# Fuel Efficiency Upgrades for 3.6L VR6



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

As there’s not much out there for us yet, tunes included, curious if anyone has thrown anything on from the old R32 or Passat VR parts bin to help with fuel efficiency. If so, post up what you did, cost, and your before and after average mpg. As nice as these things ride it sure would be nice to be consistently in the low-mid 20’s.


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

Savvv said:


> As there’s not much out there for us yet, tunes included, curious if anyone has thrown anything on from the old R32 or Passat VR parts bin to help with fuel efficiency. If so, post up what you did, cost, and your before and after average mpg. As nice as these things ride it sure would be nice to be consistently in the low-mid 20’s.


I’m working on something...give me a few weeks and I’ll post some data...good or bad.


----------



## MK7_JSW (Jun 10, 2015)

Best mod is smooth driving style. Not trying to be snide but my rental Atlas 3.6 got 26mpg (albeit 95% highway miles) I was scared that being such a large heavy SUV i was really going to feel the pain in my wallet during my 2700 mile round trip but it ate less gas then i was anticipating. I have all the gas receipts and the car got 400-420 miles pretty consistent on a tank filling it up 14-15 gallons of 87


----------



## s12dxer (Dec 10, 2018)

MK7_JSW said:


> Best mod is smooth driving style. Not trying to be snide but my rental Atlas 3.6 got 26mpg (albeit 95% highway miles) I was scared that being such a large heavy SUV i was really going to feel the pain in my wallet during my 2700 mile round trip but it ate less gas then i was anticipating. I have all the gas receipts and the car got 400-420 miles pretty consistent on a tank filling it up 14-15 gallons of 87


I agree, smooth driving, and highway driving seem to yield best economy results with the V6. I normally drive in “normal” mode on the highway and are getting between 23 and 26 depending on size of hills, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

If we are going to post about smooth driving then we might as well say “do a 2.0T swap.” Understood, but alas, I’m more interested in results from upgrades people have done than how light their feet are.


----------



## Andre VW (Dec 12, 2018)

If you are brave. Remove catalytic converter and replace with plain pipe. Instant large MPG and horsepower gain. With stock muffler setup, may not be loud.

Havent peeked under to see how the cats are laid out on this car. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pnvwfun (Jan 22, 2018)

I put in a K&N filter and the improvement is noticable. I posted my milage on a filter post. The 300 mile trip includes a mountain pass and other steep elevation changes. We normally get 21-23 mpg, but we got 25.6 going, 24.2 returning at 65 mph average speed each way. I made the trip again yesterday and got 26.1 mpg going, average speed 69 mph.

My last tank of gas for normal driving around town for 350 miles with a mixture of city and highway driving had a 23.0 mpg average. That is 1.5 mpg better than normal. 

I attribute this to improved airflow.


----------



## *DesertFox* (Sep 26, 2017)

If you can get about 8% better gas mileage by upgrading an air filter to improve air flow why aren't all auto manufacturers using them.


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

*DesertFox* said:


> If you can get about 8% better gas mileage by upgrading an air filter to improve air flow why aren't all auto manufacturers using them.


More flow usually means less filtering which equals more wear. Back in the day I ran around town with twin sidedrafts on my Toyota...guess what...no filters, not even coarse filters.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Long term before and after mpg data will indicate that a K&N does little-to-nothing in the mpg dept. As I have said (and someone said above) in other treads on this subject, if VW could do something as simple as improve mpg though a higher-flow filter, they would do it. A few tanks/trips does not substantiate the claim....so many other factors could be at play. I hvae run one since nearly new and see nothing. I run them for 1) noise and 2) washability.


----------



## knedrgr (Jun 6, 2011)

KarstGeo said:


> Long term before and after mpg data will indicate that a K&N does little-to-nothing in the mpg dept. As I have said (and someone said above) in other treads on this subject, if VW could do something as simple as improve mpg though a higher-flow filter, they would do it. A few tanks/trips does not substantiate the claim....so many other factors could be at play. I hvae run one since nearly new and see nothing. I run them for 1) noise and 2) washability.


I can also confirm this as well. Didn't notice the bump in MPG with the K&N drop in.


----------



## Sugar Bear (Jul 17, 2016)

lightweight wheels
remove spare
change out stock exhaust


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> Long term before and after mpg data will indicate that a K&N does little-to-nothing in the mpg dept. As I have said (and someone said above) in other treads on this subject, if VW could do something as simple as improve mpg though a higher-flow filter, they would do it. A few tanks/trips does not substantiate the claim....so many other factors could be at play. I hvae run one since nearly new and see nothing. I run them for 1) noise and 2) washability.


