Your stochiometric ratio became leaner somehow. CO adjustment? If you find the answer and it is repeatable, it will be a compelling argument for the inline four conversion. -Dana- David Marshall wrote: ... > trip through rolling hills at a leasurly 95 to 100km/h - this translates > into 8.8L per 100km (26.7 US mpg)- the trip back we did a little more speed > ranging from 100km/h to 115km/h plus really pushing hard in 3rd going up > some of the steep hills - we consumed 14L of gasoline or 11.2L per 100km > (21 US mpg). > > So, why did things get better with a throttle that opens quicker? Not that > I am complaining! > |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.