The torsion value is less than -3, values out of the range (-3,3) are shown as 0.0 (some autodiagnostig tools show -6 to 6).
But I did a full tank fuel filling and I'm very surprised of 6.6 L/100km average. I'm wondering if there is interference between cam timing and ECU fuel consumption, torque, etc calculations. I did 868 km with 57.72 L of diesel premium, but near 600 km or more were did in higway driving between 80 to 120 km/h, and VagCom logs showed always fuel conmption around 5L/100km. I did some insane and inefficent urban driving and vag-com said 6.26L/100km, how the average went to 6.6L/100km? MAybe first tank runs made with camshaft timing in +2.9 are guilty.
Aerodynamic addons are working fine (central front spoiler from Ecomotive, grill block) but I just fine tuned my camshaft timing to real 0.0, and I will compare. Also I will test some advance timing full tank comparision. But I'm very disappointed, maybe ECU is adjusting to new camshaft and fuel consumption not being affected or misscalculations are hiding the real behaivour.
Torsion values <0 tend to add torque at lower rpms and noticiable loose of max speed (-5% of the initial top speed). Torsion values of =0, gives me 100% of top speed said by the make (and +2% of my standard) with my aero-addons, Torsion values >0 (+2.9) gave me more torque at high rpms ad the same +2% top speed without aero addons, with aero addons only notidec -5% fuel consumption relative but no change in additional top speed (torque curve is limited from ECU software, so max values could not be exceeded.
With 90% upper grill block I get better fuel consumption and better power because of cold air intake, at 82, 94 and 122 kmh. Lower central Spoiler, and fixed right wheel spoiler wich it was broken.
3.65 L/100km @ 82.65 km/h
3.88 L/100km @ 94.9 km/h
5.67 L/100km @ 122.75 km/h
I also get more ECU better results in my 220 kms trips of 5.4L/100km (110km up 5.7L/100km, 110km down 5.2L/100km) at 122 km/h of cruise control (GPS).
But with cam timing between -1.5 to -1, I got:
4.0L/100km at 82 kmh,
4.53 at 94kmh,
6.5 at 122kmh.
And with cam timing in 0.0 (very little times it says -.5):
4.13 at 82,
4.7 at 94
6.65 a 122kmh
These are my logs (with aeromods which lowered my cd from cd=0.325 to 0.3). 0.5 to 1 L/100km differences on different cam timings seems not being reflected in full tank average, what?
So I think full tank or direct fuel measure is needed because of the possible interference on fuel gauge.
Idle fuel consumption Vag-Com channel 15 says in l/h (+-0.2 l/h precison available only):
cam timing less than -3.0 => 0.4 L/h
cam timing -2.5 to -2.0 => 0.6 L/h
cam timin -1.5 to -1.0 => 0.6/0.8 L/h
cam timing -0.5(somtimes) and 0.0 => 0.6 L/h
cam timing +2.9 => 0.8 L/h
torque values go from 26 Nm to 50 Nm needed to idle.
I think all are related values and someones is not a sensor but a derivated value.
If torque values are correctly measured but fuel consumption its a theoretical calculation maybe more torque needed to idle means real less fuel consumption. Or viceversa, but It must be tested without using MFA (that uses OBDII data from engine ECU) or raw OBDII data.
Power/Torque curve is really affected on this value (not maximum showed in OBDII) but more precise (GPS of 1 or 5 Hz with +-0.1 kmh speed uncertainity, or accelerometer, or dyno bank prefered to +-1km/h, 1.5 to 4.5 Hz from ECU)
I've posted answers to some different questions in
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ape-19191.html , details on testing procedure, drag coefficient assessment, etc.