One thing to consider though is that aftermarket filters such as the K&N brand typically need oiled to be effective, and oil in the filter has potential of dirtying the element of the MAF, which then throws off the readings and negatively affects A/F. 

I may look into building my own custom intake soon rather than do a drop-in filter. It’ll be a 6” round filter attached to an engineered velocity stack.


----------



## Sugar Bear (Jul 17, 2016)

Why 6"? The stock is 3.5"


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Savvv said:


> One thing to consider though is that aftermarket filters such as the K&N brand typically need oiled to be effective, and oil in the filter has potential of dirtying the element of the MAF, which then throws off the readings and negatively affects A/F.
> 
> I may look into building my own custom intake soon rather than do a drop-in filter. It’ll be a 6” round filter attached to an engineered velocity stack.


I will argue that is not true and basically an urban legend. The amount of air flow to have oil come off isn't going to happen in this vehicle.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> I will argue that is not true and basically an urban legend. The amount of air flow to have oil come off isn't going to happen in this vehicle.


You are assuming that the filter isn’t being over oiled.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

https://youtu.be/gE6moItrZNg

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Andre VW (Dec 12, 2018)

If one is really worried about MAF sensor, just run a cleanup with a couple sprays of MAF cleaner every oil change, if it helps one sleep at night. Add it to your maintenance regimen. MAF sensor is nothing other than fancy dangling wires that respond electrically to change in airflow. 

I will note that looking at the filter area and piping size of the 3.6L VR6 versus my current rental Durango with a 3.6L V6, the Durango is larger and texhnically able to flow more. Not sure if that means the Atlas induction setup is undersized or the Durango V6 is oversized.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> https://youtu.be/gE6moItrZNg


I stand corrected. Unfortunately I was one of those consumers at a much younger age that had a dealer telling me my intake filter screwed up the MAF.


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

Andre VW said:


> I will note that looking at the filter area and piping size of the 3.6L VR6 versus my current rental Durango with a 3.6L V6, the Durango is larger and texhnically able to flow more. Not sure if that means the Atlas induction setup is undersized or the Durango V6 is oversized.


The restriction for the Atlas is probably the throttle body itself which is 74mm and might be smaller than that on the Durango.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Savvv said:


> I stand corrected. Unfortunately I was one of those consumers at a much younger age that had a dealer telling me my intake filter screwed up the MAF.


It's just one of those things IMHO that has spread as a absolute truth..."K&Ns goof your MAF" - I've had a MAF go bad multiple times on my old MK4 Jetta, no K&N in that car. I think that video is v. good w/r to this issue. It was a way to get out of fixing things by dealers really for a part that just went bad sometimes. If I ever had a vehicle with a bad MAF and a K&N I would K&N to it what they have said and send it to them for testing/reimbursement if it was truly related to the filter. I've cleaned/re-oiled K&Ns plenty of times, it's not hard and you really don't need a ton of oil.


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

I’ve got parts on order for an intake. So far have about $200 invested. All that will remain is creating a bracket that holds the MAF to the battery box.


----------



## Andre VW (Dec 12, 2018)

bajan01 said:


> The restriction for the Atlas is probably the throttle body itself which is 74mm and might be smaller than that on the Durango.


Interesting perspective. Possible the restriction in quest for more power is the TB bore or the MAF assembly bore. However the Stock Durango 3.6L TB bore is also 74mm and makes 17 more HP than ATlas. So 74mm for the Atlas is sized OK. The Durango does not use a MAF sensor but a MAP so no potential bottleneck there. 

On the Atlas for now, the Filter area and intake piping size seem to be only knobs can turn to free up any restriction without touching TB or MAF assembly bore (calibration).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

.


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

Andre VW said:


> Interesting perspective. Possible the restriction in quest for more power is the TB bore or the MAF assembly bore. However the Stock Durango 3.6L TB bore is also 74mm and makes 17 more HP than ATlas. So 74mm for the Atlas is sized OK. The Durango does not use a MAF sensor but a MAP so no potential bottleneck there.
> 
> On the Atlas for now, the Filter area and intake piping size seem to be only knobs can turn to free up any restriction without touching TB or MAF assembly bore (calibration).


The inner diameter of the Atlas’ MAF housing is about 86mm. With the fins in there and all it might still have an effective inner diameter bigger than 74mm but if not there would be some restriction there too.



















