My 2003 Renault Clio 1.5 dCi - 3.7L/100KM TANK!

[HowGudAmI]

Originally Posted by vibrating_cake

How much negative camber does the Clio run? It's around that age they started putting lots of negative camber on the rear of literally anything! Over pressure and negative camber will ruin your tires in no time!
11,000 miles from my last set, 3/4 of the tyre was still plenty legal, inner edge was like a slick!
I didn't like those tyres at all so I didn't mind, but Any gain in my mpg was lost with the cost of 2 new tyres.

No idea. How/where can I check?

I have found a post online saying the Clio 172's and 182's run about -1.5 degrees in stock form - but they are the sports models.

I am not a fan of the tires - cheap budget ones by Rovelo (RHP 778's IIRC) - but they are quite young (I think they have less than 5k on them) so it wouldn't be economical to switch them to a better LRR one.

It's a bit annoying really, it looks like the tires will have cost the previous owner around £37 a corner (fitted), when I can get much better tires for £41-48 (fitted) - I don't know why anyone thinks it is worth the saving.

[vibrating_cake]

Yeah, it's false economy in a way.
If you park the car on a level surface and take a picture from the back of the car along the length of the side of the car so both rear wheels line up with the bottom of the picture you should be able to see if the camber is quite aggressive.
Odd shot to describe... I'll try find an example



You can actually see the rear wheel leaning in at the top, if you can see it clearly I wouldn't run overly high rear Tyre pressure as it'll just lean on the inside edge and use the first 1/4 of the tyre as it won't squash down enough to use the rest

[HowGudAmI]

Originally Posted by vibrating_cake

Yeah, it's false economy in a way.
If you park the car on a level surface and take a picture from the back of the car along the length of the side of the car so both rear wheels line up with the bottom of the picture you should be able to see if the camber is quite aggressive.
Odd shot to describe... I'll try find an example

You can actually see the rear wheel leaning in at the top, if you can see it clearly I wouldn't run overly high rear Tyre pressure as it'll just lean on the inside edge and use the first 1/4 of the tyre as it won't squash down enough to use the rest

Just a quick update, changed the oil and filter today and pumped the tires up to 40psi all around (max sidewall is 44). 2/3rds of the way through this tank though so expect benefits to show up in the next one.

Will check the camber when I get a chance vibrating_cake - though I don't think there is much/any. It certainly isn't as much as in your picture.

Does anyone know if wheel alignment is worth it FE wise?

Continuing to cruise at around 55-65mph on the motorway.

[HowGudAmI]

Filled up today - and what an exciting fill up it was.

I have driven 469 miles since the last fill, and consumed 30.91L of fuel - meaning I have already beat the official UK combined figure of 67.3MPG!!!.

The figures come out as:
4.1 L/100 km
57.41 mpg (US)
68.97 mpg (Imp)

This is a huge improvement from my first full tank where I got 55.7 UK MPG - some of it is down to the fact that a lot more of these miles were motorway, but I also reduced my cruising speed from 70-75 to 60-65 halfway through this tank (next tank should be all at reduced speed ).

I changed the oil to a good fully synthetic and upped the tire pressures in the last 20 miles of this tank - so I expect those benefits will show another bump next time.

My 90 day average is now so close to the top 10 diesels, and I should be well in once that relatively poor first tank drops out.

re. the camber on the rear, there definitely is some... its still hard to tell how much of the tire is actually 'used' though. Do you think I should drop some out of the rears based on these pics:

[vibrating_cake]

That's a perfect picture! Hmm, you have nice rounded edges on those tyres! I doubt you'll have a problem at all.
They look to sit a lot better on the tarmac than what I'm comparing them to.
When I've actually got a minute I'll try take a pic to show what I mean. But that looks fine from my eyes anyway.
Brilliant tank btw!!!

[seifrob]

Hi, i am just joining in, as it looks like we have cars with same engine. (although I was never able to get as good tank as you). I am looking forward to see your progress, all good advices have already been posted before. Maybe one: Buy an OBD2 plug and install Torque Pro into your phone, or get any other instant MPG readout. It helps a lot. If you will discover how DFCO work in this engine, let us know please. From my observations it seems it kicks in only in 1500 to 2000 rpm area and under that ECU puts fuel to help engine running.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by seifrob

From my observations it seems it kicks in only in 1500 to 2000 rpm area and under that ECU puts fuel to help engine running.

Every diesel I've ever driven DFCO'd from little over 1000rpm down to idle. Even a pretty old Transit did that. OBD gauges may not report DFCO correctly, ie Ultragauge can't show diesel DFCO at all.

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Every diesel I've ever driven DFCO'd from little over 1000rpm down to idle. Even a pretty old Transit did that. OBD gauges may not report DFCO correctly, ie Ultragauge can't show diesel DFCO at all.

In my HDi fuel kicks in just above 1000 rpm when engine braking, while idle is ~850 rpm. Also, idle is slightly higher while the vehicle is rolling, as is the fuel consumtion (0.58-0.60 liter per hour while coasting vs 0.48-0.52 at standstill).

[HowGudAmI]

Thanks for the replies everybody .

Originally Posted by seifrob

Hi, i am just joining in, as it looks like we have cars with same engine. (although I was never able to get as good tank as you). I am looking forward to see your progress, all good advices have already been posted before. Maybe one: Buy an OBD2 plug and install Torque Pro into your phone, or get any other instant MPG readout. It helps a lot. If you will discover how DFCO work in this engine, let us know please. From my observations it seems it kicks in only in 1500 to 2000 rpm area and under that ECU puts fuel to help engine running.

Mine has the K9K 702 - which one is yours? I see your car is a lot newer than mine.

I have an OBD2 plug and Torque Pro already - though the MPG figures it gives do not seem to be right - it tends to show low 60's (Imp/UK) for economy on the motorway - but I must be getting more than that based on my actual tank averages. However, just using the adjustment won't work because it seems to be accurate to what I would expect in town driving situations.

I will see if the fuel flow meter (or something similar) works so that I can use it to work out DFCO and will post my results up.

[HowGudAmI]

Could anyone advise if a Scangauge II / E would provide more accurate readings than Torque Pro?

Or if there an issue with the data provided by my car that means it wouldn't make a difference.