nta16

Nah, I'm not boffer'd just curious, skull 'n' crossbones can be put up every time. As you may have noticed I'm not very good at spotting typos and I see the missing words. Being generous, I'll give you 15 words for that reply, disappointingly long. 😄 I bet you thought I'd posted in the wrong thread. 😊 🤣

Yes, all info is possibly incorrect you have to check to find what you think is reliable and (think is) correct, I don't know about car build tags, I would assume them to be correct, unless the car is dodgy, but V5C could have errors less so now I expect unless you got one of those print-your own.

Left me a 'Confused' in the thumb-up circle wotsit on the bottom right corner of the posts on my post 3 hours ago now, the one after the three from Noddydog. Can you see anything wrong with my post then (answer in seven or less words if possible please).

@KeithCheetham what are you confused about, I can't see I've put anything wrong, if you tell me perhaps I can explain - or you can correct me.

Good job you do not own an old British car as you would have been beyond tired and nerves burnt out may years (decade(s)) back. NASA would not just go on the results of one test, I would take three as a minimum but more would be better. Easy to find if the BMC is better (for these conditions and circumstances) - replace the paper with the BMC in the filter box exactly as set up now so that the only change is the filter. The BMC filter frame can be held together with glue and/or duck/gaffer/Gorilla tape, the frame is only to position the filter and seal it and the box, once inside the box you do not see it, as long as it functions correctly what it looks like does not matter. You put that the filter frame left gaps with the taping you can fill those gaps so improve the filter's function.

That's your VIN - if you want to remove or edit that post now you'll need to join Freedom as that gives more than (IIRC) 15 minutes for edits. Your engine code (and number and VIN) will obviously be on your V5C (vehicle registration form, or "log book" if you're as old as me) and both will also be labels on the car in various places.

Try putting your car registration into parts suppliers like Halfords and Opie Oil (to name two) and that should bring up your car's details including engine number including the type code (CBZB). You always need to cross check any information you get as all databases have errors and omissions (particularly parts catalogues, even from the part or car manufacturers). And of course cross check any info you get from any web source, particularly if it's from me.

Sorry I am not sure which ones you mean but it does not matter I only expressed the idea, I do not know the details. Does it effect the consumption and how, again sorry no idea, other than if anything is contrary to any of the programming or was not installed or set that way at programming, I doubt this would make any difference but then I doubt other changes that appear to have made a difference. I wondered if you had increased the insulation value of something that was factory insulated whether this might retain more heat than was planned for - but it is just a thought, I do not know. I am not getting at you or what you have done or are doing but just trying to list the facts as I remember (or more likely forget) them from posts, you know your car I do not. I can not blame anything as I do not know what is causing this, I can not remember asking why you did anything and you have explained but the information did come out piecemeal slightly altering things and more difficult for me to remember, not that that matters. I thought you had the chip reprogramed (or refreshed/reinstalled) recently, if not my mistake or misunderstanding. Apart from the coolant issue if there was any other differences or work done before and after the fuel consumption got worse then you could go back to how things were when you were getting better fuel consumption in one go or bit by bit if you want to narrow down the culprit - that was my one and only idea. Sorry I do not understand your second post but what I put is what you have, a car with factory fitted equipment and with modifications, and so do millions of others but not your particular car and set up and driving conditions and recordings, if they did you might get to the solution sooner. Depending on how much information you can get from such, if you was able to get live data from when the car starts well and compare it with live data from when it does not that might give you some more pointers to the diagnostics or might show or highlight what the variances are and if you can record live data from your start up and city driving you could see what happens when and the changes. Unless someone else can spot something that has been missed so far, but it is not me I have already given my only idea.

Yes don't rely on any gauge on any pump unless proven accurate with testing over time. The accuracy of the (sperate independent) gauge isn't about type but the build quality absolute precision isn't really needed as long as the gauge is and remains consistently accurate and you use the same gauge all the time on all the tyres. If I lost or damaged the Halfords 2015 digital gauge I'd happily go back to using my one remaining old PLC pencil type pocket gauge, just be more difficult to find in the boot as I don't have a case for it (and not glove box or door pockets on my car). Good luck with whatever you pick.