The outer diameter of the housing is about 92mm (just over 3.6”) so you could run a 3.5” filter and intake tubing all the way to the throttle body and reduce down to 3.25” at the throttle body (OD of Factory TB is about 3.35” but you should be able to squeeze a 3.5”-3.25” reducer on there). Ideally we need a larger throttle body to negate the restriction caused by the butterfly and shaft inside the throttle body but then the restriction becomes the opening to the intake plenum which is 77mm. 










If you remove the throttle body and look at the way the plenum opening is designed to hold the oring, you’ll see that there isn’t an easy way to open that up. It’s not impossible to increase the area there just not as easy as people would want it to be.


----------



## Andre VW (Dec 12, 2018)

Thank you for the detailed measurements Saavv (edit Bajan).

Sounds like the intake and piping needs youve provided to maximize airflow are the way to go for now. 

If you dont mind, please share your list of parts that you ended up going with for your intake. I would very much be interested on the choices you made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

Andre VW said:


> Thank you for the detailed measurements Saavv.
> 
> Sounds like the intake and piping needs youve provided to maximize airflow are the way to go for now.
> 
> ...


I wasn’t the one who posted the measurements above haha. But, the plan is that once I have this built and see how it works, it’d be a case of go to this site and buy these parts, and then I’d just have to make you a bracket to hold up the MAF.


----------



## Icantdrive65 (Nov 8, 2001)

KarstGeo said:


> I will argue that is not true and basically an urban legend. The amount of air flow to have oil come off isn't going to happen in this vehicle.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I ran an oiled air filter on my 97 Jetta 2.0 and it did foul the MAF. I was able to clean the oil/dirt off with some solvent and it worked fine after that. I may have over-oiled it.


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

Icantdrive65 said:


> I ran an oiled air filter on my 97 Jetta 2.0 and it did foul the MAF. I was able to clean the oil/dirt off with some solvent and it worked fine after that. I may have over-oiled it.


I have run oil based filters on all of my MAF based VWs and never had any problems.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

Low rolling resistance tires. Iiirc, the stock Continental CrossContacts's are not designed with Continentals EcoPlus technology.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Icantdrive65 said:


> I ran an oiled air filter on my 97 Jetta 2.0 and it did foul the MAF. I was able to clean the oil/dirt off with some solvent and it worked fine after that. I may have over-oiled it.


It's also possible that you had a bad seal around the filter so dirt etc. was getting by. It's also possible this was completely un-related to the filter. How do you know this wasn't caused by something else? Not sure about the '97 but did it have some way where the PCV was somehow related?


----------



## Andre VW (Dec 12, 2018)

KarstGeo said:


> It's also possible that you had a bad seal around the filter so dirt etc. was getting by. It's also possible this was completely un-related to the filter. How do you know this wasn't caused by something else? Not sure about the '97 but did it have some way where the PCV was somehow related?


Saw your GSW oil analysis on bitog. Nice seeing low silicon and no solubles showing good filtration with the K&N. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Icantdrive65 (Nov 8, 2001)

KarstGeo said:


> It's also possible that you had a bad seal around the filter so dirt etc. was getting by. It's also possible this was completely un-related to the filter. How do you know this wasn't caused by something else? Not sure about the '97 but did it have some way where the PCV was somehow related?


The filter had a round hole that was a very tight fit over the intake tube. A hose clamp held it in place. The MAF was about 6-10" down the pipe from the filter. The PCV had a separate small cone filter. That was kind of a weird setup.

The throttle body got gunked up too. It finally wouldn't idle. OBDII said I needed a new ICV which was integrated into the throttle body. I opened it up and found oily dirt there. Cleaned it up and it idled fine after that.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Andre VW said:


> Saw your GSW oil analysis on bitog. Nice seeing low silicon and no solubles showing good filtration with the K&N.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Me too, it's nice to see some vindication for all the "OH MY GOD K&N WILL RUIN YOUR ENGINE OH MY GOD OH MY GOD" crew


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

My intake parts showed up yesterday and today. Here they are installed:




























Under normal driving conditions you’d never notice it’s there. Not until you go WOT and get up above 3-3500rpm does the lovely VR gurgle kick in. Can’t tell a difference in power from the butt dyno but I also wasn’t going WOT on stock intake right before I swapped it. I may get skippy and run some data logs and see what the MAF is reading. 

I will also report back after some normal driving what the fuel consumption change is, if any. 

