Quote:
Originally Posted by ecomodded
I also plan on blocking my grill, I want to use a scrap bumper covers plastic, cutting it to fit one piece over the grill cutouts,a great thing about diesels is they run cool so grill blocking is less of an issue than with its gasoline counter part..
Great idea using vag com to find out your thermostats opening temperature, Do you know offhand if you can find the oil temp. and pressure in real time with the vag com free edition? if so then I may just mount a lcd screen instead of 3 or more gauges.
& Congratulation on your improved fuel mileage !
|
Blocking the upper grill of a Beetle? ahahah
I tested a Skoda Octavia 1.9 Tdi 110cv AHF wih upper grill block because it uses the same vag platform of New Beettle and I also get -4% fuel consumption or 1/0.96 more mpg
, so -5% in cd.
I decided covering my upper grill on Seat Leon II because 2011 New Beetle uses the same vag platform of Golf V/VI, Jetta, Octavia, A3, ...
knowing coefficent of rolling resistance, cd and engine power in liters per hour needed to maintain each rpm you could predict fuel consumptiom. I also used power torque and BSFC map (eficiency map).
Fuel consumption in L/100km has units of force if we transform liters in energy being divided by distance. With gear ratios, diferential ratio and wheel radius we can also predict torque wathever we want (if eficiency map is known).
Fuel consumption in L/h measured from ECU give power because L iters mean energy with some conversion factors (if eficiency map, BSFC, is known or well aproximated very low uncertainity results are easy to obtain).
Nevertheless, I'm wondering if cam timing is affecting OBDII ECU fuel consumption, torque values because my las average full tank diesel filling get me 6.6L/100 km on average, although my data logging on higway driving with on large 220 km travels of 5.4 L/100km or city insane and inefficient driving of 6.26L/100km.
Furthermore I'm wondering if real fuel saving is produced when Torsion or Camsahft Timing is set advanced (maximum i could get is +2.9) when my Engine Channel 15 says fuel consumption of:
4.3 at 82 kmh
5.2 at 94
7 L/100km at 122 kmh
All this values are result of averages of N between 600 to 1000 counts, measured at night on the same higway closed loop with no climbing or downhill, no wind, etc.
I did some prePhD investigation and works on data logging onboard Railway, Tramway,Car,Speedboat,Crane, drivers eye movement,... on doing risk assesments, road safety, modelizing physics for virtual simulators, etc.
I have my own fuel consumption model emphirical-theroteical that I used to predict fuel consumption on driving similutarors, or electric trains, petrol engines, diesel engines, turbo, variaible geometry turbos, etc. I'm using Matlab, etc.
Cd calculation is from fuel consption changes derived, my direct measures on aeromods are Top Speed improvements (using power torque, power to wheel, calculations, drag forces, engine drags, etc.) and relative fuel savings (-4% L/100km means in my car, with my tires, gears, engine eficiency very aproximated map, etc. a cd reduction of -5%, -8% air drag coeficients means a theoretical -6% fuel consumption but not in all rpm beacuse of nonlinear eficiency, tire rolling resistance weight, etc.).
If my fuel consumption model (empirical tested on diesel or electric train, some diesel cars, some petrol SUV, diesel large VANS and some Sport cars my prediction's uncertainity used to be +-0.1L/100km or less) predicts -4% reduction if only changing cd (make says my car has 0.33 or 0.325) from 0.325 to 0.31 and I measured -4% "real" OBDII fuel consumption only aero changes made, I think iterations of changing cd parameter get me 0.31 value as best fitting, I'm agree with that value being the new one.
I mounted grill block and spoilers from 2010 Seat leon Ecomotive (make says cd=0.3) I realized realtive improvement being correlated to predictions if cd used in my calculations is down to 0.3.
Recently I upgraded my full grill block with a rear grill 90% polycarbonate block, sso I reduced Intake temperatures and results are near 0.3 maybe 0.305, but I'm sure far enough from original cd to measure precise changes.
I'm sorry about so long explanation, maybe hard to understand.
