Maximum fuel consumption in 6th gear with ASZ?

Hello,

Recently, I drove a Golf 4 Syncro with an ASZ engine.

I was particularly interested in the maximum consumption in the 6th gear. Adjusting the gait relative to my vehicle, in order to potentially switch to a different torque map.

Therefore, I repeatedly accelerated on the highway using the floor pedal, from approximately 1800 to 2500 rpm, which, due to the shorter 6th gear in the Golf, also resulted in a noticeably higher maximum speed. My current fuel consumption is 13.9 liters per 100 kilometers.

If the consumption ratio is adjusted to account for the deviation in the overall gear ratio from rpm to km/h, then both cars should yield the same result - if the fuel injection amount is the same at 1900 rpm.

I've already noticed one difference:
While the display in the Golf updates at shorter intervals, the maximum instantaneous power reading remains higher for a longer period (up to approximately 2400 rpm) compared to the Polo (approximately 2100 to 2200 rpm).

Unfortunately, I'm no longer sure whether the maximum... The fuel consumption for the Golf was now 15.9 or 16.9 l/100 km.
And I won't be able to drive the Golf again anytime soon (no, it's still in one piece ).

The Syncro had the FEL gearbox and the standard 195/65 R15 tires -> 198 km/h (approximately 123 mph) at 4000 rpm in 6th gear. Okay, if my research is correct.

Which other ASZ drivers could share their maximum instantaneous consumption figures in 6th gear? Please provide the speed (in rpm) and the corresponding total speed (in km/h).

On the A6 motorway, near kilometer marker 6. At 4000 RPM, the fuel consumption is 13.7 liters per 100 kilometers.
According to the speedometer, it is 225 km/h. At 2000 RPM, the speedometer indicates a speed of 115 km/h.
I'd also be interested to know why the speedometer only shows 225 at double the engine speed, because at 2000 RPM, without trying to sugarcoat it, it clearly indicates 115 km/h. It's not getting any better from there.
If you want to know how much my car pulls at 2000 RPM in 6th gear while accelerating, I would have to postpone telling you until tonight.

Just a quick note: GKB: ERF.

'If anyone happens to have the exact translation, I would be grateful :-].'

Hi,

The speedometer discrepancy doesn't seem to be linear; I've noticed this before with my car. Or, the discrepancies between the tachometer and the speedometer may increase in the direction of higher speeds.

For me, for example, it's 2000 revolutions (according to the tachometer) at 100 (indicated speed), while at 4000 revolutions, the speedometer shows approximately 190.

Based solely on the translation, it should be 44.6 km/h at 1000 RPM, approximately 90 km/h at 2000 RPM, and approximately 180 km/h at 4000 RPM. According to the GPS, when the speedometer reads 100, the actual speed is 95, and when the speedometer reads 190, the actual speed is approximately 183.

-> Pure mishmash.

Of course, it's important not to forget that, in addition to the instrument deviations, there are other factors to consider.

- Tire size (there are tolerances compared to the standard values).
- Slippage (it seems to be increasing).

Well... and all of that is prevented by the expected linearity.

Best regards,

Jan.

I should try using GPS and test it thoroughly.
What program is needed for that?

btw, how many RPMs does yours reach when you're in 5th gear? What speed are you going when you shift into the highest gear?

Hi Ulf,

I can agree with Calvin, especially since I also have the ASZ/ERF combination in my Golf.
When driving at a constant high speed on a straight road, the fuel consumption fluctuates between 13.3 and 13.8 liters. During full-throttle acceleration from 1800 to 2500 rpm, I've never seen more than 13.9 liters in 6th gear, although I haven't consciously tested that specifically. I'll check again. Tires are also standard equipment on mine, size 195.
It is limited to 4100 ± 50 RPM in 6th gear. Okay.

Hi Ulf,

It is limited to 4100 ± 50 RPM in 6th gear. Gang.

How does the throttling manifest itself for you? Does it automatically reduce the gas slightly?
I haven't been able to observe that in myself so far. 'Near Würzburg, the road gets quite steep, and that's when the tachometer first hit 4300 RPM, with a fuel consumption of 13.7 liters.'

