration (under full load, in 6th gear, and at around 4000 RPM).
I have also observed the same phenomenon in myself as Roger did.
'However, especially recently, as has already been described here, very different instantaneous consumption rates are being observed. For example, when driving at 1500 rpm, the instantaneous consumption increases to 15.8, but then flattens out again to the well-known 14.6. However, when driving at 2000 rpm, the consumption is often not as high; it's frequently lower, at 14.5, and only increases to 14.6 at 3000 rpm. If you do the same thing 5 km later on the highway, you can again see a consumption of 15.5 liters around 2200 rpm.'
What's the reason for that? Is that normal? By the way, this has gotten worse since the timing belt was changed. But generally speaking, driving with full throttle in the lower RPM range for a longer distance results in higher fuel injection rates and better acceleration compared to driving at full throttle from 2000 RPM. Questions upon questions

Does the ARL actually rotate at a speed higher than 4,000 RPM?
AFAIK, the version in the flat terrain should have a significantly higher top speed: the same overall gear ratio as the ASZ, but 11 km/h more top speed.

Okay, Roger. Let me know about your experiences once the weather improves. Since we have the same car (even the V6 lip) from the same month of production, and I still have the original software, I can provide comparative data, depending on the driving conditions. Currently, I haven't noticed any weather-related anomalies with my car. It also reaches its normal top speed.

Doesn't the ARL actually go beyond 4,000 RPM, or what?
AFAIK, the one in the plane should have a significantly higher RPM: the same overall gear ratio as the ASZ, but 11 km/h more top speed.
no, not really - at just under 4000 rpm, it has its registered high speed and power - it actually always runs at that speed - anything beyond that with the ARL is either more power, or it's going downhill, or there's a tailwind - then it can easily reach 4200 rpm and a real 225 km/h - but that doesn't answer my questions .

Devilseye503 wrote:

Roger wrote: Doesn't the ARL actually go much higher than just 4,000 RPM, or what? AFAIK, the one in the plane should have a significantly higher RPM: the same overall gear ratio as the ASZ, but 11 km/h more top speed. no, not really - at just under 4000 rpm, it has its registered high speed and power - it actually always runs at that speed - anything above that with the ARL is either more power, or it's going downhill, or there's a tailwind - then it can easily reach 4200 rpm and a real 225 km/h - but that doesn't answer my questions

.

I only see one question. It concerns the different instantaneous consumption rates after MFA (presumably referring to a specific process or system). Given how low the update rate of the MFA is, a real peak could potentially be "overlooked" without being displayed. It's better to test it while going uphill or with the handbrake engaged, as it takes a long time otherwise.

@Matthias:

Thank you for the offer .

@roger - since this value updates approximately every 0.5 seconds, there are no sudden spikes that could be hidden . Furthermore, the entire process can be beautifully logged using VAG-COM by recording the injection quantities - so this excuse doesn't hold (this is actually the problem with the engine - sometimes it feels like 145 horsepower, and other times like 180 - there must be a reason for it).
It's surprising that the 130 model lets in significantly more light for its performance compared to the 150 model.