gio

I would love to know how you get an average of 53 mpg based on 60/40 in favour of town driving! well actually would love to know how you get on average 53 mpg. full stop.

thought this might interest diesel users... Feature - Biofuels Confirmation of 100% Tax Break For Green Biofuel

Unfortunately that is not true either. Amazing!!!!!!! so in your humble opinion,and because YOU have not seen firm evidance its b...shit! and where have you looked for this evidence? i did tell you where to look! and you would consider dual fuel if only a car manufacturer made it! but they do! but they are not listening to you as they don't always put the lpg tank where you think they should. or where you talking diesel/lpg dual fuel? That won't happen, no piont the diesel driver does not get the breaks a petrol driver does, and for that very same reason not many people would waste

Despite the fact that these light trucks can do 70mph plus they don't accelerate as fast as I do - So to me they go very slowly. I think that they should not be allowed into the overtaking lane at any point as they do cause the traffic to slow and also such a large vehicle has the potential to cause significanlty more damage in an accident than a light van or car. I do an average 800 -900 miles per week and I see a lot of this. I do2000 miles a week which is irrelevent as is your 800/900.. See far more inpatient car drivers trying to bully, than lorries holding up people when they are actually driving at the max speed limit, can only assume you are an impatient driver,also assume that you do not do this driving in the galaxy tdi, otherwise am amazed that you think you accelerate that much quicker between 55 and 70 when in 6th gear!!!!!!!!

! DIESELS CAN RUN ON ALMOST ANYTHING And yes they can run on LPG but it has to be mixed with diesel ! also noted some one said running lpg rather than petrol will lead to slightly lower mpg. This is only correct if the mapping is left the same,but if the mapping is altered to suit the higher octane rating that lpg has over 4 star petrol, then mpg will not fall. Remember no piont bragging that your lpg car is cheaper than a diesel, when a diesel can also use it.

"Thats why I've ordered a Vauxhall Corsa with a Fiat engine. Only time will tell if I regret my decision" I think thats a good choice of engine, at least.

From what i remember the honda 250 super dream was indeed a good bike with very good reports are you mixing it up with another product from honda?

GREY area this one. Since the begining of the year 7.5 tonne trucks have had to have speed limiters fitted. this has been delayed till the end of the year,so technically this is a grey area because, vehicles fitted with limiters cannot use the outside lane,and as so many 7.5 tonnes vehicles are still without limiters then under the highway code they can use the outside lane. "slowly oh so slowly" as i am sure you are awear an unreastricted 7.5 tonnes can go in excess of 70 mph [the legal limit] and can accelerate pretty well from 55mph to over 70mph so am confused by your slowly statement? Note i believe this new law does not apply to older 7.5 tonne vehicles [pre 2000] and until the law is changed then you may still see these vehicles legally in the outside lane.

:)--> QUOTE(Paul B @ Aug 14 2007, 19:43:20) 113531[/snapback]Are you speaking from experience? I never believed how economical this could be until I experienced it for myself. I spent months researching it before taking the plunge! Now after running a V6 Galaxy for the last 6 years (Mark1 Ghia X followed by Mark2 Ghia Multimedia), I wished I had done it long ago! If I had a bigger tank fitted, coupled with the range from the Petrol tank, a range of 1000 miles would be easily achievable! All without "Diesel" performance too! I'm not anti-Diesel, I have also ran 2 Diesels for the last 10 years! But I'm dead impressed with this, and before long the Diesels might be biting the dust! This is without doubt a better solution than a Diesel Galaxy, in my opinon. The 2 cannot be compared. Whilst I readily accept in Petrol form these can be expensive to run, compared with the 2.3 the 2.8 is still more economically viable, Power to weight Ratio etc!!. I had a mate who had a 2.3 from brand new, when I had my new Mark 1, and he did 70k in 2 years and could never get anymore than 23 mpg. I was doing that around the city, without taking any economical measures! Now with LPG I don't have to drive along at 50 mph anywhere. I simply drive normally, and fill it up when it's empty. Plus, it's more enviromentally friendly too and the government acknowledges that by giving me a Road Tax discount! Alright, so it's only

