Something that has realy confused

[Cepheuz]

i've been looking and colecting data on the skoda felicia fuel economy and i found this;

Skoda Felicia Specification

Engine: 4-stroke; spark ignition

Displacement: 1289 (1.6); 1896

Power: 40 kW at 5000 rpm (1.3); 50 kW at 5500 rpm (1.3i); 55 kW at 4500 rpm (1.6); 47 kW at 4300 rpm (1.9 D)

Torque: 94 Nm at 3250 rpm (1.3); 100 Nm at 3750 rpm (1.3i); 135 Nm at 3500 rpm (1.6); 124 Nm at 2500 to 3500 rpm (1.9 D)

Transmission: gearbox and differential in block with engine

Speed: 145 km/h - 160 km/h

Acceleration: 12 - 17 sec.

Fuel Consumption: (90 km/h 120 km/h city) 4.3 - 6.1-6.3 litres/100 km (1.9 D) to 5.9 7.6 8.7 litres/100 km (1.6)

Dimensions: 3855 x 1635 x 1415 mm

Weigh: empty weight 920 to 1020 kg; gross weight 1370 - 1455 kg

Body: integral metal; five-seat; five-door; hatchback

that is an extract to this page -> Skoda Felicia Specifications providing a summary of information on technical features from Review Ce

and this;

0-50mph (80 km/h): 9.6 s

0-60mph: 13.5 s

Quarter mile: 19.4 s @ 71 mph

Kilometre: 35.5 s @ 140 km/h

Top speed: 156

Fuel consumption: 51.4/37.7/38.2 UK MPG 56mph/75mph

witch is an extract from this page -> 1994 Skoda Felicia 1.3 GLXi Technical Data - The Global Car Locator

now looking at the data from some briskodians that post their fuel economy i did not understand why you guys get better mpg thatn the specs and what people have told me here.

i just understand one thing, i didn't take into consideration that euro gallons are 4.5 instead of 3.8 so i took the data and converted all to liters, it was close, but not the same

so i'm guessing you're figures are a mix of city and highway, so please, let me know if that is correct

another thing is if i take the numbers i get from briskodians and i put them side by side to the web and other people here, they are the same, only thing is that one is km and the other is miles (example my best reading was 38km/g and anewman's average is 37mpg, dealers car is 45km/g , capt. sisko's old average 41mpg) so i though maybe the readings where just mistakenly set in mpg when they're km/g, so i went to the site and put in my readings and fueling and behold i got (according to the site) 5.6L/100km and 7.6L/100km after checking that the car was set up correctly in the site (odometer in km, fuel volume values etc...) i set in a letter to them letting them know and removed temporarily my fuelin and data...

only thing is pollywog's computer, she gets 7.4L/100km on winter and 6.4 on summer

they coinside with the maximum fuel efficiency reported by the skoda dealer mechanic's and i know that the computer is thinking in liters so the difference in us gallon's doent affect that reading and that the computer is thinking in Km so its the one to trust the most.

anyone want to elaborate on this and maybe sorting this things out with the site that post the mpg on some of our members

[rigsby]

IMHO stop worrying about mpg and start thinking about smiles per mile, If you need something that does 100mpg, BUY A MOPED

[Cepheuz]

IMHO stop worrying about mpg and start thinking about smiles per mile, If you need something that does 100mpg, BUY A MOPED

jajajaj indeed, let me ask you...

have you ever been in your car, and there are two ways to get home (or where ever your going) and you take the long one, just because of how the car feels ???

took an hour to get to my GF house one time, all i could say to her was... well slap me, she make me feel good (ofcourse i was talking about my felli) jajajaja

if i knew i was getting good mileage i could take her for a big ride, put the stereo on with soft music (jejeje, bull****, i'll be listening to 80's rock, 90's alternative and a perfect circle) and take her to the beach just to have lunch

ofcurse, IMHO i belive that if your car is puting out 18mpg you would be smiling, but you would also be worried, like me

a little piece of mi mind, and i realy dont know if i should write this...

most of the time a person says they have a problem with theyr car, i feel for them, and i relate in the fact that i think they're like me, people whom love theyr cars, want to enjoy it, but have a problem thats not letting them, and even have very little or no money to fix them and hope for a light to guide them to a solution or peace of mind...

so, i kinda feel bad about the comment, and maybe i am stressing about something too much, but again... woulnt you, i mean, whe are all humans

if you meant no harm with the comment, thanks for trying to make me worry less, if not...

"You'll stumble in my footsteps

Keep the same appointments I kept

If you try walking in my shoes

If you try walking in my shoes"

Depeche mode

Edited 1 January, 2009 by Cepheuz

[TeflonTom]

the factory spec for fuel consumption would have been calculated with 50% of the car's payload, so it weights more....

so it is possible to get slightly better figures than quoted on the spec

[Cepheuz]

the factory spec for fuel consumption would have been calculated with 50% of the car's payload, so it weights more....

so it is possible to get slightly better figures than quoted on the spec

ok, thanks for the tip, i just want to have a real goal, and not try for something that is not real, and believe me when you're best reading is 23mpg, 40, or 45 mpg seem unreachable...

my car has no weight and i mostly drive alone, as i said before, granny style, but i am driving more " brisky " no cu's of the comments here,

temperature is now in the 83-87 range Valve to spec. timing to spec, full service and new brake pump (old one was leaking into the servo) i think i leaned the mix too much but i have no knocking , predetonation, cold exhaust and the rpm are steady in all temperatures so if its lean, is not by much

[pollywog]

i put my values in the signature... there you can see my results.

okay, i go to clear snow now... having - 10°C

[Cepheuz]

i put my values in the signature... there you can see my results.

okay, i go to clear snow now... having - 10°C

24.8 mpg (imp)

20.0 mpg (US)

11.83L/100km

that's with the ignition timing set stock with a strobe gun, valve clearance Stock no vacuum leaks, properly inflated tires, full maintenance, and clean carburetor with idle mix adjusted properly and running 91 ROZ gasoline....

:(

if i put my average in km next to yours in miles both imperial gallons, they match... so you get 60% more ( or i get 37% less witch ever suits you best)

Edited 2 January, 2009 by Cepheuz

[AhmetH]

maybe it sounds wrong but next time i recommend you to use 20w/50 motor oil.

there might be some sealing problems in this engine no other reason for this consumption :confused:

here in İzmir / Turkey authorized skoda service named "skoda donatim" use that grade oil for my felicia since 1998 (except break in oil which came from factory, i thought it was 15w/40 mineral based)

[Cepheuz]

maybe it sounds wrong but next time i recommend you to use 20w/50 motor oil.

there might be some sealing problems in this engine no other reason for this consumption :confused:

here in İzmir / Turkey authorized skoda service named "skoda donatim" use that grade oil for my felicia since 1998 (except break in oil which came from factory, i thought it was 15w/40 mineral based)

i was running 10W40, and in this last service i changed it to 15W40, i could take you up on that, but it would have to wait until the next service (almost 6 month from now :s), thank for the idea but i think oil would have a smell and get dirty very fast, and the oil doesn't get dirty fast and its not going down fast eyther

will check none the less, and thanks for the idea AhmetH

[rigsby]

a little piece of mi mind, and i realy dont know if i should write this...

most of the time a person says they have a problem with theyr car, i feel for them, and i relate in the fact that i think they're like me, people whom love theyr cars, want to enjoy it, but have a problem thats not letting them, and even have very little or no money to fix them and hope for a light to guide them to a solution or peace of mind...

so, i kinda feel bad about the comment, and maybe i am stressing about something too much, but again... woulnt you, i mean, whe are all humans

if you meant no harm with the comment, thanks for trying to make me worry less, if not...

"Im not having a go at you mate, just a bit of banter. BUT, as ive said in other threads, you need to have the car back to stock settings and have a thermostat in to start and find the cause of poor fuel consumption. It might also be an idea to use a better grade fuel, as 91 roz is not the best. I cant remember if you said your car has aircon or not but if it has see what your consumption is like with it switched off. Also you could try filling with fuel to the top of the neck, driving about 100 miles and then filling up again, then work out the consumption from the amount used

[Cepheuz]

"Im not having a go at you mate, just a bit of banter. BUT, as ive said in other threads, you need to have the car back to stock settings and have a thermostat in to start and find the cause of poor fuel consumption. It might also be an idea to use a better grade fuel, as 91 roz is not the best. I cant remember if you said your car has aircon or not but if it has see what your consumption is like with it switched off. Also you could try filling with fuel to the top of the neck, driving about 100 miles and then filling up again, then work out the consumption from the amount used

car is stock, even changed the plugs to hotter ones (cu's the one's before where 2 numbers colder) and thermostat is on (got lucky and was given money on my birthday so i went and bough it) but had no effect on readings

i don't use the ac,

i always put 2 gallons( 3.78541178 liters or 128 onces) of gas ad drive until car runs out of gas (i always have a gallon in the car to refuel) so i know exactly how much i get out of a gallon, trip meter always is reseted and i know that is working perfectly

also i worked out the conversion from your standard to mine is (mpg / 160) * 128 * 1.609344, thats to convert from mpg(imperial) to Km/g

and don't worry, i dint think that you where taking a go at me, its just that i'm those kind of guys that are TOO HONEST, you know, the ones that say a little too much sometimes... i guess you might know the kind or somebody like that..

i'll test the gasoline, i can get 88ROZ, 91ROZ and 95ROZ i'll try the 95 to see the results

[oldskool]

One thing that makes me think hmmmm is that you keep mentioning that your car has a carb where you can adjust the mixture. I'm just concerned that your comparing your carb model to an injection model. If so you'll never achieve the same kind of figures as carbs are worse on fuel than injection models, with an ECU monitoring the fueling up to 60 times a second and also cuts the fuel supply when on the overrun i.e down hill with foot of the accelerator. A carb engine always gets a supply of fuel even when on the overrun. So I would be looking to compare mpg with another carb model maybe an early Favorite (although this won't have a catalyst as well restricting the exhaust and using fuel) as opposed to a european injection model.