At my car's maximum speed, the instantaneous fuel consumption was precisely 13.7 liters, even from the beginning. This corresponded to a speedometer reading of 220-222 km/h at 4,100 rpm. Dangers associated with tires size 225/45 R17 and also winter tires in size 205/55 R16 .

Unfortunately, I don't have any intermediate values for the acceleration.

"Revving at 4,100 RPM? Not a trace. It would happily reach around 200 km/h at 4,500 RPM even in 5th gear. And still, nothing was limiting it. I'd rather stop before pushing the mechanics too hard. I think it would go even higher in 6th." The speed is regulated solely by the driving resistances .

Hi,

It's quite surprising; it seems the philosophy of control has changed somewhat.

With the ASV (last generation of VE vehicles), the instantaneous power consumption visibly decreases by over 4200, because that's when the derating starts to take effect. This doesn't seem to be the case with the ASZ, based on the previous posts.

Quote:

btw, how many RPMs does yours reach when you're in 5th gear? What happens when you shift into the highest gear, and what speed does that correspond to?

Did that refer to me (regarding point 5)? Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Gang?"

"Gang" is a German word that means "gang" or "gangster". It can also be used as a verb, meaning "to gang up on" or "to gang up against".

Here are some examples of how the word "gang" can be used in English:

* "The gang was planning a robbery."
* "The gang was attacked by a rival gang."
* "The gang was arrested by the police."

I hope this helps!

It's an ASV, not an ASZ... with its own power, it can reach about 200-210 km/h according to the speedometer (realistically 193-202 km/h), depending on external conditions, with the engine speed between 4200 (for 200 km/h) and 4400 (for 210 km/h). The fuel consumption then increases to just under 12 liters, otherwise, in 5th gear at full throttle, it's around 12.8-13.8 liters. Once, going downhill, I managed to reach 4600 rpm, which was 220 km/h on the speedometer. I didn't have a GPS with me on that trip, and I didn't look at the MFA (multifunction display) at that speed, but I would guess that the fuel consumption was no more than 11 liters, because you're already quite close to the rev limiter (5000 rpm for the ASV), and the red zone was only 100 rpm away.

It's also interesting to note that with the ASV (presumably referring to a specific engine or system), the boost pressure drops back to 0.9 bar at around 4000 RPM (at full load), and this trend continues to decrease, indicating that the VTG (Variable Turbine Geometry) is already being adjusted to counteract this.

Best regards,

Jan.

Hey everyone,

The type of tires used does not affect the fuel consumption shown.
It is, in a way, calculated based on the distribution of the injection amount over the distance reported by the speedometer or ABS system.

However, the electronics can only count the revolutions of the wheel.
To get the vehicle moving, the rotations are multiplied by an assumed (stored) fixed rolling circumference, which of course does not change when the tire size is changed.

-> Even if someone tries it on bare brake discs, they will get the same reading as with any other type of tire.

If I calculate my 13.9 liters @ 1900 rpm down to 4100 rpm based on my logged fuel injection data (for comparison with Roger's data), then my Polo should still consume approximately 11.5 liters (at a theoretical speed of 246 km/h ).

To correct for the effects of the transmission and tires, I created an Excel spreadsheet with various transmission data, which, among other things, calculates the rpm-to-km/h relationship for each gear.

As a consumption correction factor for the shorter overall translation from rpm to km/h for the ASZ Golf with ERF, a factor of 1.098 should be used, which corrects 11.5 liters to 12.6 liters, representing the theoretical fuel consumption of the Polo at 4100 rpm and 224 km/h.

If Roger reads 13.7 liters at 4100 RPM on the ASZ-Golf, it means that the ASZ-Golf reports a fuel consumption that is 8.6% higher than the ASZ-Polo.

If the ASZ engine in the Golf actually injects this additional amount of fuel, it would mean that the Golf would have a performance advantage of approximately 11 horsepower over the ASZ-Polo, solely due to the engine management system.
Unlikely?