I’ve got $190ish into this setup right now. The main part of it that is designed to be better than most intakes on the market is the BPI velocity stack. Big K&N air filter clamps to it. The rest are silicone parts and clamps. 

 https://www.bpi-us.com/product-page/copy-of-bpi-3-5-89mm-flow-stack

https://www.bpi-us.com/product-page/k-n-air-filter-rf-1048

Go to siliconeintakes.com and look for:

3.5” to 3.25” reducer
3.5” 90° elbow
3.5” 45° elbow
3.5” stainless joiner pipe
(1) 3.5” worm gear clamp
(5) 3.75” worm gear clamps

This literally took me 10 min to install. First take the 2 torx screws loose for the intake plenum at the top of the radiator support and set it aside. Unclip the MAF, and loosen the clamp on the throttle body. Pull up the whole assembly, there are (3) rubber grommet tabs holding the air box down to the battery box. With that out of the way, start putting the new pieces on. When complete put the intake plenum back on so you still get the ram air affect at the filter.


----------



## SunDevilDrake (Mar 21, 2009)

Very nice setup! I just installed the drop in K&N but too soon to see results. Although the placebo effect sure is nice at WOT but probably not as much as your CAI. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

Savvv said:


> My intake parts showed up yesterday and today. Here they are installed:


Looks good but you could trim back one of the silicone hoses a bit to get the filter off of that plastic piece...unless by moving it back it hits somewhere else. 

There is a trick to making a clean cut on a silicone hose...you simply tighten down a hose clamp on it and use the edge of the hose clamp as a guide. This produces very clean cuts, assuming that you use a sharp blade.

Here are some pics from some custom work on my SQ5:





































For the Atlas, I actually purchased the aFe intake box and will put the Atlas on the dyno for some real world before and after numbers...hopefully in the next few weeks.


----------



## Andre VW (Dec 12, 2018)

bajan01 said:


> For the Atlas, I actually purchased the aFe intake box and will put the Atlas on the dyno for some real world before and after numbers...hopefully in the next few weeks.


Oil or non oiled filter? Noticed they have 2 seperate hp figures depending on filter type yet the cfm flow was the roughly the same (and of course out flows the stock).

Good luck with results. Hope it shows good response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Great looking DIY intake! Very professional looking. The only issue to me with this in terms of the thread's title of fuel efficiency is heat soak - any short-ram intake with an exposed filter under the hood is not going to match the factory CAI in terms of intake temps. I bet it sounds good!


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> Great looking DIY intake! Very professional looking. The only issue to me with this in terms of the thread's title of fuel efficiency is heat soak - any short-ram intake with an exposed filter under the hood is not going to match the factory CAI in terms of intake temps. I bet it sounds good!


I’ll add intake air temp to the data log list. Keep in mind that driving at full throttle at highway speeds, air is constantly being pushed through the engine bay. Plus the filter is right at the outlet of the ram air plastic piece. Might not be much of a difference. I’m hoping the big velocity stack overcomes it anyways.


----------



## Andre VW (Dec 12, 2018)

Savvv said:


> I’ll add intake air temp to the data log list. Keep in mind that driving at full throttle at highway speeds, air is constantly being pushed through the engine bay. Plus the filter is right at the outlet of the ram air plastic piece. Might not be much of a difference. I’m hoping the big velocity stack overcomes it anyways.


Nice intake and thanks for showing all the pieces you needed to put it together. Im with you in That velocity stack should help with straightening flow and minimizing pressure drop across the filter.

Didnt you mention you may need a bracket for the MAF? Does that still apply? Any details on that?

Really considering an intake now in the future and its between your setup or an AFe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

Andre VW said:


> Oil or non oiled filter? Noticed they have 2 seperate hp figures depending on filter type yet the cfm flow was the roughly the same (and of course out flows the stock).
> 
> Good luck with results. Hope it shows good response.


I went with the oiled. 

I do agree that once you are moving at a significant speed there is probably enough air moving through to keep things at decent temps. Perhaps taking some temp readings at speed with and without the airbox would confirm this.


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

Andre VW said:


> Nice intake and thanks for showing all the pieces you needed to put it together. Im with you in That velocity stack should help with straightening flow and minimizing pressure drop across the filter.
> 
> Didnt you mention you may need a bracket for the MAF? Does that still apply? Any details on that?
> 
> Really considering an intake now in the future and its between your setup or an AFe.


You’re welcome! Doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of options available yet for something over a year old that uses an engine that’s been around for decades. 

Might still need a bracket, although the MAF isn’t exactly where I figured it would sit. The stainless joiner pipe could be a little longer to get the 90 closer to the battery box. All in all the entire system sits snug. I’m thinking the bracket isn’t 100% necessary but I’ll see if I can make something work. 



bajan01 said:


> I do agree that once you are moving at a significant speed there is probably enough air moving through to keep things at decent temps. Perhaps taking some temp readings at speed with and without the airbox would confirm this.


