Save Money: Can 10 Cents Reduce Consumption?

Given that it's often read or heard that tuned TDI engines consume less fuel than before the tuning (assuming the same driving style), can the '10-cent tuning method' also be used to reduce fuel consumption?
If so, how should one approach the sizing process to achieve the minimum consumption?

or are the stories about reduced fuel consumption after tuning just fairy tales ?

In principle, even with the 10-cent piece, a reduction in consumption might be possible. Whether it's practically feasible and measurable is the question.

Basically, adding 10 cents increases the amount of fuel injected relative to the amount of air. This means the engine runs with less excess air and, consequently, the turbocharger doesn't have to work as hard. However, this only applies to the range where the turbocharger is actually operating (i.e., not during slow, steady cruising).

Furthermore, other fuel-saving features of chip tuning (e.g., earlier fuel injection) cannot be achieved with a simple 10-cent adjustment or implemented separately (adaptation). In any case, they cannot be implemented to the same extent as with a chip tuning solution.

I suspect that, due to the fact that the 10-cent setting is never perfectly adjusted in terms of consumption, it will be difficult to achieve any significant reduction in consumption. More likely, there will be an increase in consumption due to the setting being too high, or no change in consumption due to the setting being too low.

What do others say?

Regards,
Guste.

I say:

Don't underestimate the person who can really put their foot on the gas.

I'm not going to do a 10-cent tuning job just to end up driving in a partial-load range that's indistinguishable from the stock configuration.

If I have more power, it will also go into the cylinders!

In my opinion, a switchable 10-cent surcharge, for example, that can be activated only for overtaking or when desired, is the best solution.
And when it's turned on, it only delivers the maximum flow rate, which is what it's there for .

(i.e., not always the maximum speed, but rather the maximum acceleration from a standstill - although that also consumes (more) fuel).

m;

hm hello martin
You're speaking to my heart.
Yesterday, I finished the 10-cent project, and I have to say that...
Getting a significant performance boost of 20 to 30 horsepower for under 50 euros is truly exceptional.
Simply good.
And what does it matter if the good old 1z consumes 4.5 or 5 liters?
'You're having fun doing that, right?'
I am very satisfied.
I used to own a Corrado G60 with a chip that boosted its power to 200 horsepower, but I sold it two weeks ago.
The item consumed between 10 and 12 liters.
and now with the 115 hp TDI 4.5, what more could you want?
I always tell my wife, 'Only when you no longer have something will you miss it.'
Okay, I think I can do without the remaining 85 horsepower.
and you can drive 1000 to 1100 kilometers on a single tank of fuel.
while I'm also still benefiting from the good Euro 2 emission standard of the TDI engine.
The G60 only costs 272 euros if you get the G-catalytic converter, as everyone knows.
and the good TDI with a 1.9 liter engine and 300 horsepower.
It already pays for itself with the first fill-up.
So much for the topic of saving money.
Best regards to Chris from LB.

According to my understanding, a 'anti-tuning' solution for a 10C engine could already be implemented.
The appropriately modified resistor tells the ESP to set the fuel injection amount to 75% before: 'Stop, you've already reached the target amount.' However, this results in a noticeable loss of power - you can't get something for nothing.
It could be used as a 'cruise mode,' so why not?

Hmm - I'm also a huge fan of 10c. For 25 Euros, I get noticeably more power when needed. I generally start in the standard setting, but I use the box for traffic light races , highway chases , or complex overtaking maneuvers on country roads.
Two boxes connected in series, with a switch, even allowed both to .

What's the point?
"Due to the power throttling, the consumption increases!! As far as I know, the TDI engine has the highest efficiency at full load."

It was just another overly simplistic and ill-considered thought on my part!

Full load - highest efficiency? I thought that even with a smaller fuel injection quantity, we still have full load capability, but with reduced power. For example, the 1.9-liter common rail injection system can deliver power from 100 to 150 horsepower. In my opinion, the one with 100 horsepower consumes significantly less fuel than the one with 150 horsepower.

Please read the following:
/viewtopic.php?t=2386

I still don't understand. I can agree with all of that, but what does it have to do with my reasoning?
'Of course, to achieve the same performance from point A to point B with the throttled engine, I would need more fuel. But that's not what's being discussed. The requirement to travel from point A to point B with minimal fuel is clearly stated in the specifications.'

As I understand it, you achieve the lowest fuel consumption by always accelerating as much as possible (i.e., full throttle) and driving within the engine speed range where it operates most efficiently. According to the diagram, this range is 1500-2100 RPM.

While full throttle injects more fuel, this is offset by the shorter acceleration time. Due to the higher efficiency, the specific fuel consumption decreases.
However, an incorrectly adjusted 10-cent tuning would have the opposite effect.

Hi everyone,

"This performance graph cited by Wolif, in my opinion, exaggerates the range in which the TDI engine operates most efficiently. This range is probably not between 1500 and 2100 rpm, but rather between idle speed and 1500 rpm. At least, that's what the young people participating in fuel efficiency competitions believe and have demonstrated. In a 1995 (approximately) championship with some Audis, the driving program looked like a "sawtooth" pattern. That is, they give full throttle from idle speed up to 1500 rpm, then turn off the engine and coast in neutral until a certain speed limit is reached. Then, they turn the engine back on and give full throttle again..."

Best regards, Georg.

@Wolfi_b

But on what basis do you claim that the efficiency decreases in a 1.9-liter engine when it's restricted? In relation to the amount of fuel injected, it should always remain the same, and might even improve with the restriction, since a shorter injection time means closer to top dead center (TDC), which could lead to greater efficiency.
More air, relative to the fuel => cleanest possible combustion => higher efficiency.

Maybe we're just talking past each other, and I'm not understanding what your statement is .


@schorsch

Um, according to my layman's logic, the effectiveness should be highest at 1900 RPM, which corresponds to the maximum torque. However, this would be completely pointless in such 'twitching' competitions, so the fuel efficiency of idling (SDI simulator ) would become more relevant again.

It's based on the idea that throttling achieves the same effect as reducing the amount of gas being fed to the engine. You could even screw a doorstop under the accelerator pedal to achieve the same result.

ObenbeiMutti wrote:

Um, according to my layman's logic, the effective range should be highest at 1900 RPM, which corresponds to the maximum torque. However, this would be completely pointless in such "twitching" competitions, so the idling mode (SDI simulator

) becomes worthwhile again.

SDI-Simulator is great .

What makes you think that the efficiency is highest at 1.9krpm? Perhaps that's just where the most fuel is being injected?

I don't know exactly why they're only letting it run up to 1500 rpm; maybe the internal friction within the engine becomes too significant above 1500 rpm.
Speculation:
It's possible that the combustion efficiency is highest at 1900 rpm, but the overall efficiency might be better at lower speeds due to higher friction within the engine.
Speculation arises.

Have a nice day, everyone!

Georg.

@everyone

Thank you all for the numerous answers - and the sometimes very controversial opinions .

I'm going to build this 10-cent tuning device and then observe the fuel consumption with different settings.

My AFN now has 260,000 km, but it's better late than never to get it tuned.

'I see it the same way. My friend's old 1Z had only 185,000 km on the clock when it was new.'
and it looks absolutely stunning, like a fire truck.
So, 10 cents, and the world is all right.
I just need to clean the AGV and then disconnect it.
Then the world is in order.