Megasquirt economy

[nibaru]

I am a complete novice with this, although I do have a basic understanding of engines, I have very little understanding of the electronics. : I have a 1980 golf mk1 with 1588cc Gti engine (EG) This engine has the first mechanical fuel injection system fitted to a production car? It does not have an ECU, knock sensor, throttle position sensor and only the very basic of cold start systems.

My golf is listed as returning 38.7/30 .4/23.3 although I recently returned 34.5mpg over a motorway run (although with an hour of stop start delays) at 70-85 mph probably with median average of 75mph. The modern equivalent of the golf mk1 (size and weight) would be a polo which returns 68.9/58.9/47.1 (although with a 32% more powerful 12% smaller turbocharged engine!)

This modern engine is 78%/94%/102% more efficient than 27 years ago!

Where I am coming from is how much of this improvement is due to the engine controls?

If I fit a megasquirt system to my old 1980 engine, will this improve mpg and give me the efficiency somewhere near the modern engine?

If so, what would I have to do and what would it cost?

I realise that a chunk of the efficiency will come from the forced induction, does anybody know how much?

If I was to turbocharge my engine, Does anybody have an idea how much it could improve the efficiency? ( I know where there is a turbo kit at the moment)

I would greatly appreciate any comments

(what's an msq and datalog? )

[Spiffy]

No, you will not get as efficient an engine as the new polo.
You can get a MORE fuel efficient engine by running a more advanced engine management system than your old (i assume k-jetronic?) but even all the tuning in the world won't make it as good as a new engine simply because the newer engine is:
-smaller displacement (less fuel required)
-higher compression I assume(more efficient burn)
-more powerful(means the engine doesn't have to work as hard so;less fuel is spent)
Among other things.

The addition of a turbocharger is interesting because it provides a lot of extra air and all that air needs extra fuel to burn(or else kaboom) so in straightline acceleration you would burn alot more fuel but say your going up a hill:
In your small capacity n/a car you'll be revving it up the hill with your gas pedal stuck to floor just to keep a steady speed. So your consuming a lot of gas.
But then you turbocharge the same car and now you find that if you put the pedal to the floor you're accelerating and going too fast so you easy of the throttle and are maybe at just 45% throttle and at 2000rpms instead of 4000 like before.
This i think uses less fuel then the first scenario. Then again I might be wrong.

But more power means you can get faster up to cruising speed also so on a longer trip this might save you some. It's an interesting topic this

Sent fra min HUAWEI VNS-L31 via Tapatalk

[EspeNS]

I guess the new Polo also is a TFSI?
In some ways the direct injected turbocharged engine is more comparable to a diesel engine than to a traditionally gas engine like the one you have in your Golf.
A TFSI can safely run lean on part throttle with boost, while your Golf would end with holes in the pistons if you try that for more than a very very short time.

[DaveEFI]

I'd be very wary about taking official MPG figures and compare with what you get yourself in real world driving. They are more a way of comparing MPG figures from different cars under lab conditions.

You might find a road test of the Polo in a decent mag and see what MPG they got from it in practice.