Keep in mind too that the plastic plenum piece has a “trap door” on the passenger side that is normally closed but I think once enough air velocity is moving through the front grill it pushes it open to cool the engine bay.


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

Savvv said:


> Keep in mind too that the plastic plenum piece has a “trap door” on the passenger side that is normally closed but I think once enough air velocity is moving through the front grill it pushes it open to cool the engine bay.


Yes, with the hood open you can lift up the flaps and get an idea that it doesn’t take much airflow to open them up.


----------



## Sugar Bear (Jul 17, 2016)

Sav did you not see the other intake thread? We already did this spending only $35


----------



## Pnvwfun (Jan 22, 2018)

bajan01 said:


> Yes, with the hood open you can lift up the flaps and get an idea that it doesn’t take much airflow to open them up.


My flapper door fell off some time ago, and I have no idea where it went. Since my mileage has gotten better with the drop-in filter, maybe it isn't even necessary.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Pnvwfun said:


> My flapper door fell off some time ago, and I have no idea where it went. Since my mileage has gotten better with the drop-in filter, maybe it isn't even necessary.


It's sitting on your belly pan...mine did the same thing..ahhahaha


----------



## SunDevilDrake (Mar 21, 2009)

Results after K&N drop in:
Highway: 25.2 mpg at ~65mph (first 90 miles)
Interstate: 23.1 mph at ~82mph (last 300 miles)

Drive was from Phoenix to San Diego in the middle of Summer so the AC was on the entire ride. 3000 foot elevation gain to mile 275. 3500 foot elevation loss from mile 275 to 390. 

Didn't run it with the stock Mahle filter long enough to see what the difference was between the two. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

Sugar Bear said:


> Sav did you not see the other intake thread? We already did this spending only $35


I did not haha. Link? And this thread is meant for more than just an intake. Anything you can do to squeeze the em pee geez


----------



## Sugar Bear (Jul 17, 2016)

https://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?9309027-Made-an-intake-to-get-that-VR6-sound

and yes that vr6 chug above 2800 rpms makes the atlas sound great! it just sucks with an 7spd, it shifts waay too fast to hear much unless you mess with manual mode.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

SunDevilDrake said:


> Results after K&N drop in:
> Highway: 25.2 mpg at ~65mph (first 90 miles)
> Interstate: 23.1 mph at ~82mph (last 300 miles)
> 
> ...


It would have been the same.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## SunDevilDrake (Mar 21, 2009)

Thought so, although was hoping for a 2-3% increase with the hills and the AC. At least it sounds better when accelerating and gives me some butt Dyno HP (Sarcasm). Placebo effect of course. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

SunDevilDrake said:


> Thought so, although was hoping for a 2-3% increase with the hills and the AC. At least it sounds better when accelerating and gives me some butt Dyno HP (Sarcasm). Placebo effect of course. Lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Think about it - if VW could nab 2-3% increase in mpgs with a higher-flow filter, they would.


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> Think about it - if VW could nab 2-3% increase in mpgs with a higher-flow filter, they would.


Not necessarily true. Every Unitronic tune I’ve ever done has netted roughly 3mpg increase in fuel economy simply from software. There’s probably good reason we have what we have and it’s not always because that was the peak of engineering ability. More than likely it’s $$


----------



## SunDevilDrake (Mar 21, 2009)

1138 miles round trip. Mix of highway (65mph), interstate (75), and city driving. Net MPG for this trip was 22.2 mpg with the drop K&N. Side note, we made 7 stops combined both ways (gas/food/bathroom/border patrol). Also, I don't have a light foot and usually average 7-10 over the speed limit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Savvv said:


> Not necessarily true. Every Unitronic tune I’ve ever done has netted roughly 3mpg increase in fuel economy simply from software. There’s probably good reason we have what we have and it’s not always because that was the peak of engineering ability. More than likely it’s $$


I too have a Unitronic tune on a VW (my Golf Sportwagen) and have seen a *slight* bump in highway-only mpgs. Overall mpgs are down as the around-town mpgs dropped a bit mainly from more aggressive driving on my part - and it makes sense, you aren't going to add ~80hp and improve overall mpgs, just not logical. The OEM is doing their best to give you the best mpgs, drivability, power, and engine longevity all in one package. So yes, you can do things to improve the mpgs a little but you also (IMHO) are losing something somewhere else.

From Unitronic's site for my tune:

"Optimized timing and injection under cruising condition for an improved fuel efficiency."

I have to believe if VW could have done this they would have (just programming so free to them) so it leads me to believe that whatever give you this with their tune is also tied to somethign that conversely dings mpgs somewhere else in the powerband.