:)--> QUOTE(Paul B @ Aug 14 2007, 17:31:06) 113518[/snapback]Sorry to break this to you folks, but I have a recently converted LPG 2.8 v6 Auto Galaxy. Ignoring all the advice given above, I can crack the petrol equivalent of 44 mpg around the City, and hit nearly 60 mpg on a run with ease! I have no Turbo Lag or Diesel Knock, and unlike the 2.0, I can pull the skin off a rice pudding! If you want some good advice on economy, get yourself a 2.8, LPG it and you'll never look back! I should have done it years ago! This thing's more efficient than my wife's Scenic Diesel, with over twice the BHP! It doesn't take long at these fuel figures to get your conversion money back - believe me. It's a real joy filling it up for

You may be right (and I have read that in a Golf IV manual), but Seat UK recommended staying with the 40,000 mile interval as 'some other changes may have been made'. When I asked what these changes were, I could get no confirmation as to what they were or whether there actually had been 'some other changes'. When I suggested that they asked someone within VAG who would know, I couldn't get a sensible reply. So, as I do the work myself and it only costs the price of the parts, I will stick with 40,000 miles. By the way, the OE belts are made by Continental. my limited understanding was the older versions were 40k, but the newer versions are 60k down to better belt and tensioners. Only problem is when you do change them how do you know you are getting? It should be the newer stuff, but you never know.

My understanding so far is that the cheap ebay boxes are just resistor boxes and fool the ECU into over-fuelling the engine. This crude way of doing it could be what causes many of the problems experienced by some forum members. The more expensive boxes (Dragon, DPT, Diesel Bob, etc.) apparently work by modifying the signal from the ECU to the fuel rail, hence the ECU knows nothing about it. They also modify the signal differently across the rev range so the result is much less crude than a simple resistor. Having got the opinions from tuning box suppliers and engine re-mappers (and one that does both), the results were not particularly surprising: TUNING BOXES - remapping is more difficult/expensive to return to original; remapping gives maximum power gain but reduced engine life; tuning boxes are best because they safely increase power, torque and mpg. REMAPPERS - remaps are best because many different engine factors can be changed to suit your car; tuning boxes are easily removed so that you can take them off and sell them when you realise they are no good. BOTH - we use both and even together in some applications, i.e. remapped engine + tuning box; tuning boxes are best for DIY; remapping can be "pot luck" because you are changing some parameters without knowing whether it is safe. Biscuit - what are your experiences with the tuning box? Do you use your car for towing? Another member had a bad experience with a remapped engine when towing. In fact, I haven't seen any detrimental experiences on the forum with tuning boxes, only cars that have been remapped. How has your mpg been affected? (honest answer please!) If it's got worse is it outweighed by the increase in performance you are getting? Problem with the remap market was ealier remappers and some bodge artist , didn't really understand what they were doing fully. Without using a rolling road, which is common you really need someone who is at the top of this field, otherwise you can end up with a map that has a couple of nasty spikes, in otherwords not a nice take up across the rev range. Another problem is the torque, and too many bodge artist up this way to high for the running gear to cope. In my opinion nothing wrong with a remap, just the person doing it, or the custormer asking for too much. I bought my galaxy with 100k on the clocks, will not be remapping it as both the clutch and turbo are original [shame] Garrett says turbo life expectancy to be around only 80k [yes i know many do double that] so really it would be a little silly to remap at this stage. god forbid turbo went and i had the cash for a new clutch job too, then a remap would be on the cards straight away,but bear in mind i would went it set up on a rolling road, and as i have the 115 verson would not want or take anymore than an extra 22/23 bhp with no more than a 10% increase in torque either.

would assume that the 1.8td is the old type of idi diesel and therefore not remapable as such, more likely to be a machanical job.

been away on my holidays, so sorry for the delay. seat remapping, you have a seat ask your local dealer, all i know is that someone on a caravan forum asked about remaps and how safe/good they were as she had been offered one on her new alhambra by the dealer. as for the pd v cr, you are only repeating what i said are you not? trip computer? you seem to think that in standard form these things are accurate? how wrong can you be. updated brakes, now i am all for this, but lets get it in to perspective . 115bhp v 150bhp same car same brakes. please tell me the diffence in stopping distances at 20,30,40,50,60,70,80 ect ect there would not be any. the uprated brakes would help either car and they only become a benefit to the 150 bhp car when it starts to perform in a manor superior to the 115 bhp. remap and compliance to smoke test!!!! i repeat a badly remapped car will be worse a well remaped car will be just as good as stadard. in otherwords it will pass any test and being as the map is solely for your car, unlike the original one and no 2 engines are the same therefore their map has to fit all, your remap is perfect for your car and if not too highly tuned better alround including mpg. [if you recall fords problem with smokers and the need to remap some not all of there tdci] prove the factory map is not the bees knees As for you statement on smokey cars being remaped cars, how do you know for sure? dieselcar mag [now whatdieselcar] was concerned back in 97 about the egr vavle and the shit it chucks into the engine. they are forever going wrong and can be the cause of a smoker. So not everysmoker is down to a remap, and infact as you will know these vag units are prone to it for a variety of reasons.

