Nope, never heard. Google might know something.


In general, an engine needs to be fed a certain amount of gasoline and
air mixture for it to operate properly. If everything is in good shape,
it is very difficult to reduce consumption without risking something..
first thing that comes to mind is eliminating the auto choke, and
jetting the carb lean. Missing choke causes accelerated wear and if you
pump the gas pedal when the engine is cold to keep it running, you win
nothing. Running the engine lean will eventually cause engine breakdown,
as well as poor performance from the beginning. (You end up pushing the
pedal in deeper, especially to compensate for the take-off "bog", and
thus you both make the ill effects worse, AND use more fuel too.. so no
savings there)

The VW aircooled engine just isn't a particularly economical engine to
drive. It's old technology, and for a car that size & weight, the fuel
consumption is horrible compared to today's technology.

But low fuel consumption is NOT why you would buy an old beetle anyway,
is it? If that's what you are after, buy a diesel Lupo.

The hands down winner in the list of tricks to reduce fuel consumption
is the easiest too. Keep your foot out of it.



Jan


Paul Regal wrote:
>
> Thanks Jan and Speedy Jim
> Have either of you ever heard of or seen these carb before please?
>
> The 100 MPG Carburetor Myth
>
> "Paul Regal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Has anyone ever setup a VW Bug for High Mileage?
> > I have a 68 Bug..wanna set it up for HIGHER Mileage
> > any setups or carbs available anywhere?
> > Thanks
> > Paul
> >

In article >,
"Tim Rogers" > wrote:

> Even then, you'll have trouble getting
> 30 mpg unless everything is perfect.

My 1961 stock 1200 28 PICT setup gets about 38 MPG... so the older 40 HP
and earlier motors weren't bad at all... That's 38 miles per IMPERIAL
gallon by the way... I guess if you meant miles per US gallon, then it's
a bit lower at 32 MPG if I do the conversion.

--
___
|___| '61 - VW
(o\_|_/o) Bug! ALEA -- 35.9 BHP and not a bit more!
_U_____U_

"Red Bug" > wrote in message
...
>
> My 1961 stock 1200 28 PICT setup gets about 38 MPG... so the older 40 HP
> and earlier motors weren't bad at all... That's 38 miles per IMPERIAL
> gallon by the way... I guess if you meant miles per US gallon, then it's
> a bit lower at 32 MPG if I do the conversion.
>
>

.................How fast do you drive, on average? I've heard more than once
that the 1300 in '66 is the best running and most economical bug of them
all. Right Howard?

From memories of Mobile runs the routine goes like this 1.Raise tire
pressures(45# sounds right) 2.Smaller jets in
carb.3.Remove excess from trunk(tools,bodies,ect.)4.Stronger spring on
throttle linkage.5.Light weight oil in crankcase .There are a lot more silly
things that they would do also but that should get you enough trouble for
now.Even the best ACVW is a gas guzzler by todays standards.Domestic
Pick-em-ups get better mileage care of EFI and computers.Frankly, the way
you drive has more to do with mileage than anything.
"Jan Andersson" > wrote in message
...
> Nope, never heard. Google might know something.
>
>
> In general, an engine needs to be fed a certain amount of gasoline and
> air mixture for it to operate properly. If everything is in good shape,
> it is very difficult to reduce consumption without risking something..
> first thing that comes to mind is eliminating the auto choke, and
> jetting the carb lean. Missing choke causes accelerated wear and if you
> pump the gas pedal when the engine is cold to keep it running, you win
> nothing. Running the engine lean will eventually cause engine breakdown,
> as well as poor performance from the beginning. (You end up pushing the
> pedal in deeper, especially to compensate for the take-off "bog", and
> thus you both make the ill effects worse, AND use more fuel too.. so no
> savings there)
>
> The VW aircooled engine just isn't a particularly economical engine to
> drive. It's old technology, and for a car that size & weight, the fuel
> consumption is horrible compared to today's technology.
>
> But low fuel consumption is NOT why you would buy an old beetle anyway,
> is it? If that's what you are after, buy a diesel Lupo.
>
> The hands down winner in the list of tricks to reduce fuel consumption
> is the easiest too. Keep your foot out of it.
>
>
>
> Jan
>
>
> Paul Regal wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Jan and Speedy Jim
>> Have either of you ever heard of or seen these carb before please?
>>
>> The 100 MPG Carburetor Myth
>>
>> "Paul Regal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Has anyone ever setup a VW Bug for High Mileage?
>> > I have a 68 Bug..wanna set it up for HIGHER Mileage
>> > any setups or carbs available anywhere?
>> > Thanks
>> > Paul
>> >

http://www.southernvolksfolks.com/tech/46mpg.html

cant remember which way round it works but US gallon and UK Gallon are
different ammounts so dont know how good 46mpg is !

The above link shows and article on high mgp attempt.

