I'm a mpg kinda guy . Not sure how litres per kms is measured. Is it the lower the number the better? I have button 1 and 2 which should I be looking at for accuracy
![Image]()
Litres per km . Mpg
Rick2022
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
If you consider 30 litres per 100klms versus 5 litres per 100 klms..... which fuel efficiency would you rather have?
So...with lt/100klms the lower the number the more efficient it is.
As for button 1 and 2.
#1 is for fuel consumption since you commenced that journey. This figure resets itself if the car is left idle/locked for an hour or more.
#2 is for consumption avge since this figure was last reset
*note - my knowledge of button 1 & 2 is from my experience with our 2008 R32 which has similar CANBUS dynamics etc as yours (by the look of it).
So...with lt/100klms the lower the number the more efficient it is.
As for button 1 and 2.
#1 is for fuel consumption since you commenced that journey. This figure resets itself if the car is left idle/locked for an hour or more.
#2 is for consumption avge since this figure was last reset
*note - my knowledge of button 1 & 2 is from my experience with our 2008 R32 which has similar CANBUS dynamics etc as yours (by the look of it).
What figures are you getting. I'm not interested in chasing figures or anything
from the Touareg - 4.2ltV8 Twin Turbo - around town, around 8.5 - 9 (mid 7s on highway running) and around 15s with the caravan on across the Nullarbor.
The R32 is around mid 7s on freeway, 10s or higher suburban. Trouble is.... the fuel is (almost) always stale as it is hardly driven - LOL
The R32 is around mid 7s on freeway, 10s or higher suburban. Trouble is.... the fuel is (almost) always stale as it is hardly driven - LOL
V8 twin turbo ? Petrol ?
Dinosaur juice (Diesel)
I was gonna say (petrol) lol where have I been lol so litres per kms on button 2 the lower the number the better
Yep as I said
Doh I get it lol
Using more litres of fuel to achieve 100km
there we go.
I'm gonna have to get creative to drop those figures
It's not a factor for me . I own high powered cars putting fuel doesn't bother me . I want to push boundary's and see what I can do and try and clean up the fuel map at some point to they all run rich from factory
So what? Are you going to go stand alone management or what? Where are your wideband readings or how did you determine that a modern vehicle runs rich from the factory? Under what conditions?
Joined
·
3,362 Posts
Why don’t you change it to display mpg if that’s what you know?
All cars run rich from the factory not by a lot but can be improved. Manufacturers do this to protect the car for different conditions or situations. I will log the car at some point and tune using the original software . That's further down the line. I do have wideband that I can plumb in for tuning and a knock detection device.
I am not a pro tuner. I have done research my friend is a tuner for a profession .
That is a good question. Everyday is a school day in my book I like to learn new things. I moved from the UK which does mpg to nz where's does different measurements which I'm not familiar with and would like to use that
If you can, I'd suggest getting used to liters per 100 km. It and MPG are inverses of each other, meaning one ends up not scaling linearly with fuel consumption. And the loser there is MPG. A 1 MPG improvement going from 20 to 21 MPG, is a lot more fuel saved than a 1 MPG improvement going from 30 to 31 MPG. Whereas a a 1 L/100km improvement is the same amount of fuel savings regardless of whether you started at 5 L/100km or 10 L/100km or 15 L/100km.
MPG does scale linearly with distance traveled. But that's only useful if the way we drove was "I have x gallons of fuel, how far can I drive?" Then MPG would be linear and hence the best way to measure it. But that's not the way people drive (other than race car drivers trying to figure out how long they can go before refueling).
Most people drive with a specific destination in mind. Or in other words, "I have to travel x miles, how much fuel will I burn?" And liters per 100 km ends up the best way for measuring that.
As an example of how scaling linearly matters, say you drove to work in heavy traffic and got 20 MPG. But on the return trip after work there was no traffic and you got 30 MPG. How many MPG did you average for the day? Most people would think it's just (20 + 30) / 2 = 25 MPG. It's not. It's 2/(1/20 + 1/30) = 24 MPG. Because MPG uses gallons as the denominator, it's normalized per gallon. Since you burned more gallons during the morning trip in traffic, the 20 MPG gets weighted more heavily. And your average MPG for the day is 24 MPG not 25 MPG, slightly lower than if you averaged by weighting the two trips equally.
OTOH if you do it in L/100km, 15 L/100km in the morning trip combined with 10 L/100km in the return trip does average out to 12.5 L/100km for the day. It's just more of a mouthful to say than "MPG".
The fixation on MPG has led to some backwards programs. Like the U.S. focusing on turning econoboxes into hybrids. Economy cars were already very fuel efficient (used very little fuel). So making them even more efficient by giving them a hybrid drivetrain (Prius) saves very little additional fuel. If you want the biggest fuel savings, the best place to put a hybrid drivetrain is actually the heavier vehicles with low MPG, like SUVs. But when manufacturers originally tried that, misguided environmentalists criticized the idea and shamed the industry into dropping hybrid SUVs for a decade. If you crunch the numbers, assuming similar miles driven per year, each hybrid SUV sold saves as much fuel as about 2.5 Priuses. Thinking in terms of L/100km will prevent you from making mistakes like this.
2016 TDI Lux, white with beige interior, AND 2016 TDI Lux, black with beige interior
Joined
·
761 Posts
235 is the magic number. Divide it by MPG to get L/100 km. Divide it by L/100 km to get MPG. Best is higher number for distance covered per unit of fuel [MPG] and lower number for amount of fuel used to drive a distance [L/100 km]
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
