Above Forum Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fuel Economy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by qsilverza View Post
    Hmmm,

    Here we go,


    Rear Axle...

    Camber - L 1.40 and -1.27

    Toe 1.9 and 1.9

    total 3.8

    Front Axle

    Castor 0.00 and 0.00

    Camber L - 0.26 and - 0.22

    Toe -0.1 and -0.1

    Tyre pressures are 34 front and 32 rear
    AAAhh! before you said rolling resistance which is very different from rolling diameter. I was wondering where you got resistance values from.

    There's nothing in your alignment figures that would cause excessive fuel consumption.

    The Castor figures look odd though. I would have thought most modern cars would be running at least 3degrees +ve castor. It makes no difference to tyre wear or economy though.

    Front camber looks a fraction conservative - If the adjustment was available I would run more like -0.5 to -1 but if your tyre wear is even then -0.25 is right for your driving style.

    Is that toe-out on the rear? 3.8mm(?) total toe-in seems an awful lot.

    Tyre pressures might go up a fraction but it depends on sidewall flex & how you drive.
    carandimage The place where Off-Topic is On-Topic
    I used to think I was anal-retentive until I started getting involved in car forums

    Comment


    • #17
      Hi, yeh they were quite good sports about changing them. Very happy about that, though I think he should have steered me away from them in the first when I asked what he thought.

      My bad, Yep Rolling diameter

      Still getting slight vibration at speed but otherwise it seems to be a hell of a lot better in nearly every aspect though I haven't pushed hard yet.

      Maybe the vibration is from one of the wheels...


      Originally posted by brad View Post
      AAAhh! before you said rolling resistance which is very different from rolling diameter. I was wondering where you got resistance values from.

      There's nothing in your alignment figures that would cause excessive fuel consumption.

      The Castor figures look odd though. I would have thought most modern cars would be running at least 3degrees +ve castor. It makes no difference to tyre wear or economy though.

      Front camber looks a fraction conservative - If the adjustment was available I would run more like -0.5 to -1 but if your tyre wear is even then -0.25 is right for your driving style.

      Is that toe-out on the rear? 3.8mm(?) total toe-in seems an awful lot.

      Tyre pressures might go up a fraction but it depends on sidewall flex & how you drive.
      Audi B4 80 Q V6'94 Race Car !! KEGGED
      Audi B4 80 V6 Avant'94 Only one in the country that I know of !!! KEGGED
      Subaru Forester XT'06 Genome Exhaust/Car-PC/Boost Gauge/Oettingers !
      --VW Bora V6 4mo'01 Gone

      Comment


      • #18
        weird to have that.

        any issues with the consumption?



        I went from the Dunlop SP200E 175/80 14's (stock 1.6) to Yoko A509 215/65 14's and didn't have any issues (other than it gripped better).

        It's currently sitting on Yoko C drive 215/60 15's. More steering vibration than when it was new but then it's got 110K kms and poly bushes on the front wishbones.


        I've heard of others putting 225/50 16's on stock rims but didn't hear about them having issues.
        Last edited by spritle; 25-08-2008, 12:01 PM. Reason: adding info

        Comment

        Working...
        X