As an addition mine has SPI and will always be slightly worse than an MPI model and i just accept that. Its just Horses for courses, as you've said crank up the tunes, window down and enjoy

[Cepheuz]

One thing that makes me think hmmmm is that you keep mentioning that your car has a carb where you can adjust the mixture. I'm just concerned that your comparing your carb model to an injection model. If so you'll never achieve the same kind of figures as carbs are worse on fuel than injection models, with an ECU monitoring the fueling up to 60 times a second and also cuts the fuel supply when on the overrun i.e down hill with foot of the accelerator. A carb engine always gets a supply of fuel even when on the overrun. So I would be looking to compare mpg with another carb model maybe an early Favorite (although this won't have a catalyst as well restricting the exhaust and using fuel) as opposed to a european injection model.

As an addition mine has SPI and will always be slightly worse than an MPI model and i just accept that. Its just Horses for courses, as you've said crank up the tunes, window down and enjoy

great point oldskool, i know that a carburetor model preforms worst than a fuel injector model, but.. they are people whom disagree, since they say it can perform as well or even better,

regardless of this i was looking at old skoda model with carburetor engines and base on them (8.6L / 100km city) is that i'm basing my economy problem, that and the fact that it could be 10 to 15% maybe, but not 60%

i cross referenced with other skoda owner here and they all agree that it gives them 50+ km/g (thats 38.8 mpg (imperial)) the person whom i spoke with that gets the worts km/g is 42km/g (that's 32.6 mpg (imperial))

again, thaking this into consideration 40 to 45 mpg imperial is 15% more than 32.6 to 38.8 so it all fall into place (well, i least the way i figured) and thats my goal 32. to 38 mpg (imperial) but i did hear that a properly tune carburetor by a Venezuelan guy would give me the 40 to 45 mpg (ain't that a dream a carburetor performing as well as a MPi)

thanks for the note, right now my average is 32km/g (US) (24.85mpg (imperial)) i just fitted a new coil and i'm filled with 95ROZ gas so hopefully the numbers change (the thermostat dint do a hole lot but i guess thats because i had the choke temp switch to its lowest)

[oldskool]

Okay mate lets us know how you get on:thumbup:

[Cepheuz]

Okay mate lets us know how you get on:thumbup:

love the bit about the dirty car, jajajaja

[KenONeill]

My experience is that an EMS engine is usually slightly more powerful and economical than a carburetor version running the same camshaft and CR, maybe about 5%.

I'm not sure off-hand what ROZ numbers are and how they compare with RON numbers (usually used in Europe).

[Cepheuz]

My experience is that an EMS engine is usually slightly more powerful and economical than a carburetor version running the same camshaft and CR, maybe about 5%.

I'm not sure off-hand what ROZ numbers are and how they compare with RON numbers (usually used in Europe).

its the same from what i google (just that ROZ is German)

Mercedes-Benz Pontons and Fuel Octane Ratings © www.mbzponton.org

i got 33.4 km/g (25.94 mpg (imp)) from using regular fuel, 38 km/g (29.5mpg (imp)) using a blend of 50/50 regular plus premium, i'm going to try to find out what the octane rate of the fuel sold here is for sure, but aparently there is no gain from the 50/50 mix than from straight premium in the car (maybe depends on the pump)

[KenONeill]

Ah, if ROZ and RON are the same scale, I'd expect your engine to be tuned to run on 95 octane. Most European engines of that sort of age are.

[Cepheuz]

Ah, if ROZ and RON are the same scale, I'd expect your engine to be tuned to run on 95 octane. Most European engines of that sort of age are.

manual said 91, i thought that the "regular" was 88, and the "premium" was 95 so i mixed the to get the 91...

I'm trying straight "premium cu's i'm not sure of the octane rating on fuel that's pumped here and the differences is of 3 dollars for a full tank (mixed compared to straight) and the mpg gain could actually make it cheaper per km

[KenONeill]

We can probably make an intelligent guess as to the required RON number if you know the compression ratio of the engine.

[Johnny50]

We can probably make an intelligent guess as to the required RON number if you know the compression ratio of the engine.

Here's some of the data sheet on Autodata for the engine, if that helps.

[KenONeill]

Well, that scan was as clear as mud! It says min 91RON, but seems to say CR of 8.8:1? I'd expect the CR to need 93RON, and that will take a slightly less advanced timing, which should allow better fuel economy.

[Cepheuz]

Here's some of the data sheet on Autodata for the engine, if that helps.

that's not the engine, the engine on your scan is a 1.6 witch i believe is a VW engine.

Mine is a 136 1289 (1.3) carburetor model the thermostat housing and temp sender are the same as the MPi model so i believe is a newer version of the engine but with carburetor for some reason i don't understand

[Johnny50]

i've been looking and colecting data on the skoda felicia fuel economy and i found this;

Skoda Felicia Specification

Engine: 4-stroke; spark ignition

Displacement: 1289 (1.6); 1896

Ahh, you had put 1.6 in your original post, i never looked at the rest.

[Cepheuz]

Ahh, you had put 1.6 in your original post, i never looked at the rest.

the displacement shows the tow available for petrol 1289 and the (1.6)

if the 1.6 gives X mpg i presume the 1.3 would give a little more,