Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:22:10 -0800
Reply-To: Michael Elliott <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Michael Elliott <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Poor mileage update
In-Reply-To: <004f01c8352e$08185800$6701a8c0@TOSHIBALAP>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Scott, thanks for the detailed list o' ideas and knowledge!
On 12/2/2007 1:55 PM Scott Daniel - Shazam wrote:
> Is it running warmly enough ?
You read my post of yesterday? About maybe a funky thermostat? Well, that
applies only to this last trip, prior to that, with the old thermostat I
was pushing to the right of the LED lamp in the center of the temp gauge.
I was getting 15.5 mpg highway then.
> You want it running as hot as you can get away with, especially in the
> winter.
> You should have the 87 degrees C thermostat,
> And if someone sells one hotter, I'd try that.
> Cooler is NOT better ! warmer is better.
I'm not at all certain why the Famous Online Vendor decided to sell me a
cooler thermostat.
> As far as I can tell, it's just a 1600 air-cooled design with bigger
> displacement and 'adapted' ..crudely converted to a water cooled design.
Yup. I have a stock 1600 in my 71, and the similarities are striking.
Except for all the tubing and hoses on the 1.9L, and those odd covers over
the cylinders!
> I know you don't want to hear this, but there just are no real ways around
> the limitations of the waterboxer engine in vanagons. Incremental
> improvements, but no way to jump 40 % ahead I power, emissions, and fuel
> economy.
Me? Did I suggest I was looking for some magical increase in mileage? I
wasn't looking for any 40% improvement, I just want to get my mileage up
to what others with the same engine and transmission report. Did you see
my article on the wiki (as noted in my post below)? Quite a few people
responded, and my mileage suck(ed) big time. I'm edging closer to the
middle of the pack now.
[long bit about knock sensor not applicable to WBX engine snipped]
... > there's no knock sensor.
> 1.9 waterboxers depend on mechanical devices ( which CAN not have the right
> timing curve anymore !!...did you check that !!!?? ....you could be 10
> degrees short on timing advance at 3,500 rpm for all you know, if you
> haven't check that. )
Checked it, yup. Thanks.
> last thought, I'd try mid-grade fuel and see if that helps with fuel
> mileage. You can advance the timing more too with higher octane. I have read
> that you can have too advanced timing at high rpm, and thus very damaging
> detonation, but not have pinging, so be careful. The whole timing curve
> needs to be checked out carefully, at all rpm's and loads.
Beyond my skillset and toolset.
> Also engine condition.......if compression is lowish .....you just can't
> get around that. Tire pressure ?
> I sure hope you have nothing on the roof.
Thanks, it's all on my blog at
http://camping.elliott.googlepages.com/poormileage
[snip]
> I think you have a ways to go yet on sleuthing and changing tactics.
> Poor fuel economy can be one of the very, very hardest things to fix in
> car-dom. There are even factory new cars that get poor mileage compared to
> similar models, and no one can figure it out. It can be the very most
> elusive thing there is to fix. Keep going !!
Thanks. I reckon I'll take this as far as time and my small collection of
Harbor Freight tools will take me. The mileage is slowly improving as I
check things out. I'll see what it's like after the rear wheel cambers
have been adjusted and if I'm running in the middle of the statistical
pack I'll be satisfied.
--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel" Elliott
71 Type 2: the Wonderbus
84 Westfalia: Mellow Yellow ("The Electrical Banana")
74 Utility Trailer. Ladybug Trailer, Inc., San Juan Capistrano
KG6RCR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Elliott
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:38 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Poor mileage update
>
> I have been told that some of you are breathlessly anticipating the next
> installment of this ongoing tale. I suspect that whoever told me that
> greatly exaggerates how interesting this is, and is just messing with me.
> But just in case there's some poor soul out there who can't find anything
> more nourishing to read (like, even, porn), here is the latest:
>
> Over the past two months I've looked at about everything I or anyone else
> could think of which might explain why my 84 Westy's mileage sucks so
> bad. See
>
> http://vanagonwiki.net/index.php/Mileage for survey data showing typical
> mileage for Vanagons,
>
> and see my blog at
> http://camping.elliott.googlepages.com/poormileage for info on my van's
> mileage and the things I've looked at.
>
> A good researcher would change only one thing at a time and see what
> effect it has (if any) on mileage. But my van is not my daily driver, and
> my "standard drive" (a 132-mile round trip up to 6,000 feet and back down)
> occurs only once a month. Life's too short to try one thing at a time, so
> I can't claim to show cause and effect with any confidence. Which makes me
> a poor researcher. I can live with that. Results are what I want, man!
>
> Of all the things I checked, I only changed two: advanced the timing a bit
> (my threads about that are about a month old, look 'em up in the archives
> if curious) and got the wheels aligned a couple weeks ago (except for the
> camber of the rear wheels because the shop didn't know how, I'll have them
> handle that in a week or so).
>
> Prior to doing anything to the van, my city mileage was 11 mpg. Miserable.
> My average highway mileage was 15.5 mpg, and my standard drive netted 16.7
> mpg.
>
> After the timing change (and some general cleanup of some issues that
> don't appear to be related to mileage, like a failed coolant pressure
> relief cap, a partially collapsed breather hose, and other minor
> thingies), my city mileage seemed to improve, to about 13.7 mpg. The
> engine seemed to have a little more "oomph."
>
> After wheel alignment (save, as mentioned, the rear wheel cambers), city
> mileage clocked in at 15.6 mpg. Steering felt "lighter" (i.e., easier).
>
> I returned from my standard 132-mile drive yesterday morning (couldn't do
> it in October on account of these fires that were chewing up the area; the
> Forestry service closed all the national forests) and see that I got 17.9
> mpg. I was also able to maintain speed on uphills where I previously
> needed to downshift.
>
> I'll be going up and back in December (if I can sort out a problem I had
> up the with the engine starting) and will see what difference getting the
> rear wheels aligned will do, although winter conditions might hide the
> effect of that.
>
> --
> Mike "Rocket J Squirrel" Elliott
> 71 Type 2: the Wonderbus
> 84 Westfalia: Mellow Yellow ("The Electrical Banana")
> 74 Utility Trailer. Ladybug Trailer, Inc., San Juan Capistrano
> KG6RCR
>
