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

Hi,
How did you come to that conclusion

Quote:

? Unfortunately, the throttle potentiometer doesn't seem to be working correctly. Deep down, I have a feeling that something isn't right.

Quote:

This morning, I went to the doctor, and the lambda value was 1.3.

Could it be too lean due to unmetered air intake?
Since sealing the flange had such a positive effect, I wonder why you didn't just go back to the doctor for another sick leave before attempting any further repairs, instead of just guessing.
hg
Herbert.

Hi Herbert,
Hi,
Is it too lean due to air leaks?
Since sealing the flange had such a positive effect, I wonder why you didn't just go back to the doctor for another sick leave before attempting any further repairs, instead of just guessing.
hg
Herbert

If I give it very little gas, there's initially a hesitation, as if the throttle is opening, but the mixture isn't being enriched.
In addition, the top speed is just under 150 km/h, which is a bit too low.
I'll go there again tomorrow morning, though.
Best regards, Frank.

Hi.
Okay, I'll continue describing how things proceed here, so that at least somewhere there's information about potential sources of error and how they were effectively resolved.

Yesterday, while driving with a slightly warm engine, I experienced a slight head bobbing sensation.
Gently pressing the accelerator, I initially felt a dip/small hole.

Just now, with the engine being really cold.
It started well, as usual, but the hole was more like a large hole or crater.
At a constant speed, the first centimeter of travel of the gas pedal resulted in no change or a decrease in power.
After just a few hundred meters, it became so extreme that the engine stalled with just a little bit of throttle.
After driving a short distance further, it felt like the accelerator pedal needed to be pressed halfway down to overcome the dip.
At a temperature above 70 degrees, the effect had disappeared.

I think it feels very much like the throttle potentiometer, but I wonder why it should be affected by temperature.
I'm going to replace the blue temperature sensor later, just to be sure, because it's easier and I'm kind of lazy.
Once it reaches operating temperature, there's nothing more to complain about.
No engine stalling, no misfires, and I could put a beer on the air filter without it falling off or foaming over.
'It's just missing a few parts, but the engine isn't exactly new anymore...'

Let's see what the labor office says later.

PS: Can a lambda sensor be tested?
Best regards, Frank.

Hi.
AU = Ouch
The lambda value is now correct, and it's adjusting properly, but the CO value is too high.
According to the inspection, the cat was burned through the oil/shaft seals.
I don't want to have to stand around anymore, but first I need to let things cool down.

Unfortunately, after replacing the blue temperature sensor, there has been no change in the vehicle's behavior in cold conditions.
So, I guess I'll have to replace the sensor or the upper part.
Best regards, Frank.

Hi.
I've now replaced the catalytic converter, and the CO (carbon monoxide) reading is back to normal.
My 20-year-old Polo has passed its technical inspection again.

What I find remarkable is that both of the old cats looked equally verschandeln on the inside.
So, nothing like thick, black soot, or oil dripping all over you.
Tomorrow, I'm going to replace the single-point injection system so that it runs properly again when it's cold.
Best regards, Frank.

Finally:

I replaced the singlepoint, and all the problems were resolved.
Unfortunately, the car was no longer able to reach its maximum speed.
Supposedly, the replacement engine, even though it had the same displacement where the fuel injector was located, still had a different fuel injector.
I've only replaced the top part now, and now the thing runs better than before.

I would like to thank my colleagues for the tips and suggestions that have helped to advance my understanding of this technology.
'If I get the chance, I'll take a look at the throttle potentiometer to see if there's any way to revive it.'

Best regards, Frank.

Hello Frank,
Thank you for the feedback!

It's nice that someone is dealing with such an 'old thing'...
Some people would have given up a long time ago and gotten rid of the Polo.

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

Hi.
Hello Frank,
Thank you for the feedback!

It's nice that someone is dealing with such an 'old thing'...
Some people would have given up a long time ago and gotten rid of the Polo.

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

I received the Polo as a gift, and from underneath, it has almost no rust!
It's worth driving it for a little while longer.
I paid 52 euros for the engine repair, which included the timing belt, 2 hydraulic lifters, valve stem seals, etc., and only about 100 euros for the crossmembers and strut mounts.
I've also salvaged other parts like the Singlepoint, Kat (catalytic converter), and anything else I could find lying around, such as fenders, complete front doors, drive shafts, alternator, etc., and stored them in another Polo.
I have a garage with a pit, electricity, and a complete set of tools. Shielding gas, plasma torches, etc. And besides grinding the crankshaft and boring the cylinders, I can do everything else here.
I don't like it when a warning light tells me that I'm going to have to spend a lot of money at a workshop in the next few days, especially when that workshop is known for ripping off its customers.
'However, so far, I've only driven vehicles where most of the electronics were located in the turn signal relay, or where there were absolutely no problems.'

In the next 2 years, features like VGA-Com will be added, and a more fuel-efficient model will be introduced.
Let's see what's available at a good price, maybe a Smart, or a Lupe Fsi, or something like that.
For me, a car is simply a means of transportation and doesn't hold the same significance for me as it does for other people.

Best regards, Frank.

By the way.
The instantaneous consumption:
for a long-distance trip of 2 x 280 km.
Halfway on country road/highway + 30 minutes of traffic jam, or 1st gear.
backwards, 95% highway + 45 minutes of traffic jam.
This 20-year-old Polo consumed 6.67 liters per 100 kilometers.
I'll add the fuel consumption figures for city driving later.

Is there a list somewhere that specifies what value each sensor should have at a given temperature?
I would like to be able to measure the ambient air temperature sensor on the injector, in case the fuel consumption becomes too high in the winter.
What would be a reasonable average speed to expect in normal urban traffic conditions during the winter?



Best regards, Frank.

Hi!

Well, the fuel consumption is actually quite good.
You won't significantly reduce your fuel consumption by switching to a more modern car (gasoline-powered).
The engines themselves are more fuel-efficient, but as a result, the cars are also significantly heavier.
And much more complicated.

Regarding temperature values:
I don't know what's possible with VCDS.
Perhaps you know someone who has a black and white connector and VCDS.
You can at least check to see if anything is possible.

Otherwise, you might find information on this in books like "Let's Do It Ourselves" or "This Is How It's Done." Tables containing temperature and resistance values.
However, the most important thing is that the intended cooling water temperature is reached in the winter.
So, approximately 86°, to ensure it operates within the "normal" operating range.
So, speaking of thermostats, that's a fairly common problem.
However, this can also be measured quite accurately using a pyrometer.

Hi!

Well, the fuel consumption is actually quite good.


At a constant 80 km/h, it will probably get even lower, but I prefer to stick to the real-world driving conditions, and 6.67 liters per hundred kilometers is a dream for this old engine.


Regarding temperature values:
I don't know what's possible with VCDS.
Perhaps you know someone who has a black and white connector and VCDS.
You can at least check to see if anything is possible.

With the OB2 and OBD2 cables I've bought, especially the cheapest ones, I'm getting... nothing.


Otherwise, you might find information on this in books like 'Let's Do It Ourselves' or 'This Is How It's Done.' Tables containing temperature and resistance values.
However, the most important thing is that the intended cooling water temperature is reached in the winter.
So, approximately 86°, to ensure it operates within the 'normal' operating range.
So, speaking of thermostats, that's a fairly common problem.
You can also measure that quite accurately with a pyrometer.


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

Partly because of the high fuel prices and partly because of my stubbornness, I want to reduce fuel consumption in city driving without having to drive particularly economically.
Cardboard (inexpensive) or an adjustable blind in front of the radiator would be a basic requirement to help the engine warm up faster.
Make the outside air temperature sensor believe that the intake air is warmer.
Either by using a pre-heater (I don't have the values for it at the moment) or by using a heating coil/glow plug to warm the air or the sensor.
As a test, you could also set the engine temperature to 'Arizona.'
It's likely that the engine's running characteristics will cause problems with sudden changes in speed at traffic lights, but this could potentially be mitigated by switching back to the normal settings before reaching the traffic light.

Skilled drivers could also drive very economically in the winter, when the car still had a choke, by adjusting it accordingly.

I'm just going to say that, from the original Golf 1 diesel to today, 40 years later, there hasn't been any real progress in reducing fuel consumption.

Okay, now that the outcry has subsided somewhat...
I know that it's possible to get a Mercedes AMG to achieve under 10 liters per 100 kilometers on long distances, and that every car carries significantly more weight than, for example, a Golf 1. However, I don't really see the significance of the 40 years of development that have occurred in between.
One shouldn't compensate for every desire for savings with extra weight and performance, and one should still sell 'slurpers' and 'guzzlers' to customers who are looking to save money.

I just want to see what you can achieve without investing a lot of money.

Best regards, Frank.

F B wrote:

I'm just going to say that, from the original Golf 1 diesel to today, 40 years later, there hasn't been any real progress in reducing fuel consumption.

Hi!
Well, it's a matter of opinion.
I believe the first Golf Diesel came out around 1977, with the 1.5-liter engine, which consumed about 5 liters per 100 kilometers.
with its 50 horsepower.
"Nowadays, my 4-cylinder TDI also uses about 5 liters per 100 kilometers when driven very economically."
However, it is significantly heavier and has 90 horsepower.

I'm going to be quite bold and say that if someone were to build a car as lightweight as the original Golf these days,
without air conditioning, power steering, etc.
with a 3-cylinder SDI engine, possibly with a displacement of around 1300cc.
Would it also achieve a fuel consumption of around 3 liters per 100 kilometers?

We once had a test vehicle at the post office, it was a Polo 86C, with only a driver's seat, otherwise empty and lightweight. It had a 1.3-liter 4-cylinder diesel engine, and with careful driving, it could achieve a fuel consumption of 3.5 liters.
However, with its roughly 45 horsepower, it was a real slowpoke compared to the Golf.

I'm just going to say that, from the original Golf 1 diesel to today, 40 years later, there hasn't been any real progress in reducing fuel consumption.




Hi!
Well, it's a matter of opinion.
I believe the first Golf Diesel came out around 1977, with the 1.5-liter engine, which consumed about 5 liters per 100 kilometers.
with its 50 horsepower.
'Nowadays, my 4-cylinder TDI also uses about 5 liters per 100 kilometers when driven very economically.'
However, it is significantly heavier and has 90 horsepower.


I said that the progress in fuel efficiency is being offset by increased luxury and more power.
Where has all the progress gone in 40 years if I think about fuel efficiency now?
It's pointless if the car theoretically consumes 20% less fuel, but it's no longer offered in this performance class, and models with more horsepower and weight consume the same or even more.

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

Best regards, Frank.

Quote:

It's pointless if the car, in principle, consumes 20% less fuel, but it's no longer offered in this performance class, and with more horsepower and weight, it consumes the same or even more.

Almost no one buys it anymore.
Have you ever thought about supply and demand, or NCAP crash tests, central locking, air conditioning, power steering, etc.?

A Volkswagen Golf I was, back then, a moving engine and a somewhat flimsy vehicle with absolutely no passive safety features, as rigid as a tin can.
Today, it's more or less a security system with a lot of extra features, some of which are unnecessary, and a power source.

That is a different topic, (and has nothing more to do with ignition timing), so we should bring this to a close here.