Actually seat will remap your tdi for you, so you see yes manufactureres will/do do it. INSIDER. If i were you i would get a remap try someone like celtic tunning they come out to you,and use both methods not just exhaust temp type tunning. But lets be honest here do you really expect 30 or 40% more power reliabully? with just a remap? it don't happen, but you can get around 20% more by a decent remapper with out any spikes in your delievery. sk. am surprised to hear the pd unit was one of the first engines to be euro iv? as i was lead to believe that vw had started to use commonrail because the pd system was hard to get to comply? but on the otherhand when you say one of the first! there aint that many different type of diesel platforms so one of the first could also mean second from last? and the trip computer statement! please its pretty inaccurate to start with so alittle more inaccurate anit either here or there. and then there is "your engine will no longer comply" ect... what rubbish, if it passes the smoke test, and they do then it complies.. agree with most everything else, except the trasmission statement, which is partly true and partly wrong.. its not the power[bhp] its the torque and mainly spikes in the map that distroy trasmissions, a good tunner will not distroy your trasmission.

i always use a magnetic screwdriver with a build in extension [like the old pull out ariels] just incase the worse happens....

Dont want to bust your bubble,[25% extra power] but when you say it feels like its got more power well it has, but that does not mean it got an extra 25% at the top. all thats happening is the turbo will be spooling up earlier and with more boost, this will slowly drop of further up the rev range "more smoke" in the short run fine, except now your exhaust will start to become clogged as will your cat, given time and mileage the build up will see an emmissions failure at the mot test, you egr valve will play up as it now gets more soot passed through it,making your engine intself dirtier [wear] So all in all not bad for under 50 quid........ Me i'd pay the 300 odd for a proper REMAP.....

I was under the impression you cannot get a recon turbo,or rather the vnt unit fitted to the vw lump? Something to do with the fact they need balancing and it cannot be done here? If it is indeed a recon? where was it balanced? and where did they get the parts?

I'll see your stake and raise you a basic problem in spelling. It makes no difference to me if you believe me or not. 56 mpg over the last 500 miles. My Skoda Fabia 1.2 doesnt manage much more than 44mpg however your figures keep changing? 52mpg over 8000 miles, then a best of 63 over 800 miles! and now these! Please enlighten me to how you achieved 63mpg over 800 miles? or even how on earth you can claim 52mpg over 8000?. You are right on one issue, no i don't believe your data........

And i,ll stake my 3,000,000 miles in 25 years that some on here have problems with basic arithmatic.

You are indeed entitled to your own opinion, even though i disagree with alot of what you have wrote. BUT "oil pressure below 2000rpm" it is indeed critical that oil pressure is at max before the engines reaches max torque,so fear not you will have max oil pressure by 1500 rpm. as for your 40 mph in 6th, being better or more effiecent than 40mph in 5th, sorry no, unless you are going down a hill and we are talking about proper running not 100 or 200 yards, in favourable conditions but in proper everyday driving.

Your quote "the slower you go in the highest gear gives best mpg" you then state the 40mph in 6th gear giving 53mpg. i assumed this was an example of best? sorry did not mean to shout caught that cap button and forgot to check, sorry again. anyway the vw engine gets going around 1500 rpm this is when its real efficiency starts, max torque is at 1800/1900 rpm although sometimes tests do show max to be as high as 2200rpm. 6th gear is a real overdrive so really is not much use at all untill you get to 1500rpm, which with the gearing being 33mph or 34, cannot remember means its not much use until 50mph. sure it will work below that but its not efficent therefore it drinks a little more fuel than using the more appropriate gear 5th. Not trying to be smart or clever, just stating the obvious....

mumof4 I am assuming this site is here to help owners? So when i say, yet again that 40 mph in 6th is a no no in other words no way in hell that the mpg will be better than being in 5th gear at 40mph. You would rather argue about what is deemed labouring? I am sure you know your car, but alas very little about gearing and torque. also why WOULD YOU WANT TO SHOW PHOTOS OF SPEED AND MPG? as you said you have done it by manual and trip computer, so i am sure like others you have seen how in accurate the trip computer is? so you know these figures are wrong!!!!!!!!!!!