You have got a car with factory fitted equipment and with modifications. Have you added any insulation, or made it more insulated, to any pipes or hoses to or from air box more than factory standard? How many changes have you made since the things have got worse and what are they? You must bear in mind your reprograming was set up with the car as it was and not as it is now so you would have to ask the programmer if the differences would influence the programming. The car manufacturers take time and repeated testing to find what works best overall and that's what you have to do if you deviate from factory standard too much. You spent many years changing the set up so you must expect to take a little while to fine tune it. You can reverse the steps you have made since the better figures to see which give the best results. this is best done by reversing one step at a time and testing, better or worse and then reversing something different or in combination with previous step or steps. Doing too much at once makes it difficult to know what actually gives improvement or not. Also consider what might be worse in cold or cooler weather might be better in hot or warmer weather, your recording the figures will now be very useful. If you could borrow a good scan tool and record live data that would also help - but you do NOT want a scan tool connected up all the time and certainly not a cheap device that might damage the car's computer and/or programs.

I am not surprised at the 1300 result but a few notes - they are only looking at peak power, the location and fixing varied with pod(s) to paper filter, there were no pre-runs before the sets of two tests, just because someone has been doing something for a long time does not necessarily mean that they are the best or possibly even very good at it or the videographers may not have paid for enough dyno time, (but I would not be taking my car there for tuning, I am not sure his generalisations were too accurate). I realise videos have to be edited and kept interesting but they would have said if any pre-runs were done.

What level of scan tool did you use, make model App? Any live data? Was that as a reset, if so after disconnecting the battery did you turn the ignition on a press the footbrake to empty out all stored electric? Saw you done relays and fuses, have you checked wiring from battery posts forward, through ignition switch, alternator, starter, earths, comms, bell and wiggle tests? Checked - temp sensor DIY wiring connections, MAF and connections, lambda and connections - physical and readings? (in case it is a combination(s) of issues presenting as one problem) An intermittent problem like this makes me think of poor connections, communications or computer program glitch. That is me out of ideas.

Many tuners just go for power but for a road car you want overall performance which will give and best running and fuel efficiency within the limits of the car. If the owner has the car set up more for high speed or acceleration (gearing) then it will be more difficult to get performance lower down and overall and of course generally 'pedal to the metal' tends to be more fuel consumption. A good tuner for a road car will tune for overall performance, within the limits of the car and what has been done to it, overall performance will include power and fuel economy but only if the car is not driven harder after tuning. Generally when the car feels better many/most will drive it harder and some without even realising after the initial noticing. An air filter that lets through sufficient air for the overall (and set peak) performance for as long as possible without cleaning or changing is an advantage. Of course car tuning for overall performance and fuel consumption has tuning the engine as just one element and the whole car has already been designed and tuned during development and build.

I've seen this one get a good review but it is a (metal) screw-on fitting still, hopefully better made though, all metal bodied, needs the engine running to use - Viair 70P Portable Compressor Kit 12V 100 PSI for Passenger Car Tires w/ Twist-on Tire - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/303726177395 Personally I dislike the electric pumps they're generally noisy, asthmatic and all the farting about with that thin wire cable draping out of the window and on my wife's Fabia the thin wire cable won't fit back into its space so the pump does fit the polystyrene boot space holder thing. I prefer and use a manual foot pump, have done for decades (instead of carrying a spare wheel but let's not start that debate). Unfortunately like a lot of items now the manual foot pumps aren't as well made now as they were decades back. I have a Heyner PedalPower Pro now, only had it for a year or two so I don't know it's longevity, it does have the lever clamp fitting which I also prefer but as it's a twin type head I don't know how well it'd fit in some of the high-fashion wheels some have on their vehicles. The retaining clip to hold it compressed when stored isn't designed or made that well but it does do it's job. The gauge, like I've found all to be, is not to be relied on. - https://heynershop.co.uk/air-compressors-air-pumps/20-pedalpower-pro-foot-air-pump-4028224218007.html

Doesn't the scan tool give you dates and parts (and serial?) number for ECU that could be cross referenced with the age or build date of your car? Something like below.

Doesn't the scan tool give you dates and parts (and serial?) number for ECU that could be cross referenced with the age or build date of your car?

@DocClogs Good post. And well done with making the background less distracting and more contrast with the subject of the photo, though perhaps you shouldn't have used your Xmas card post list.

