VOX und 9ff versuchen 3Liter Golf zu bauen | Posts 32+

The question then is also about air resistance; the standard Lupo had a Cd value of 0.30, while the three-liter version had 0.29. What's the Cd value of the Golf, and let's also consider the significant differences in frontal area. Just based on weight alone, they won't make much difference, especially at higher speeds, or will it still be limited to 80 km/h?

Yes, and the engine weighs 170 kg, the transmission weighs 40 kg, and the rear axle weighs over 100 kg.
They also want to make something lighter at the rear axle. I'm really excited for the next episode .

Hello,

The topic was also discussed on Johannes B. Kerner's 'stern TV' last week. Unfortunately, I only caught the end of the report.

They also want to remove the roof and replace it with one made of carbon fiber, as well as replacing the hood and other parts.

The target weight was a minimum of 960 kg or less, without compromising safety.

The person from 9ff mentioned that, after setting a speed record for Porsche (388 km/h), they now also want to apply their expertise in fuel efficiency.

The project is not directly supported by Volkswagen, but it is viewed 'favorably.' Several well-known suppliers are also involved.

I find it absurd to force a car to achieve a 3-liter fuel consumption rate by using expensive components made of carbon or magnesium, as well as aerodynamic tricks that are also used in high-speed record attempts (such as taping over gaps and edges), and perhaps even through a start/stop function that reduces city fuel consumption and thus the combined cycle consumption, but only works with a warm engine (while ultra-efficient engines reach this temperature more slowly without a preheater), when such a consumption rate is practically unattainable.

It would be much more interesting to achieve a real package of innovations.
A combination of the currently known energy-saving measures, as is being tested at BMW right now.
Here are some examples: Electric power steering and an electric water pump!
Electric or thermostat-controlled blinds or louvers at the air intakes to improve aerodynamics. Removable intercoolers. Motor waste heat recovery using a reversed refrigerator principle: two liquids with different boiling points are introduced into the hot water circuit and exhaust system, respectively, where they evaporate and either drive a turbine on the crankshaft or power a generator.
And of course, regenerative braking.

Of course, none of the cost-saving measures mentioned above are a magic bullet.
However, together they result in a noticeable cost savings without compromising comfort or safety.
Let's do something different than obsessively dieting .

I see it completely differently. That actually makes the situation even worse.

These measures mentioned last would not actually lead to weight reduction; for example, consider the generator for brake energy recovery or the "reverse" refrigerator. It's likely that these measures wouldn't even save fuel, as they would cost more in terms of added weight.

I also see more potential in lightweight construction, such as using plastic for hoods, doors, and the roof (which is already partially done). A modern Golf doesn't have to weigh 1.5 tons. In my opinion, that's at least 500 kg too much weight.

Every drop of fuel that is not consumed due to efficient design does not necessarily need to be saved afterward.

R.M. wrote:

I see it completely differently. That actually makes the pig even sicker. These measures probably wouldn't even save fuel, as the extra weight would offset any potential savings.

Hmm.. Probably these measures were only invented in order to compensate for the increased consumption they cause...

The only thing that really makes sense is the control of the coolant flaps, especially in winter when you want the engine to warm up. Otherwise, you'd have to strain the alternator with glow plugs in the small circuit, or put cardboard in front of the radiator.

Hybrid vehicles are particularly ridiculous. But there's always someone who buys one of these gas guzzlers and then wonders how heavy, unreliable, and inefficient it is to get all that mass moving every time.

Then the field of engineering is accused of not being innovative enough. Of course, because no proud German engineer would ever come up with silly ideas like hybrids or diesel particulate filters, not even in their nightmares.

If the production, assembly, and maintenance of a wind turbine/hybrid car/etc... consume as much energy and money as it generates during its lifespan, then it's clear that the planet is being exploited to death, using every conceivable excuse, as quickly as possible.