On the other hand, an error rate of 8.6% in the fuel consumption calculation would be quite noticeable when refueling, according to my opinion.
If the display showed a higher value than the actual fuel consumption, one would have to refuel approximately 0.5 liters less per 100 km than what the display indicates.

At least, the difference between my actual fuel consumption and the reading on the fuel gauge is less than 0.1 liters on average.


Since I won't be able to reach almost 250 km/h with the Polo here, it would be easier to determine the maximum instantaneous power consumption in 6th gear by checking the data from the other ASZ vehicles. Determining the gait.
-> Full throttle from approximately 1800 to 2400 rpm, whether going uphill or downhill, and wind conditions don't matter.

Or try logging the fuel injection amounts using VAGCOM while driving at full throttle. Then we would get the values to be compared directly, without having to go through the speedometer, onboard computer, etc.

Quote:

The type of tires used has no effect on the displayed fuel consumption.

It's understandable. I was somehow still on the "the wider, the easier to swallow" mindset. But the "maximum impact" should be the same...

Calvin wrote:

Just a small note on the side: GKB: ERF. If someone happens to have the exact translation, I would be grateful :-]

It is evident from the technical article about transmission data

Since I already have them in my table:
1000 rpm = 54.6 km/h in 6th gear. Tire size: 195/65 R15.

Jan6K wrote:

The speedometer deviation doesn't seem to be linear; I've noticed this before with my car. Or, the discrepancies between the tachometer and the speedometer may increase in the direction of higher values. For me, for example, it's 2000 revolutions (according to the tachometer) at 100 (speedometer), while at 4000 revolutions, the speedometer shows approximately 190.

With the Polo, the deviation was also practically a constant margin of 6 km/h, if I recall correctly.
Since I adjusted the tachometer reading accordingly, the tachometer and speedometer are now almost perfectly consistent with each other, even when considering the calculated rpm-to-km/h conversions.

If you subtract approximately 10 km/h from your data, the relationship between the tachometer and the speedometer will become significantly more consistent .

Roger wrote:

I was somehow still on the "the wider, the more enjoyable" trip

It's the same in everyday life; when you're driving, you often go at the same speed whether the road is "wide" or "narrow."
With the same level of consumption, a "wider" setting will result in slower performance.

Can someone calculate how many km/h 1,000 revolutions per minute (RPM) correspond to in sixth gear for an ELN (presumably a specific car model)?

Best regards, WarLord.

@Ulf:

Quote:

-> Full throttle from approximately 1800 to 2400 rpm

Just checked with a new G81:

-> Maximum 14.5 l/100 km at 2,400 rpm when accelerating from 1,800 rpm.

However, if I accelerate to 2,000 RPM, I only achieve 13.8 liters per 100 kilometers at 2,400 RPM, sometimes even a little less.

This morning I will be borrowing a new mass airflow sensor (MAF) to compare its performance with the current one. I'm going to collect some data for comparison.

//Edit: With the other LMM, the fuel consumption values were exactly the same.

WarLord wrote:

Can someone calculate how many km/h 1,000 revolutions per minute (RPM) correspond to in sixth gear on an ELN?

I'm attaching my table here for download.

-> Research the data of your own car, enter it into the yellow fields, and read the results .

EDIT:
Here's the translated text:

"Revised version, with calculation of fuel injection volume based on the number of cylinders (for those of us who don't drive 4-cylinder vehicles)."

14.5 l/100km when accelerating from 1700 to 2400 rpm is the correct value, as Roger already mentioned.
It works for me too.

Calvin wrote:

14.5 l/100km when accelerating from 1700 to 2400 is the correct value, as Roger already mentioned. It also comes out like that, at least for me.

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 consumption figure, your calculation suggests a value closer to 15.3 liters per 100 kilometers.

"For me, the 13.9 reading only appears briefly (for about 200 rpm), and not even every time: often I only get 13.7... probably because the evaluation intervals are too long."

If you're still interested, you can repeat the measurement going uphill (or with the handbrake slightly engaged, around 2000 rpm), and you'll notice that the engine speed increases more slowly.