Rsjvr6 1 Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Hi GuysI was reading one the posts earlier and was surprised to know that a turbo corrado gives better mileage than a Schrick fitted NA golf. So I thought lets start a list of cars with their mods and see what sort of MPG people are getting. It may be a good idea to store this info as at some point we may want to know what mods or setups our fellow VR6ers have on their cars. The MPG will be full tank mpg - so half a tank x2 wont count as that wont be accurate. I will start with my rust bucket. Follow the pattern and feel free to list your info. 1996 GOLF VR6 obd2 - 154000 miles - K&N induction kit, catback Janspeed exhaust - 22 local, 34 highway combined 26. Link to post Share on other sites
craggsy 91 Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 It all depends how you drive it...........as much as i tried in my rotrexed VR i never got it into single figures with MPG.......but very easy in the Turbod R32.But on the other hand i can see 30mpg+ on the R32 if i drive sensibly.I did get 50 mpg on the VR driving down to plymouth the other year as id just put the rotrex on and had to keep it under 3k rpm all th eway there....that was fun as nearly got home on a tank of petrol, oh that was also running a schrick too Link to post Share on other sites
Lukey. 381 Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 isnt turbos making better mpg to do with that off boost they dont make near the power they do on boost? so a 300bhp NA is tuned for that and is making it "all the time" where a turbo off boost is making less power so using less fuel Link to post Share on other sites
craggsy 91 Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 You need less loud pedal with a turbo to get as quick as a NA engine lol Link to post Share on other sites
Rsjvr6 1 Posted January 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 LOL Craggsy I bet that must have killed you, a new supercharger and you had to drive the car under 3K RPM. Thats what you call "dangling the carrot in front of the rabbit" Link to post Share on other sites
FishWick 21 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 I was reading one the posts earlier and was surprised to know that a turbo corrado gives better mileage than a Schrick fitted NA golf. I think what we should say is "a turbo VR6 can give better mileage than a Schrick fitted NA golf." ;-)I don't want to be the cause of false hope, but to be honest turbos should be done for the grunt factor rather than for economy, but they CAN be more economical than NA if well mapped :-)As Craggsy said, it does depend on how hard you drive and what the spec of the engine is, how much boost you run etc etc. It's difficult for us to guage how other's drive too. Some people's definition of granny driving is using full throttle 70% of the time instead of 95% of the time, and others is never using full throttle and changing gear early in the revs etc!Standard VR6s run quite rich at the top end and very little ignition advance, so they're not the most economical of engines to begin with, but to be fair, mid 30s mpg from a 90s 3 litre V6 is actually quite impressive even by today's standards. My mate struggled to top 25mpg average from his MK5 R32 DSG. Then again, it is 1500kg and 400cc bigger engined, lol :-)Anyway, I've been roaming around the countryside for 4 years in a VRT and 27 mpg on average is what I've observed from my own setup, which is combined cruising, boosting and urban crawling. I run 13psi boost, GT35R, short intake, forged piston block, Schimmel Big valve head, standalone etc etc. Unlike you guys, I also have the ability to run as lean as I like and as lean as the engine can bear. I've had 17:1 cruise temps during some mapping experiments. Standard is 3 parts fuel to air richer :-)As the Craggsmeister also said, single figure mpgs is VERY easy to achieve with a turbo at full pelt, but you're not at full boost for long in this country. Plus, all it takes is a quick squirt to get you to silly speeds instead of a sustained lunge at full throttle in a NA VR6. Link to post Share on other sites
Rsjvr6 1 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 Nice one Kev Link to post Share on other sites
Lukey. 381 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 strange really that you can get more from a bigger engine and more cylinders, I had a focus ST with the 300 pack on it, best i ever recorded was 24, ever, worst was 2, couldnt even get an SL55 AMG to read less than 4, my VR6 just with BMC and cat back gives about 27 average on the mfa if i drive a few 30 mile runs to a tank, it will go all the way up to 36 but most town duties returns below 20s on the mfa, i havent filled up and run to empty for ages, been running half tank or less at a time, last time i did i got 290 from full to empty, but my driving style is pretty much i like to overtake, get impatient when held up :-D Link to post Share on other sites
Ben Seabrook 4 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 I got 47mpg in my supercharged vr6 running just under 300bhp but I only did it once !! Link to post Share on other sites
spadam 7 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 Wow so if driven sensibly you can get high mpg frm a supercharged vr6. Better pull my finger out lol Link to post Share on other sites
FishWick 21 Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Don't Focus ST's spool early like 1.8Ts? Quick spooling blowers need more fuel more of the time, but it also depends what AFR they run at in boost. Some run quite lean these days.Don't forget also that VR6s carry 15 gallons. Some cars only carry 10, or 12, so VRs can boost their apparent mpg that way ;-) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts