max Verbrauch 6.Gang beim ASZ? | Posts 16+

ASZ Cordoba.
Maximum consumption, 6-speed: 15.2 liters.
Max consumption 6-speed 17.1 liters (with chip), which reduces back to approximately 15 liters at just under 3200 rpm. I considered testing it further, but it was too risky to push it more in oil.

Hmm, interesting:
Compared to the Polo, this results in a reduction of approximately 3mg, which corresponds to almost 6% less torque.
To achieve the same fuel injection amount, your system would likely need to indicate a value closer to 15.3 liters per 100 km.

But what does it matter if the translation is shorter than yours? The acceleration would be in 6th gear anyway. Probably the same, in my humble opinion.
The fuel consumption is optimized for the shorter 6-speed transmission .

Now that we're talking about the 6-speed transmission:

Is it really true that the ERF (presumably referring to an engine component) and your transmission only engage from 4th gear onwards? Do you mean 'gang' as in a group of people, or did I misread the table?

makei wrote:

ASZ Cordoba. Max consumption 6-speed 15.2l.

Hi,

What kind of transmission do you have (GKB or speed at 2000 rpm?)

Calvin wrote:

But what does it matter if the translation is shorter than yours? The acceleration would be in 6th gear, anyway. I think the overall situation is probably about the same. The fuel consumption is optimized for the shorter 6-speed transmission

.
If you're willing to settle for less torque than the 310 Nm (nominal) that the 6th gear actually allows... This, of course, only applies if the transmission data, etc., are actually correct.

Quote:

Is it really true that the ERF and your transmission only engage from the 4th gear onwards? Did I misunderstand the

, or did I misread the table?
That's correct regarding the gait translations. However, even the axle is translated differently, and the tire circumference introduces further differences.

A more appropriate comparison would be to use the relationship between revolutions per minute (rpm) and kilometers per hour (km/h). And my Polo has a longer gear ratio in every gear compared to the Golf with the ASZ/ERF engine.

@ Ulf
I'm not sure about the exact GKB (Cordoba Signo 2003) value right now, but 1000 RPM corresponds to 60 km/h (6th gear). Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

'Gang.'

LT. Your table should be GKB FSM!

2 things for you, @ulf:

'How is it possible that in the .xls file for ASZ ERF Golf, there is a difference between the 4th and 5th [entries/values/etc.]?' How can the yield be so low? 0.977 and 0.975?
And what exactly is the influence of the rolling circumference?
If I have approximately 10 cm more circumference with my 205 55 16 tires compared to yours, shouldn't that be advantageous for me in terms of revolutions per mile, or am I completely misunderstanding the math?
Okay, we're just talking about math now: calculating the circumference is straightforward, but why are you multiplying it by 3.053? Shouldn't PI be used for that as well?

According to your statement, it's not possible to achieve the 310 Nm of torque in 6th gear with a fuel consumption of 14.5 liters per 100km, or am I wrong? Because the acceleration should be just as quick due to the shorter gearing, just like in your Polo .

EDIT: I just drove again on the country road and, at 1700 RPM, I gave it full throttle up to 2200 RPM. Indeed, the instantaneous fuel consumption increased to exactly 15.1 liters per 100km at precisely 2000 RPM. Then immediately down to 14.5, and then below 14.

Calvin wrote:

1. How is it possible that in the .xls file for ASZ ERF Golf, there is a difference between the 4th and 5th [entries/values/etc.]? How can the yield be so low? 0.977 and 0.975?

Up to the 4th gear, a shorter axle ratio is engaged, while a longer axle ratio is used in the 5th and 6th gears. Overall, this results in a "harmonious" gear ratio configuration.

Quote:

And what exactly is the influence of the rolling circumference? If I have approximately 10 cm more circumference with 205 55 16 tires than you do, shouldn't that be to my advantage in terms of RPM? Or am I completely misunderstanding the math?

Yes, if the gear ratios are the same.
However, with larger tires, a shorter transmission ratio is often used, and the two factors tend to balance each other out.