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> Overall mpgs are down as the around-town mpgs dropped a bit mainly from more aggressive driving on my part


You could have stopped right there. Improvements in the software ultimately mean the engine is making power more efficiently. In other words, if it took 100% to get 200hp, it takes less engine load to get 200hp with the tune. This is why people get better fuel economy with the tune. Your quote above is the only reason they won’t. I’ll be flashing our Atlas once something is out and report on the changes. Til then, continue with other modifications. 

Has anyone seen a change with the Wookiee Pipe?


----------



## WhiteWind (Jun 12, 2019)

Did trip from GA to NJ via Mountains 900 some miles and we got 22.9 average. Not bad


----------



## Sugar Bear (Jul 17, 2016)

Savvv said:


> Has anyone seen a change with the Wookiee Pipe?


if you are gonna mess with the exhaust, can you please leave the mid muffler and remove the huge rear case in the back? When I did the wookie pipe, I forgot to hear how that setup would sound but I think that would sound much better as an audible mod.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Savvv said:


> You could have stopped right there. Improvements in the software ultimately mean the engine is making power more efficiently. In other words, if it took 100% to get 200hp, it takes less engine load to get 200hp with the tune. This is why people get better fuel economy with the tune. Your quote above is the only reason they won’t. I’ll be flashing our Atlas once something is out and report on the changes. Til then, continue with other modifications.
> 
> Has anyone seen a change with the Wookiee Pipe?


I am thinking that it's unlikely that they will put out a tune for the 3.6. APR has one for the 3.6 in the older Passat. NA tunes just add v. little in my research. Will be interesting to see if someone does finally offer one.


----------



## Veedubin02 (Mar 26, 2002)

KarstGeo said:


> I am thinking that it's unlikely that they will put out a tune for the 3.6. APR has one for the 3.6 in the older Passat. NA tunes just add v. little in my research. Will be interesting to see if someone does finally offer one.


I agree it probably wont happen, plus $600 or so for 7HP and 10lbft just isnt worth it, even with a slight increase in mileage (though you may have to run 93 with the tune)


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Veedubin02 said:


> I agree it probably wont happen, plus $600 or so for 7HP and 10lbft just isnt worth it, even with a slight increase in mileage (though you may have to run 93 with the tune)


Yeah, forgot about the likely need for premium with a tune - which will financially negate any tiny bump in mpgs....out!


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> Yeah, forgot about the likely need for premium with a tune - which will financially negate any tiny bump in mpgs....out!


True. I’d get tuned just because I need more power :laugh:

That being said, just because you’re tuned doesn’t mean you can’t run 87. Would be worth testing to see what the mpg’s are with 87 on a tune. Engine will just retard timing to prevent knock etc.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Savvv said:


> True. I’d get tuned just because I need more power :laugh:
> 
> That being said, just because you’re tuned doesn’t mean you can’t run 87. Would be worth testing to see what the mpg’s are with 87 on a tune. Engine will just retard timing to prevent knock etc.


I was assuming the tune would be a 91-93 tune and you should then run that octane but there may be tunes for the 87 offered at some point as well. If you car is tuned for 93, you don't run 87 period.


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> I was assuming the tune would be a 91-93 tune and you should then run that octane but there may be tunes for the 87 offered at some point as well. If you car is tuned for 93, you don't run 87 period.


That’s incorrect. If it’s tuned for 93, it means its power figures are based on 93 and it’s thus optimized for 93. What are us east coast boys to do when we take our big turbo 630cc injected cars cross country to Vegas and can’t find 93 octane over there?


----------



## Sugar Bear (Jul 17, 2016)

anyone have a copy of performanceVW ? see if theres maybe a german company tuning this platform. 

(im starting to feel the crackhead itch to tune this thing already)


----------



## Pnvwfun (Jan 22, 2018)

My average for my two 300 mile each way (1200 miles total) trips was 25.4 mpg since I put in the higher flow filter. My last 3 tanks of gas for combined city and highway in town commuting were 23.0, 23.2 and 23.2 mpg (about 1100 miles total). I think it's pretty clear that this is a trend and not just a fluke.

My driving habits are exactly the same pre-filter change. I use stop/start most of the time. It disengages when the AC is working hard, but I don't need AC for my morning commute. My afternoon commute mileage is worse because the AC is running and there's more traffic. I also use ACC a lot on my commute, with a custom mode setting for ECO. I shut off stop/start and ACC during really heavy traffic, and occasionally do manual shifts. This is how I've been driving since way before I changed the filter. I did okay on mileage before, but now it's much better.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Savvv said:


> That’s incorrect. If it’s tuned for 93, it means its power figures are based on 93 and it’s thus optimized for 93. What are us east coast boys to do when we take our big turbo 630cc injected cars cross country to Vegas and can’t find 93 octane over there?


