A work in progress.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I know where it comes from, I just don't know how the SG comes up with the number. That part hasn't been explained.

Ah OK.
I don't know either, but it seems pretty accurate to me.

It maxes out @ 98% , and although I can still push the accelerator deeper, it won't make the car accelerate any faster.

From Priuschat :

Calculated Engine Load
California Air Resource Board defines this as airflow divided by peak air flow. Peak air flow may be adjusted for altitude via barometric means if available.

For diesel engines, the number is current output torque divided by peak output torque at current rpm. We have noted that vacuum leaks can have dramatic effects on this value.


Also found this :
Calculated Engine Load = Intake Manifold Pressure ? - Honda-Tech
I doubt if that'll work out well on a diesel though.

[Arragonis]

Airflow ? How does it know the peak ? Is it what the ECU is expecting ? More questions

The second of those is interesting, SG also has MAP. As an experiment I'm going to put MAP alongside LOD and see if they are similar.

Anyway this is all OT, I shall go and do some more research when I get the chance.

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Proper used oil drainage from these 1.6HDi engines is apparently crucial, according to the C4owners.org FAQ .
You might want to read up on that, Piwoslaw ...
Same engines, same troubles.

Thanks, I'll have a look. My mechanic gravity drains, I doubt he has one of those oil vacuum thingies.
This reminds me of something funny - Once I was looking through the specs of different Peugeot models with the same 1.6 HDi engine and I noticed that each manual gave a different amount of oil that engine could hold. I don't remember the actual numbers for each model, but they spanned from 4.2 to 4.8 liters. That's quite a difference for the same lump, so maybe there are some differences between the 1.6HDi in a 2005 P307 and the 1.6HDi in a 2008 P207, for example?

Originally Posted by euromodder

Getting home from the fuel station by the low speed route and using long coasting, I managed 3.4L/100km (69mpg) on both the OBC and the ScanGauge AVG !
Maybe it's time to start avoiding the motorway ?

Is the slow route longer? Ever since I started looking at fuel used, instead of just l/100km, the only times I take my old (faster) route is when biking

BTW: My SGII shows 99 as max LOD, not 98.

[Arragonis]

What does the manual state as the oil capacity from min to max ?

EDIT - on the dip tick ?

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

What does the manual state as the oil capacity from min to max ? EDIT - on the dip tick ?

1 Liter.

Normal oil quantity is 3.7 L or just shy of 1 US Gallon.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

Once I was looking through the specs of different Peugeot models with the same 1.6 HDi engine and I noticed that each manual gave a different amount of oil that engine could hold.

I wouldn't be surprised if they started increasing oil capacity when the DPF troubles started surfacing.
More oil takes longer to dilute.

I don't remember the actual numbers for each model, but they spanned from 4.2 to 4.8 liters.

Sounds like the 2.0L HDi .

Is the slow route longer?

It used to be shorter, but has far more lights.

With the city council forcing us around the ringway, I'm not sure the slow route is still shorter. I'll have to check that out and try a tank that way.

I'll still end up on the motorway for a good deal of the way though.

[euromodder]

Despite running some more errands than usual, 2 days with traffic jams, 3 days with far more wind than usual, some excess oil, and continuing DPF issues, I've still pulled off a record tank of 4.28 L/100km or 54.93 MPG(US) !

During some of my commutes, I've been experimenting with 95kph (59mph) on the motorway - which I previously thought wouldn't help.

I've also been driving slower in 4th - going 40mph rather than 45mph, or even only 30mph.
In addition, I've been going faster - 50mph instead of 45 - but in 5th gear.
Both techniques work well after coasting down from a higher speed with a warm engine.

Using cruise control seems mandatory to get the best indicated fuel consumption.

The moment the car needs to accelerate or climb, the magic is gone.
I need more torque down low

[320touring]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Despite running some more errands than usual, 2 days with traffic jams, 3 days with far more wind than usual, some excess oil, and continuing DPF issues, I've still pulled off a record tank of 4.28 L/100km or 54.93 MPG(US) !

During some of my commutes, I've been experimenting with 95kph (59mph) on the motorway - which I previously thought wouldn't help.

I've also been driving slower in 4th - going 40mph rather than 45mph, or even only 30mph.
In addition, I've been going faster - 50mph instead of 45 - but in 5th gear.
Both techniques work well after coasting down from a higher speed with a warm engine.

Using cruise control seems mandatory to get the best indicated fuel consumption.

The moment the car needs to accelerate or climb, the magic is gone.
I need more torque down low

Congratulation s on the new record!

I imagine that the engine could easily be chipped to get more grunt? Take it you'll not do that til DPF issues sorted (if ever!!)

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by 320touring

I imagine that the engine could easily be chipped to get more grunt?

It can be chipped for more power, or for lower fuel consumption - which still gives it some more power BTW.

Of course, officially, I'll never commit such a hideous crime

Take it you'll not do that til DPF issues sorted (if ever!!)

Yeah, I don't want to give the Volvo guys an easy scapegoat.

I don't know wether they realize I'm coasting in idle, but not coasting doesn't sort the DPF issues either.

[Piwoslaw]

Below 4.3 l/100km is amazing with all the problems you're having! I'm starting to think that you're drafting

I've been driving in higher gear for a while: 5th at 50km/h (instead of 70, as I believe that the manual suggests), 3rd at 30km/h (instead of 40), but 4th doesn't work below its suggested 50km/h. Low end torque would be more than welcome. I'll have to find my exact gear ratios and do some math to see exactly how I can shift. I'm willing to bet that your gearbox is different.

Ah, imagine a new gearbox and and an eco-chip, the two tuned to each other in such a way that you get both low end torque and lower fuel consumption below 110km/h. Now there's something to drool over!