corradostuff 0 Posted February 23, 2007 Hi Guys My 2L valver is still using way too much fuel. I changed the lambda probe a couple of weeks ago and that has helped but its still way off what it should be. With the old lambda I was looking at 15-18MPG, since changing the lambda I get 20-22MPG. I got it up to 23MPG on a 1 hour motorway run so its obviously still using way too much fuel. These readings are off the MFA but I've checked it by measuring miles and gallons used and this is definitely the fuel consumption rate. I was hoping it'd be 30ish especially on the motorway. I think there must be something else as well as the lambda. Any ideas what? I'm a bit stumped. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CorradoVR6-Turbo 0 Posted February 23, 2007 I never though the 1.8 and 2.0 litre where good on fuel at all when i had them,so much so i converted a 1.8 to 2 litre ABF running electronic fuel injection and how much better was that! My VR with turbo has those kind of MPG's! Sounds normal to me... :( Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
corradostuff 0 Posted February 23, 2007 Oh no, don't say that :lol: I need to save money on fuel, not put up with it!! I'm really sure I used to get more like 28 to 30 mpg a few months ago though. Anyone else got any ideas? I'm not ready for engine conversions just yet!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jonnyboyo 0 Posted February 26, 2007 I've no idea what it could be, but i did a test on how many miles i got from £30 of tesco 99 RON doing town driving only on my 1990 1.8 valver with 123k. I managed 195 miles. Only reason i tested was due to a lot of queries on mpg for our old valvers, and remembered someone here said they get 185-200 miles from £30. Seemed optomistic to me hence the test. Unfortunately my mfa reads 99'9 so can't tell you what its registering. Yours does seems thirsty to me though, though i'm far from an expert. I would say that 1.8 and 2.0 are olde technology, hence CorradoVR6 n.o.s much improved mpg with a modern engine of same capacity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
corradostuff 0 Posted February 26, 2007 Hmm interesting. It does seem like the valvers have thirsty engines. Mine's been serviced so should be running well. I think i've got some exhaust problems with a bit of a leak between joints so that might not be helping. I'm going to change the exhaust setup again and see if that makes any difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbluec 0 Posted February 26, 2007 My 90' 1.8 16v on a 70 mile trip on average 15 being on country lanes the rest free flowing dual carriageway! I would get around 260-280 a tank depending on how free flowing the drive was if you get my drift! The worst i ever saw was 240 and that's on an old 12 gallon tank my MFA readings were within +- 2mpg on no.2 setting throughout the tankful. Hope that helps Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