Rich

ilambert wrote:

> From memories of Mobile runs the routine goes like this 1.Raise tire
> pressures(45# sounds right) 2.Smaller jets in
> carb.3.Remove excess from trunk(tools,bodies,ect.)4.Stronger spring on
> throttle linkage.5.Light weight oil in crankcase .There are a lot more silly
> things that they would do also but that should get you enough trouble for
> now.Even the best ACVW is a gas guzzler by todays standards.Domestic
> Pick-em-ups get better mileage care of EFI and computers.Frankly, the way
> you drive has more to do with mileage than anything.
> "Jan Andersson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Nope, never heard. Google might know something.
>>
>>
>>In general, an engine needs to be fed a certain amount of gasoline and
>>air mixture for it to operate properly. If everything is in good shape,
>>it is very difficult to reduce consumption without risking something..
>>first thing that comes to mind is eliminating the auto choke, and
>>jetting the carb lean. Missing choke causes accelerated wear and if you
>>pump the gas pedal when the engine is cold to keep it running, you win
>>nothing. Running the engine lean will eventually cause engine breakdown,
>>as well as poor performance from the beginning. (You end up pushing the
>>pedal in deeper, especially to compensate for the take-off "bog", and
>>thus you both make the ill effects worse, AND use more fuel too.. so no
>>savings there)
>>
>>The VW aircooled engine just isn't a particularly economical engine to
>>drive. It's old technology, and for a car that size & weight, the fuel
>>consumption is horrible compared to today's technology.
>>
>>But low fuel consumption is NOT why you would buy an old beetle anyway,
>>is it? If that's what you are after, buy a diesel Lupo.
>>
>>The hands down winner in the list of tricks to reduce fuel consumption
>>is the easiest too. Keep your foot out of it.
>>
>>
>>
>>Jan
>>
>>
>>Paul Regal wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks Jan and Speedy Jim
>>>Have either of you ever heard of or seen these carb before please?
>>>
>>> The 100 MPG Carburetor Myth
>>>
>>>"Paul Regal" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>>Has anyone ever setup a VW Bug for High Mileage?
>>>>I have a 68 Bug..wanna set it up for HIGHER Mileage
>>>>any setups or carbs available anywhere?
>>>>Thanks
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>
>
>

In article >,
tricky > wrote:

> cant remember which way round it works but US gallon and UK Gallon are
> different ammounts so dont know how good 46mpg is !

The change is quite significant... 46 miles per imperial gallon converts
to 38.3 miles per US gallon.

There are only 0.833 imperial gallons in a US gallon. Canada uses the
imperial gallon.

Not sure of the history behind this... I'd have to Google it... but the
solution is rather obvious... METRIC SYSTEM!

--
___
|___| '61 - VW
(o\_|_/o) Bug! ALEA -- 35.9 BHP and not a bit more!
_U_____U_

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:12:00 GMT, tricky >
wrote:

>http://www.southernvolksfolks.com/tech/46mpg.html
>
>cant remember which way round it works but US gallon and UK Gallon are
>different ammounts so dont know how good 46mpg is !
>
>The above link shows and article on high mgp attempt.

1 UK gallon is 4.55 litres.
1 US gallon is 3.79 litres.

--
Howard Rose
1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe
1962 Austin Mini Deluxe
1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe
http://www.howard81.co.uk/ (cars on website)

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:03:44 GMT, Red Bug > wrote:

>In article >,
> tricky > wrote:
>
>> cant remember which way round it works but US gallon and UK Gallon are
>> different ammounts so dont know how good 46mpg is !
>
>The change is quite significant... 46 miles per imperial gallon converts
>to 38.3 miles per US gallon.
>
>There are only 0.833 imperial gallons in a US gallon. Canada uses the
>imperial gallon.
>
>Not sure of the history behind this... I'd have to Google it... but the
>solution is rather obvious... METRIC SYSTEM!

I can never remember which is the metric one - US or UK? I always
prefer to use litres to avoid confusion :-)

--
Howard Rose
1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe
1962 Austin Mini Deluxe
1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe
http://www.howard81.co.uk/ (cars on website)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:12:02 GMT, Red Bug > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Tim Rogers" > wrote:
>
>> Even then, you'll have trouble getting
>> 30 mpg unless everything is perfect.
>
>My 1961 stock 1200 28 PICT setup gets about 38 MPG... so the older 40 HP
>and earlier motors weren't bad at all... That's 38 miles per IMPERIAL
>gallon by the way... I guess if you meant miles per US gallon, then it's
>a bit lower at 32 MPG if I do the conversion.

With my stock 1300, I get about 31 miles per UK gallon... Bang on the
original performance figures, in fact!

--
Howard Rose
1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe
1962 Austin Mini Deluxe
1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe
http://www.howard81.co.uk/ (cars on website)

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:58:29 +0000, Howard Rose
> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:12:02 GMT, Red Bug > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Tim Rogers" > wrote:
>>
>>> Even then, you'll have trouble getting
>>> 30 mpg unless everything is perfect.
>>
>> My 1961 stock 1200 28 PICT setup gets about 38 MPG... so the older 40 HP
>> and earlier motors weren't bad at all... That's 38 miles per IMPERIAL
>> gallon by the way... I guess if you meant miles per US gallon, then it's
>> a bit lower at 32 MPG if I do the conversion.
>
> With my stock 1300, I get about 31 miles per UK gallon... Bang on the
> original performance figures, in fact!

The stock 1600 in my winter Baja gets 29-33 mpg. The exhaust and a
compufire are the only non-stock components. 7.7:1 CR at 7500'.

Max
--
http:/www.MaxWelton.net/