DJ code WBX torque peak is at 2700 rpm. MV is not far from that, although I don't remember exactly. 

Chris.

Wysłane z iPhone'a

Dnia Mar 25, 2012 o godz. 16:37 Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM> napisał(a):

> While the waterboxer has a good amount of torque at low rpms, if I remember correctly, it's maximum torque is around 4000 rpms. VW's Inline 4 (2.0 liter) maximum torque (again from memory) is somewhere north of 5000 rpms (5800?)
> 
> (I'm not doing the internet research to back up my memory, since I'm on a slow connection.)
> 
> 
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Don Hanson wrote:
> 
>> Anecdotal: No real data or statistics other than 60k mile of personal
>> experience with a 5sp inline VW powered 2wd.
>> 
>>  I always get better gas mileage when I run at a higher RPM and a lower
>> gear unless I am running on a freeway at a sustained speed that demands top
>> gear.......When I do extended logging road cruising or off road backroads,
>> or even go through the mountains at high elevations, I normally gear down
>> and run my ABA 2.0 liter motor at around 3500rpms in whatever gear gives me
>> a reasonably safe speed...without lugging the motor.  If my rpms drop to
>> below about 2800rpm, I select my next lower gear, or when I come to a
>> corner or a hill that I know will slow me dramatically on exit...I shift
>> down, rather than waiting till I 'find it won't maintain speed' and then
>> shift down.
>> I think keeping in the range of rpms where the engineers designed the motor
>> to make it's best power, that is where you will be most economical with
>> fuel consumption.
>> 
>> I understand the WBX motor was designed to run at lower rpms....so I am
>> sure it works better there..the inline VW I have seems to be best between
>> 3500 and 4500...maybe 5000, so that is where I drive it and my gas
>> consumption goes down if I let the revs fall...  And as Frank said, lugging
>> a small engine with a big load is NOT a good plan unless it was built to do
>> that, and Jetta motors were not.
>> Don Hanson