I would immediately buy another Volkswagen Golf I with an innovative 1.6-liter PD/CR TDI engine and around 100 horsepower. Never ever a cheap, flimsy Lupo with a 1.4 TDI engine, but definitely a classic Golf.

And then VOX wouldn't have to lie about a physically impossible and incredibly expensive project in order to maintain its viewership ratings...

So, it seems that my idea of a 'rational car' probably goes too far for many people.

- Body shell from a Volkswagen Golf I (2-door), with minor modifications.
- Unladen weight: 750 kg
- 2-cylinder boxer engine with a displacement of 600cc, designed for completely maintenance-free operation as an overhead valve (OHV) engine with a camshaft located at the bottom, producing 40 horsepower.
- 'Sport' version with a single overhead camshaft and 3 timing chains / 2 camshafts / 4 valves per cylinder head, Double Overhead Camshaft (DOHC) design, 50 horsepower.
- Operating principle: intake manifold Otto engine, optimized for 98 octane fuel, compression ratio >11:1.
- Standard FFV (Flex Fuel Vehicle) engine control unit, allowing for the use of any blend of ethanol.
- LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) system with LPI (Liquid Phase Injection).
- Crankshaft starter generator, which temporarily acts as a booster with an additional 2 kW of power during kickdown.
- Aggregate completely free of belts and chains.
- The vehicle does not have air conditioning or power steering.

I don't know if anyone saw the last episode, but they removed the 1.9 TDI engine and are planning to install a 3-cylinder Lupo engine instead... I'm not sure if they also want to "extract" 90 horsepower from it. If not, the whole attempt is pointless.

sik wrote:

I don't know if anyone saw the last broadcast, but they removed the 1.9 TDI engine and are planning to install a 3-cylinder Lupo engine... I don't know if they also want to "extract" 90 horsepower from it. If not, the attempt is pointless anyway...

Why?
The 1.4 TDI 3-cylinder engine is available in the highest trim level of the A2 and can be found with 90 horsepower, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Hello,

However, it's the 1.2-liter TDI engine.
However, it would be possible to get more than 90 horsepower from this if desired. The prerequisites are the appropriate PD components, a sufficient turbocharger, adequate cooling, and corresponding software. No one has said how long it should last .

With a weight reduction of the base vehicle, approximately 60-70 horsepower should be sufficient to achieve comparable performance to the standard 90 horsepower engine. If you want it to be more fun, perhaps 80-90 horsepower would be better.
With a simple chip tuning modification, that engine can achieve 90 horsepower.

Best regards, Jochen.

Hi, the idea of saving weight is good, but I've chosen a different approach! I've used the 'Düsen Turbo plus' software to tune my G3 AFN engine to a 'transmission-friendly' 150 horsepower and 300 Nm of torque.
And if you drove at a constant speed there, you could easily get under 4 liters per 100 kilometers!
I drive a lot on country roads and I once measured the fuel consumption! I just didn't reset the MFA2 to zero! I have a G4 Highline speedometer installed.
'Over a distance of more than 6,000 kilometers on country roads, highways, and in the city, I averaged 4.1 liters per kilometer, and that at an average speed of just under 70 km/h! So, it's not like I was driving slowly! Try driving an average of 70 km/h on a country road yourself – and that over more than 6,000 kilometers.'
'When I drive slowly, I get about 3.5 liters per 100 kilometers, but at 140 km/h, it's around 4.4 liters.'
And these are real-world values, not from a test lab vehicle!

'And not even everything is out of the car yet (all that junk)! And I have a tow hitch! So weight is one thing, proper technology is another! But you're right, the performance shouldn't be improved!'

Falls noch jemand Tipp beim G3 wegen Gewicht einsparen hat bitte PN schreiben! Das gleiche gilt für Leute die sich mit dem G3 TDI auskennen und mir sagen was folgendes Teil für eine Funktion hat! Wenn man den Unterbodenschutz abmacht und dann beim Getriebe die Antriebswelle (Beifahrerseite) sieht, dann sieht man bei mir einen massiven Stahlblock der da irgendwie festgeschraubt wurde und für mich keine Funktion darstellt, oder ist das irgendwie ein Ausgleichsgewicht? Wenn ja wofür? WThat thing definitely weighs 5 kg and is completely useless!
Best regards, Björn.

ernie_cb wrote:

... Das gleiche gilt für Leute die sich mit dem G3 TDI auskennen und mir sagen was folgendes Teil für eine Funktion hat! Wenn man den Unterbodenschutz abmacht und dann beim Getriebe die Antriebswelle (Beifahrerseite) sieht, dann sieht man bei mir einen massiven Stahlblock der da irgendwie festgeschraubt wurde und für mich keine Funktion darstellt, oder ist das irgendwie ein Ausgleichsgewicht? Wenn ja wofür? WThat part definitely weighs 5 kg and is completely useless!

/viewtopic.php?t=1179&highlight=tilgergewicht

Hi,

Quote:

I simply didn't set the MFA2 value to 0!

Have you ever checked if your MFA (Multi Function Display) is accurately calculating fuel consumption during refueling? These systems aren't always 100% accurate, and they calculate based on the amounts that the engine control unit "believes" are being injected. If you install larger injectors, more fuel will be injected than what the engine control unit has calculated, which means the displayed fuel consumption will be incorrect (too low).

While this can potentially be corrected as part of software customization, it will only be possible if the programmer is aware of these issues and takes them into account.

Best regards,

Jan.

Yes, the programmer was aware of it, and I have the MFA (Multi-Function Display) because I knew that if I replace the speedometer, it won't be accurate, so I adjusted it with many attempts! I've also driven many kilometers!
So, the MFA (presumably a measuring device) is actually quite accurate! Sometimes it's correct, and sometimes there's a difference of only 0.1 liters! But that doesn't really matter anymore!
I was going to have to adjust it anyway because the speedometer isn't accurate... I'll do that soon! But then, adjusting the MFA (Multi-Function Display) will have to be done all over again!
Heut schau ich mir meinen Bock mal von Unten an und werd mal sehen was ich an Gewicht einspare! Dann kann ich nächste woche testen obs was bringt, denn nächste woche fahre ich wieder 1500km! KOkay, it's already paid for!

I also have to mention that I had the chip adjusted not for performance, but rather for fuel efficiency, and it also has an ASD transmission, which further contributes to fuel savings. However, driving style and route play a significant role.
Sure, if I only drive 15 km, then I'll have a higher fuel consumption – no question about that. But the longer the distance, the more the fuel consumption settles down... it's just logical because of the cold start phase!
That's how they test the 3-liter Golf: first, they let it warm up, then they reset the system, and only then do they start the fuel consumption test.

That thing on VOX is just a publicity stunt.
Who actually has the means and money to afford a carbon fiber roof or those ceramic (or was it carbon??) brake discs?
What will the technical inspection agency (TÜV) say about these windows?
They probably haven't been checked.

In addition, they wanted to give the 1.2 liter TDI engine an "Spritspar-Tuning" upgrade.
It's unlikely that it will have 90 horsepower at the end; instead, it should offer the same performance as the previous 90-horsepower TDI engine, but in relation to its lower weight.

I also have an old AMS clock here from 1982.
Engineers have modified standard cars (Golf 1 Formula E diesel and W123 200d) to the point where the Golf has a 2.2-liter engine and the Mercedes-Benz has a 2.35-liter engine.
And that was 25 years ago, without any changes to the underlying structure or design, resulting in weight gain.

I wonder where the progress is.

I once had a Golf Mk1 with a 4-speed gearbox and 54 horsepower.
It used to have an engine with a displacement of 4.3 to 4.8 liters and weighed around 900 kg.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the fuel consumption of the 3-liter Golf is to be determined on a test bench, according to the vehicle's DIN standard.
It doesn't really have much to do with reality.

I think this is all just another ridiculous carbon dioxide hoax.