My Uni 93 tune on my Golf is 93...not 87. Uni says 91 ok....but not 87.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## PZ (May 9, 2002)

The easiest way to increase mpg is to increase timing. That is what most chip tuners do and why it would require premium. After that, aerodynamic aids, lowering and skinny tires. Intake mods can help slightly, exhaust mods work a bit more, but both tend to increase max power more than normal driving efficiency.


----------



## foofighter28 (Aug 4, 2000)

Around town my mileage is as good as my old lifted Toyota 4runner (around 16) today we took a trip up to the apple orchards and spend time up there for the day. Driving home I got this. Not bad


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

foofighter28 said:


> Around town my mileage is as good as my old lifted Toyota 4runner (around 16) today we took a trip up to the apple orchards and spend time up there for the day. Driving home I got this. Not bad


In a 4-motion VR6!?


----------



## shijmus (Oct 8, 2018)

After I installed the lift kit, falken wildfire 265/65r18 tires and 20mm spacers, my mpg reduced to 20.x on a way I normally get 25, factoring out the inaccuracy in speed/distance calculation due to larger wheels, I probably have a 10%+ reduce in mpg

Might try the filter later..



Pnvwfun said:


> My average for my two 300 mile each way (1200 miles total) trips was 25.4 mpg since I put in the higher flow filter. My last 3 tanks of gas for combined city and highway in town commuting were 23.0, 23.2 and 23.2 mpg (about 1100 miles total). I think it's pretty clear that this is a trend and not just a fluke.
> 
> My driving habits are exactly the same pre-filter change. I use stop/start most of the time. It disengages when the AC is working hard, but I don't need AC for my morning commute. My afternoon commute mileage is worse because the AC is running and there's more traffic. I also use ACC a lot on my commute, with a custom mode setting for ECO. I shut off stop/start and ACC during really heavy traffic, and occasionally do manual shifts. This is how I've been driving since way before I changed the filter. I did okay on mileage before, but now it's much better.


----------



## foofighter28 (Aug 4, 2000)

Savvv said:


> In a 4-motion VR6!?


Yes, I was surprised myself


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

foofighter28 said:


> Yes, I was surprised myself


Were you coasting in neutral down a 43 mile hill? Or being pulled by another car? I’d love to hear how you got that high mpg.


----------



## foofighter28 (Aug 4, 2000)

Savvv said:


> Were you coasting in neutral down a 43 mile hill? Or being pulled by another car? I’d love to hear how you got that high mpg.


I honestly was driving between 70-80, 5-7 miles were coming down a winding road but it wasn't all 43 miles of coasting. Mind you the motor just turned over 1000 miles too on this outing


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

45 mph avg. speed - of course it was getting really good mpgs. Make that 60+ and you won't see that.


----------



## foofighter28 (Aug 4, 2000)

KarstGeo said:


> 45 mph avg. speed - of course it was getting really good mpgs. Make that 60+ and you won't see that.


avg speed, there was traffic so that should have had a hit on the MPG no?


----------



## OsirisTDI (Jul 2, 2007)

Fuel efficiency was never the point of the VR or W engines... the name of the game was compact sized, high-rev, powerhouses for your Golf, Jetta or Passat... gasoline was a dollar a gallon... VW & owners were not concerned about the fuel burn rated within VR engines, Take it or move to something else.


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

OsirisTDI said:


> Fuel efficiency was never the point of the VR or W engines... the name of the game was compact sized, high-rev, powerhouses for your Golf, Jetta or Passat... gasoline was a dollar a gallon... VW & owners were not concerned about the fuel burn rated within VR engines, Take it or move to something else.


Hey thanks chief. This thread is for ways of improving that der f00l burn. If I was all that bent out of shape I would have got a base model 2.0T. Maybe I’m secretly hoping for someone to smash into it parked so hard that the engine needs replaced and I’ll do a Golf R 2.0T swap. :laugh:

Until then, keep it to things you’ve installed that have made a difference. :thumbup:


----------



## OsirisTDI (Jul 2, 2007)

To the OP, there is no interest to pooh the post and I apologize if you think I was trying to do so.


----------



## Andre VW (Dec 12, 2018)

VR6

From house to family pit stop to Magic Kingdom to eventually a gas station near DisneyWorld. Was running 70+mph on highway and was getting 26ish instant mpg on the highway stint.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Icantdrive65 (Nov 8, 2001)

Andre VW said:


> VR6
> 
> From house to family pit stop to Magic Kingdom to eventually a gas station near DisneyWorld. Was running 70+mph on highway and was getting 26ish instant mpg on the highway stint.


