Date:         Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:37:38 -0400
Reply-To:     Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Fuel consumption in different gears - how does the energy /
              fuel work?
In-Reply-To:  <CAHTkEu+gn_sp1NC7iigE=QeN3Ea39hFzFb_WjrVZOxUzkzM53A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

While the waterboxer has a good amount of torque at low rpms, if I remember correctly, it's maximum torque is around 4000 rpms. VW's Inline 4 (2.0 liter) maximum torque (again from memory) is somewhere north of 5000 rpms (5800?)

(I'm not doing the internet research to back up my memory, since I'm on a slow connection.)


On Mar 25, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Don Hanson wrote:

> Anecdotal: No real data or statistics other than 60k mile of personal
> experience with a 5sp inline VW powered 2wd.
>
>   I always get better gas mileage when I run at a higher RPM and a lower
> gear unless I am running on a freeway at a sustained speed that demands top
> gear.......When I do extended logging road cruising or off road backroads,
> or even go through the mountains at high elevations, I normally gear down
> and run my ABA 2.0 liter motor at around 3500rpms in whatever gear gives me
> a reasonably safe speed...without lugging the motor.  If my rpms drop to
> below about 2800rpm, I select my next lower gear, or when I come to a
> corner or a hill that I know will slow me dramatically on exit...I shift
> down, rather than waiting till I 'find it won't maintain speed' and then
> shift down.
> I think keeping in the range of rpms where the engineers designed the motor
> to make it's best power, that is where you will be most economical with
> fuel consumption.
>
>  I understand the WBX motor was designed to run at lower rpms....so I am
> sure it works better there..the inline VW I have seems to be best between
> 3500 and 4500...maybe 5000, so that is where I drive it and my gas
> consumption goes down if I let the revs fall...  And as Frank said, lugging
> a small engine with a big load is NOT a good plan unless it was built to do
> that, and Jetta motors were not.
>  Don Hanson