Quote:

The calculation of the circumference is clear, but why are you multiplying it by 3.053? Shouldn't PI be used at some point?

Yes, for the unencumbered scope.
However, the fact that the loaded tire sinks also reduces its rolling circumference.
And the standard circumference is calculated (according to my research) using approximately 3.053 instead of Pi.

Quote:

2. According to your statement, I can in the 6th. The fuel consumption is 14.5 liters per 100km, but is it not achieving the 310 Nm of torque, or is that incorrect?

If the conversion from injection quantity to consumption for our vehicles is performed using the same calculation methods, then that is correct.

Quote:

Because the acceleration should be just as fast due to the shorter gearing, just like in your Polo

Similarly fast, yes (weight aside).
However, with the same Nm (Newton-meters), a shorter gear ratio results in greater acceleration.

Quote:

EDIT: I just drove again on the country road and, at 1700 RPM, I gave it full throttle up to 2200 RPM. Indeed, the current fuel consumption increased to 15.1 l/100km at exactly 2000 RPM. After that, immediately down to 14.5, and then below 14

.
Wow, those are huge jumps .

If your advertisement is so vague, it's naturally difficult to calculate anything precise or reliable from it. The display in my Golf (the LED matrix panel between the tachometer and speedometer) showed jumps of about 0.2, if I recall correctly - similar to the one in my Polo.

makei wrote:

I don't know the exact GKB (Cordoba Signo 2003) value at the moment, but 1000 RPM = 60 km/h (6. Gang).

Just like me. Your MJ also fits the long gearbox.

And then, 15.2 liters as a maximum is quite remarkable:
Either your fuel consumption will be calculated differently, or your engine is already tuned from the factory by approximately 12 horsepower and 30 Nm.

Hello.

Okay, so on my Golf IV Variant TDI, manufactured in February 2002, with an ASZ engine and an ERF transmission, the MFA (Multi Function Display) shows a warning message when accelerating in 6th gear. At approximately 2000 RPM, the fuel consumption is around 15.1 liters per 100 kilometers. Also, at the maximum speed, which is around 3800 RPM, my MFA (Multi Function Display) shows a fuel consumption of 12.9 liters per 100 kilometers.
The tires are 195/65 R15. The vehicle is in its original condition, as it was when it was delivered.

After the last service at 30,000 km, I felt that the engine wasn't pulling as strongly as before, especially in the range of 2000 RPM. Also, according to the MFA (Multi-Function Display), the fuel consumption was only 13.5 liters per 100 km. After visiting the dealer again, the result was that no errors could be detected, everything was fine, but the power was back, even though they 'didn't' do anything.

Greetings.
Rolf

Rolf Heszler wrote:

So, on my Golf IV Variant TDi from 2/2002 with an ASZ engine and an ERF transmission, the MFA (Multi Function Display) shows something when accelerating in 6th gear. Engine speed at approximately 2000 RPM, maximum fuel consumption is 15.1 liters per 100km. Also, at the maximum speed, which is approximately 3800 RPM, my MFA (Multi Function Display) shows a fuel consumption of 12.9 liters per 100km.

This essentially results in the same injection quantities as I logged on the Polo (deviation < 1 mg).

The question now is, what are the reasons for the discrepancies in the quantity calculations made by makei, Calvin, and Roger?

Quote:

After the last service at 30000km, I had the feeling that the engine wasn't pulling as well, especially in the range of 2000 RPM, and the fuel consumption, according to the MFA, was only 13.5l/100km. After I went back to the dealer, the result was that no errors could be detected, everything was fine, but the power was back, even though they "didn't" do anything.

Well: 13.5 liters instead of 15.1 liters already corresponds to approximately 10% less fuel injection volume, which is roughly equivalent to a loss of power, according to the MFA (presumably a diagnostic tool).

So, the engine's computer "deliberately" injected less fuel, possibly due to insufficient boost pressure, a faulty mass airflow sensor, or something similar.

