D.FYLAKTOS

No problem so far with iridium. A year? I thought that ECU will be adapted faster.

I am afraid to ''push things more'' because the summer is coming and we have here high temperatures, let's see those NGK 6 what can do in hot sunny days, in winter were Ok but...

To be honest i was expecting ''more'' from the iridium spark plugs since they are at least one number ''hotter'' than the factory. I thought that the fuel consumption in City traffic could be a little better than now but let's wait more time. We all are ordinary common mortals and vulnerable. Soon or latter any ''wise guy'' will face a problem and will start asking desperately a solution and yes maybe is a mechanic and can solve almost anything but in other aspects of life it would be just a simple member (in another forum with different nick name) asking with agony for help and that moment the ''attitude'' with flame posts that had will vanished in a blink of the eye.

Gas station pump test No5: 140,6 Km distance, 9,97 ltr/ 100 Km or 28,33 mpg (mixed routes) so every time i am getting better although i haven't reach yet exactly my old standards in City traffic. There were too many wrong things those 2,5 years (wrong valve gap, not good NGK spark plugs, faulty TC-6 sensor, dirty air intake manifold, damaged thermostat sensor cables, faulty gauge air filter, ECU-chip needed an update, defective coolant) plus some additions (iridium spark plugs, new MAP, new Lambda, new air box and air filter type) so i have lost the account. Today i have found another mistake, i must make a small correction (percent % scale) to the TC-6 Flow Meter so the Gas pump quantity to match exactly to the Total consumption on the TC-6 screen but this it's not affects the consume of the fuel, is for informational purpose. The weather would be steady the next few weeks, i will apply the ''crank & wait" technique for some days and i will record the results in the TC-6 and i hope then to close the whole matter because i know that i have cause you some tiredness.

Cars, tractor, mini-van, armoured vehicles, small and medium size motorcycles all with carburetors and manual chokes, yeah good old times. When the ''injection-ECU'' era started still had the habit to wait a little bit (not as before of course), never liked the ''crank & go'' style and i have done it only in extreme cases where i was in a big hurry but deep inside me i hated this. Today i done a small trip about 80Km distance, 30% highway and the rest mountain route with curbs (medium rpm) and light traffic till i return back home, the fuel consumption for this trip was 5,60 ltr/100 Km or or 50,44 mpg. Together with the kilometres that i had before (all of them home-work only) the total fuel consumption from the last refuelling is 8,61 ltr/100 Km or 32,80 mpg which makes me extremely happy! Here is a photo of average fuel consumption few kilometres before i arrived home.

https://www.autodoc.co.uk/mpbs/16413874 80 sha, in the Compatibility the Honda-MG-Rover are every day use models

Yesterday although the weather was better and the traffic was very light the fuel consumption was 10,91 ltr or 30,82 mpg so the ''crank & go'' does not work for my car. I don't like driving a cold car with 1100 rpm, i don't like the behaviour nor the sound of the motor and i will never do this again. I always waiting at least 30-60 seconds (depending on the outside temperature) before i start, this is my style for almost 40 years of driving and i don't want to change it no matter if a car manual suggest it. I test it (against my will) and never worked even before the TC-6 era, the ''crank and go" was always for me a hated way of starting a driving route. Tomorrow i will make a short trip to the highway (to exceed the 100Km on the odometer) later a refuelling to measure the fuel consumption and from Monday morning back to the ''crank & wait" technique.

No way, that was only for time testing. I never liked the "crank & go" habit. Today the fuel consumption rised to 10,99 ltr or 25.70 mpg, i will do another test but i am sure will be like this and End of Story with that.

Same spot on the same floor of the same garage parking, same hour, same route, same calm style of driving till the first traffic light. Keep in mind that i have a disadvantage, the exhaust manifold wrapping. https://donotdpfdelete.green/exhaust-wrap-pros-and-cons/#2-engine-takes-time-to-warm this is a saviour on summer temperatures but not at cold start in winter that's why i don't think that the ''crank & go" will work for me better than ''crank & wait 1 minute" but nevertheless i will make another 2 tests.

Today's "crank & go" fuel consumption results: 10,80 ltr or 26,16 mpg and 10,82 ltr or 26,11 mpg. I will make another two tests but i am not optimistic.

TC-6 is always under voltage, has a sensor to the speedometer, a sensor to the fuel injector and is connected with the factory tank floater, isn't a perfect tool but can show (even in real time) some variables. For the next 3 days i will follow the ''crank & go" technique and Saturday morning i will make the sum.