The K&N filter is for "power" not fuel economy in the same way as your large bore exhaust. That was a poor test missing out the vital component to make an assessment and basing the conclusion on a very loose data point. So many youngsters just rely on what is on the screen in front of them without question and in this case the car's dash and its instrumentation and computer programs. For a start he said his neighbour had cleaned the K&N and although not mentioned the K&N shown looked oiled and may have been over oiled as I have done a couple of times before so that is not a good fixed representation of the K&N filter. Even if it was cleaned and oiled to as new factory standard it would have to be compared to a new paper filter. The paper filter was said to have been used but not by how much or any measure of contamination given so again not a good fixed representation of the paper filter. At the start of the video it looked like his check engine light was on but too out-of-focus to tell. The vital component missing is the amount of fuel used to divide into the distances travelled !! It is not rocket science. Also he said he noticed a small difference in power with the K&N, whether there was or not and how much does not matter what matters is he noticed showing he was driving off the cruise control so his inputs would have been variable, pushing more with the K&N so using more fuel. This is what happens with performance improvements, they could give lesser fuel consumption if the vehicle is driven in the same way as before but the driver drives a little harder so does not gain this fuel economy and often uses more fuel because they drive harder even if they do not notice doing so. Just knowing there are performance parts fitted most drivers would drive a bit quicker, then if they can also feel or hear there is more performance they will use it more, intentionally or not. Proper tests are carried out by skilled and trained drivers, not untrained members of the public, under very strict conditions using controlled dynos in very controlled environments and laboratory equipment, not the variable real world environments and conditions and loose car's own equipment and computer programs - and then many manufacturers like VW have been fiddling things to make them look better. 😄 Personally I would be very surprised if any random tester did not use more fuel knowing they have a performance filter fitted but the point here is that with just adding in a simple bit of maths more accuracy could have been given, the level of accuracy is another matter. Having tests from YouTube and manufacturers' claims I am sure will show both that the K&N and other performance filters are good or great and that it is neither and bad, the results will also vary for so many reasons. But those do not matter, what matters is what is best for you with what you want to achieve with your particular 21 year-old modified car. Unless you can employ a skilled trained driver and pay for the proper testing using the proper equipment to test different air filters on your particular 21 year-old modified car you have to go with your own findings and decisions, no one else is you and driving your car under your conditions.

I would have thought it might only happen when new or when an idiot like me has over oiled it, think of all the muck from a diesel, eventually they do wear out but takes quite a while.

The drums don't adjust only the setting and travel of the shoes which has me wondering if you have the correct wheel cylinders fitted and/or inline pressure adjustment valve and load based pressure regulator are set correctly. Have you renew any other brake parts and hydraulics? I totally forgot about the servo not having one on my car. My old drums were cast with minimum thickness lettering and size on them so that you knew if they'd worn think, sadly not so with the cheap modern made parts but if you have some measuring callipers either in a book or on here you could find out if yours are worn too thin.

I forgot the exhaust wrap, and now you add large bore exhaust. 🙂 We have stages of tune over here but they are not formalised, in the old days it started with go-faster stripes (stick on coach lines down the sides of the car). 😄

That is far enough, but to be fair, I do not know about the BMC but, for K&N the maintenance is low but as has been shown a paper filter changed in a timely manner does very well (and may be quieter for you) and you can just hold it up to the light to see how dirty it is. I would guess with your city use it may get dirtier and sooner but I am sure you would be on top of the changes. Be interesting to see if a paper filter would make any difference to your city fuel consumption. This filter is the 3rd (4th?) modification on a car you considered unmodified (other than ECU programming) anymore (other than perhaps the piping insulation if that just replaces original)?

To be fair to Halfords staff personally, this is a car with VW's over-complicated, over-intrusive, intertwined stop/start and gawd knows how many other programs, if they are not trained properly and aren't using the correct tools to check these batteries they've had it with modern VAG and probably Beemers, Mercs. I bet you are now nearer to being a convert to keeping the battery away from getting too low as it causes all sorts of hassle. If you're not going to lots of short journey and very longer journeys and like to have all the car's driver comforts going then you might want to consider a suitable battery charger/maintainer (not quick boost).

Far too loose a test, with variables, so easy to get 3% variance either way, dyno runs are at least more controlled. And what many people mean by "performance" is more horsepower and not so concerned with fuel economy. A proper performance increase would also cover fuel consumption but it would always be compromised by the nut behind the steering wheel.

All true and different vehicles will get different gains or losses on a dyno and in real life. How is the following for particle retention, I did not even notice when I took the photo as the photo was for another matter. A neighbour had been power cutting building blocks when I wanted to try to set the carbs but I gave up as the "6 cuts" he said he was going to do turned out to be a lot more and over most of the day.