Page 1 of 3
miles per tank part 2
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2003 9:06 pm
by bazza
I posted a message on here about a month ago, about how many miles people get to a full tank of fuel.
Most people said they get about 200 - 220 miles per tank around town.
This last week i have been doing short journeys around town and i only got 163.9 miles to a tank and 15.8 mpg . I havent got a heavy foot and i was driving quite sensible [img]images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].
This sureley cant be right ???
Could there be a sensor fault (e.g. MAF)????
If any one could point me in the right direction it would be very much appreiciated.
The car is slowly bleading me dry [img]images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2003 9:12 pm
by wazza
need to get hooked up to a vag-com, then poss a RR session to check figures. [img]images/graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2003 9:20 pm
by Carps
I reckon there is definitely something wrong there. Even with a few 'exciting' commutes I got at least 220 miles on a tank. Dirving sensibly get 300 miles. On a run (Cornwall) I have had 350.
Definitely need to get hooked up to some diagnostics, although with fuel consumption like that at least you aren't lean [img]images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:27 pm
by fade2grey
MAF or not warming up fully? I get around 24mpg with a heavy foot & get ~ 400 miles on a tank for cruising/80mph.
A
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:27 am
by bazza
if its a MAF, how much are they, and do audi do it under warrenty??
thanks for the replys guys
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:37 am
by wazza
about £230 inc vat
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:03 am
by Nige_RS4
Bazza, apart from poor fuel consumption, do you notice anything wrong with the cars performance i.e. power tails off above 4500rpm, turbo lag in high gears, intermittent high/low boost ?
Difficult to diagnose remotely, but I suggest you get it checked out by someone who knows this car and not just replace components willy-nilly.
BTW, when I first got mine, I was getting <18mpg. 2 BPV's and a MAF later I'm getting 22.5mpg on the DIS and averaging 250miles on a tank.
Nige [img]images/graemlins/thumbs.gif[/img]
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:39 am
by bazza
The car does tail off at around 4500- 4800rpm but i thought that was normal.
Also when its cold it feels a bit jumpy, but when the engine warms up it seems to be ok
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:19 pm
by Joshie
Deffo something wrong mate - I was getting better than that from a modified (400HP) S4.
Have it checked out be someone who knows what they're doing.
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:27 pm
by jeffw
I get 28 mpg on a run and 23-24 around town on the DIS with my 400 BHP S4....agree with Joshie regarding something wrong !
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 7:59 pm
by rwoodward
mmm i doubt its ya MAF. when mine went the power was down but the economy _increased_ i was gettin around 27-29mpg! I could easily get around 23mpg, or about 270miles on a tank, driving enthusiatically.
BTW anyone else normally pull away in 2nd? or am i just mad...
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:18 pm
by jeffw
Mad....
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:30 pm
by fade2grey
aye.. 2nd gear starts.. saves the hassle of changing gears (no Tanoga here) then a nice long drag to the red line [img]images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Umm coolant temp sensor? ie running rich? either way a vag-com or dealer will show any logged errors.
A
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:56 am
by bazza
Thanks for all the input guys.
I think its time for a trip to the dealer [img]images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
Re: miles per tank part 2
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 6:00 pm
by Dippy
I've been trying really hard to get a respectable mpg recently. [img]images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Best I could get it down to was about 22mpg!
Seems to be more efficient since it was serviced by AmD.