Hello Ulf,

Today, on my way back, I encountered a strange "sawtooth" driving pattern. I hope no one saw me on the almost empty (yes, they still exist) A4 highway, as I was accelerating aggressively between 1800 and 2200 RPM quite often. I once recorded a reading of 14.5 liters, but otherwise, the average is very likely 14.4 liters, because I only had a reading of 14.2 liters once.

matthiasTDI96 wrote:

. I once read a value of 14.5 liters, otherwise, the average is very reliably 14.4 because I only had a reading of 14.2 once.

That would bring the G4 with the ERF transmission back to "my standard." Do you have a car like that?

Here's another question for the "sawtooth-pattern drivers" :
Does it make a difference to your values whether the climate control is on or off?

I hope at least a few of you have a Klima – my Polo can't really contribute to that.

A very good question, regarding how the climate influences it.
I have Climatronic installed and I'll test it out tonight.
Report to follow.

But which standard are you referring to? We had discussed that some G4 ASZ engines consume 14.5 liters per 100km. If, by chance, all of them now have a MOTOMETER as a speedometer (which can be determined without removing the speedometer by trying to turn the odometer and finding that it doesn't move), it's possible that the value of 15.1 is not being displayed because the display range is too coarse. VDO speedometers are somewhat faster and therefore likely more accurate.
Those to whom this applies might want to try accelerating again from 1600 RPM. In my case, at exactly 2000 RPM, it resulted in a fuel consumption of 15.1 liters per 100 kilometers. The fact that it then jumped back to 14.5 makes me suspect that the 15.1 is probably being injected into everyone, but it's never being displayed.

VAG-COM scans should provide a more precise result, or .

Okay, my ASZ/ERF engine definitely has a digital instrument cluster (DIC) with a tachometer. The values change, I would say, almost every half-second. We also have a Golf with an ALH 66kW TDI engine, and it takes quite a while for the values to change on that one, but it also has a tachometer in the instrument cluster. It's possible that they made changes to the design depending on the year of manufacture. For example, my ASZ system displays messages like "driver's door open" or "left rear door open," while the ALH Golf only displays a message when the trunk is open.

I'm going to test the "sawtooth theory" about climate change on my way home and will post my findings if traffic allows.

@Ulf:

Could the differences simply be due to the significantly lower outside temperature?
At the very least, the temperatures during the initial measurements on the weekend were noticeably warmer than during the week, with differences of up to 15 degrees in some cases.

I'll try to do a quick check on the way home today, if I remember. I feel so sorry for the poor machine, struggling and groaning as it labors at its highest speed.

Roger wrote:

@Ulf: Could it be that the differences simply result from the considerably lower outside temperature? At the very least, during the weekend, the initial measurements showed that it was significantly warmer than during the week, with differences of up to 15 degrees in some cases...

IMO, not. The calculation of the consumption volume is likely based on a diesel density assumed to be constant. This calculation uses the injection mass (mg/stroke).
Besides, I don't believe the diesel density changes as much as the varying readings suggest.

Quote:

I feel so sorry for the poor machine, struggling so hard with its groaning and rumbling at its highest speed...

Why torment?
The area around 1900 is the one with the highest torque -> a TDI should easily be able to handle that .
And in the 6th. You tend to enjoy something the most when you have the most of it .

(For me, "torture" would be, for example, when the engine is forced to run at a too-high gear on a mountain road, even with full throttle, causing the RPMs to drop to the lower limit...)

Hi,

Today, I didn't even reach 14.5; it stopped at 14.3. I tried three times. However, it ran well, and I think the measurement grid of the MFA is simply too coarse to accurately measure the true maximum. I think I have VDO, and the pin seems to be turning...

Roger wrote:

I didn't even manage to reach 14.5 today; I stopped at 14.3. I tried three times. He ran well, though, I think the measurement grid of the MFA is really too coarse for the actual maximum. ...

The latter statement may well be generally true. But 0.2 liters out of 14 is an error of ~1.4% - that's not really that bad .

So, are you saying that, with and without climate change, you essentially always reach the same maximum value?