It's total consumption, gasoline spended divided to kilometres traveled. The instant consumption changes every 250m, it's impossible to make an average looking the screen. The TC-6 is an indicator and since isn't a NASA tool for sure would be an error, even the gas station pump maybe has an error. Minimal differences doesn't matter but since the route is steady it's a matter of few tests to see which technique works best.

@HardoPiiri No problem with your english, this is not a club of Oxford graduates. Put Contact cleaner in connectors.

Tonight "crank & go" results: Idle frm 1100 to 830 at 2.10 minutes (better than "crank & wait") and fuel consumption 10,62 ltr or 26,60 Uk mpg (slightly worst). The temperature was one click higher than yesterday and the weather was wet. I had to try tomorrow, i am not happy.

I just make some calculations, those 3.40 minutes i burn about 110ml of fuel. Till now (with the "crank and wait") the fuel consumption is 10,57 ltr / 100 km or 26,72 mpg but let's see in few hours if the "crank and go" technique works better in my modified Felicia.

I will make another test tonight this way, i have done it in the past but i tell you that i didn't like the car's behavior at that time. Let's see tonight what the TC-6 will show after this kind of driving. No oil cooler installed.

Mine (plus the @HappySkoda car) does not, is it a coincidence or your Felicia has something different or special than ours? Yesterday i made another test, i let the car idle for 1.30' and the drove slowly with 1st gear to the exit of the parking, when the idle drooped to 830 rpm i look at the timer. So where is the ''drive it immediately to get warm faster" theory? Why this does not happening?

When you haven't modify or drove sport style your Felicia you think like this. If any one tries to drive fast this car only after 5 minutes of driving will and up on a pillar-barrier-cliff or the front car's rear bumper. The participation in this topic is not mandatory, if a member does not find this topic interesting he can proceed to other, "no hard feelings".

Another test today: my second cold start of the day was shorter in time than the older 3.45 but i didn't measure it exactly because i wanted to go to boulevard before i return home. Unfortunately it had traffic, i manage to engage even the 4th gear but for a while, disappointed i took the ordinary route to home but although it's cold here the fuel consumption was 10,12ltr / 100km or 27.91 Uk mpg.

DP4438R, these are what you have? https://www.ebcbrakeshop.co.uk/info-brake-parts?range=Pad&make=SKODA&year=2000&model=Felicia&engineSelect=1.3&engine=1.3&bhp=

Rally or Track or Racing brake pads wont ruin quicker the stock brake discs? I jusy find something about EBC brake pads https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/425257-another-reason-to-avoid-ebc-pads/ I had a similar problem with Ferodo.

This cable harness is from the factory for the fuel injectors, i haven't touch it at all nor me or any mechanic. Has the factory tape on which is A' class quality, stiff no melty and very durable.

The more ''rally'' or ''race'' the brake pad the more time needs to get warm so in city traffic or normal use will take too long time to come to proper temperature to have a decent brake. It's like the tyres for example some Bridgestone have much worst gripping in the morning because it takes too much time (distance) with normal use to get warm.

Without going to something expensive as Tarox you mean something like this style or like this one?

Can you point that with arrow or cycle? i don't understand what you mean. MPG update: I gathered 4 receipts with notes for my latest gasoline refueling, old fashion way measurements and the results are: 1) 99 Km distance, 13,23 ltr/ 100 Km or 21,35 mpg (citty traffic) 2) 153 Km distance, 13,33 ltr/ 100 Km or 21,19 mpg (citty traffic) 3) 248 Km distance, 12,9 ltr / 100 Km or 21,89 mpg (city traffic plus some km in boulevard and few round on a small mountain route) 4) 110,3 Km distance, 11,87 ltr / 100 Km or 23,79 mpg (city traffic plus a small trip in the highway) The No1,No2,No3 were with the car still having issues (BMC filter on, damaged plug on coolant sensor, iridium spark plugs still new, air intake manifold not clean etc) The No4 still had some Km with all the above problems, then there was the fixing of the plug and later a small trip to the highway which means about 50km distance in city traffic (with issues) then about 15 in highway and the rest in city traffic. The TC-6 helped me till few days ago and then i accidentally pressed the zeroing button and this ruined my No4 calculations. So now can't rely on the Average fuel consumption, i can not always watch the Instantly because i am gonna crush, i can't rely on the Remaining kilometres because shows different when you are moving and when the car is parked and there are no turbulence in the fuel tank. I relay on the Total fuel consumption (now that the odometer is zeroed) which (by surpise) in the screen has the letter Σ which means ''total'' (Συνολικα is written in Greek). After at least 50 km i can have a good idea for the fuel consumption with the car having no issues (let's pray that i will not discover anything new) and will see all the ''improvements'' how good worked.