We just did a Legoland and Disneyland trip in ours and averaged 24-25 mpg. I loved the adaptive cruise control through LA traffic. It worked flawlessly. 

We hit traffic on I-5 between Legoland and Laguna Hills. With ACC on and averaging about 55 mph for a 44 mile stretch, we got 28 mpg.


----------



## Mrprice (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm around 3500 miles on my '19 SEL Premium and I've been having pretty good success. A lot of my commute is stop-and-go traffic and eventually get to highway cruising. My best yet was a trip to the lake about one hour from Saint Louis on HWY44. It's not a flat commute but we netted almost 29mpg over the course of the drive doing just under 70mph w/ AC. I mostly use cruise control and subscribe to some of the hypermiling techniques. This tank ended up as my best so far - over 425 miles with 16.250 gallons consumed. If you're not using the Fuelly app, you really should download it for free. This was also on regular 87 octane fuel.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

Just got 25.5 mpg going 400 miles round trip, 5 passengers and luggage, over multiple 8000’ mountain passes. I have been very happy with the fuel economy so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrl14 (Jan 27, 2020)

I just got a 2019 comfort line AWD (Canadian model) and there is no way the listed fuel economy numbers are correct. I have done 3 fill ups so far. The first 2 were 95% city driving, with no more than 2 people in the car, and I was lucky to get 350km per tank. The highway drive was from Toronto To buffalo and back, so about 90% highway and got about 500km on that trip. The computer screen is reporting around 16L/100km. 

Our old Tiguan did significantly better on both city and highway. I understand the size different in the car and the engine, but come on, I was expecting over 400km per tank.

I'll drive 20km and the gas tank will already drop but notch. Is this normal or is there something wrong?

Thanks


----------



## TablaRasa (May 12, 2008)

mrl14 said:


> I just got a 2019 comfort line AWD (Canadian model) and there is no way the listed fuel economy numbers are correct. I have done 3 fill ups so far. The first 2 were 95% city driving, with no more than 2 people in the car, and I was lucky to get 350km per tank. The highway drive was from Toronto To buffalo and back, so about 90% highway and got about 500km on that trip. The computer screen is reporting around 16L/100km.
> 
> Our old Tiguan did significantly better on both city and highway. I understand the size different in the car and the engine, but come on, I was expecting over 400km per tank.
> 
> ...


maybe since you just got it, give it time for the computer to learn your driving habits. Not sure how long you had the car.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

mrl14 said:


> I just got a 2019 comfort line AWD (Canadian model) and there is no way the listed fuel economy numbers are correct. I have done 3 fill ups so far. The first 2 were 95% city driving, with no more than 2 people in the car, and I was lucky to get 350km per tank. The highway drive was from Toronto To buffalo and back, so about 90% highway and got about 500km on that trip. The computer screen is reporting around 16L/100km.
> 
> Our old Tiguan did significantly better on both city and highway. I understand the size different in the car and the engine, but come on, I was expecting over 400km per tank.
> 
> ...


Fuel mileage is not measured in miles per tank. Why not do proper measurement.


----------



## mrl14 (Jan 27, 2020)

TablaRasa said:


> maybe since you just got it, give it time for the computer to learn your driving habits. Not sure how long you had the car.




Only 3 weeks and that's what I thought, but I don't know much about cars, so I wasn't sure. Thank you


----------



## kazimir80 (Mar 15, 2019)

You need to break in the engine at this is not only mechanical thing. I have mine CFGB 2.0TDI engine in my other car and that dropped the consumption by almost 1L at cca 10.000km point. But it depends on the components used in the car. For TDI my serviceman told me if the car is new, the temperatures needed to break in all parts including catalysts, partical filters, etc need to be warmer. Once ECU sees its fine for her, it lowers the process. And that uses fuel for that reason.


----------



## Misio9 (Sep 23, 2019)

Also keep in mind cold weather, the colder the air the more fuel is injected. I see 3 - 4 mpg difference between winter and summer in exact same condition.


----------



## Acsom (Dec 29, 2019)

mrl14 said:


> Only 3 weeks and that's what I thought, but I don't know much about cars, so I wasn't sure. Thank you


Mine “loosened up” at around 1100 miles (1700 km or so). It went from appealing to acceptable.


----------



## kazimir80 (Mar 15, 2019)

Touareg V6 3.0 TDI consumption. If youre not driving as an old sailor, the figures are similar.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/touareg?engineconfig_id=238&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=1139


----------

