Hi Team U.B. - Page 3 - United Bimmer Community

**Linds** · 08-14-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mullethunter3

^^^ Marco?

Polo?

**Kasei** · 08-14-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linds

Polo?

I think we should, I have yet to see a picture of everyone. I've seen Amanda from here sig, Rooz from some pics he posted, and cels & Dsky from there meet and shoot.

**mullethunter3** · 08-14-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linds

Polo?

It cool, Nick found the thread.

Btw, MA2LIS700, love your sig!

**MA2LIS700** · 08-15-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mullethunter3

It cool, Nick found the thread.

Btw, MA2LIS700, love your sig!

Hi mullethunter3,

thanks for the referral above on forced induction, should definitely get school'd on that topic.

on the sig, touche. yours definitely rocks.

PS: would really be interesting to put a face behind the callsigns. will you guys let us in on that as well?

**MA2LIS700** · 08-15-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linds

^lol, thanks. I gotta put a pic in my avatar or something...

Hi Linds,

I was initially informed that forced induction like using turbochargers have some upsides on gas efficiencies at specific speed levels. So far, haven't experienced that yet, moreso the opposite actually.

Two quick questions if you don't mind - are there any tweaks I can do to help counterbalance the gas consumption upsurge? Secondly, is there any harm to redlining a turbo-charged engine or is that typically status quo and permissible? One of my friends told me it was fine to rev it up to flush out some 'carbon' from time to time. What are your thoughts?

Many thanks... Ms. Linds.

Regards,
MA2LIN700

**Linds** · 08-16-2007, 10:28 AM

Disclaimer: By no means am I an expert on turbos, lol.

But from what I have heard, there are rumors that float around that turbos give you better fuel economy because there's more air induction and therefore less fuel consumption is needed.

Personally, I think that's a load of crap. You might be able to get the same or a bit better if you're shifting at 2k, but honestly, why would you get a turbo if you're gonna be shifting like that?

I guess like with non-turbos, it probably depends a lot on how you drive it.

But, like I said, I really don't know much about turbos and could be absolutely 100% wrong, lol.

**MA2LIS700** · 08-16-2007, 10:34 AM

Copy that. Thanks Linds. : )

nick_318is · 08-16-2007, 02:12 PM

^I might be in manila for a week to week and a half for work, anything fun to do down there?

**MA2LIS700** · 08-16-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_318is

^I might be in manila for a week to week and a half for work, anything fun to do down there?

Most definitely! Wait, depends on what kinda fun bro. : ) If it's the usual night out / party / clubbing territory, then I can hook you up. Let me know as soon as firm up your schedules / agenda; will send you some contact details.

1st time in the Philippines?

**Kistoni** · 08-16-2007, 11:46 PM

Your fuel consuption figures are not too bad. I have the under powered non turbo 316 and it gives 7.5km/ltr round town through an auto gear box. I am pretty heavy footed tho and it is better on the longer runs giving aprox 9km/ltr. (Sorry you Yanks are going to have to do the maths.)

Its good on the corners with the reduced weight of the smaller block. Its all about momentum....

Would be interesting to see your set up. I wonder how much more power you are getting than me. I ve read that it is a common misconception that turbos reduce the fuel consuption but you are getting more power. Maybe at the same power out-put a turbo'd engine uses less fuel but you are having to drive the turbo so maybe not.

Good luck with the new car and wellcome to UB!

witeshark · 08-16-2007, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kistoni

Your fuel consuption figures are not too bad. I have the under powered non turbo 316 and it gives 7.5km/ltr round town through an auto gear box. I am pretty heavy footed tho and it is better on the longer runs giving aprox 9km/ltr. (Sorry you Yanks are going to have to do the maths.)

Good luck with the new car and wellcome to UB!

7.5km/ltr is ~ 17.6 MPG, and 9km/ltr ~ 21 MPG

**MA2LIS700** · 08-17-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kistoni

Your fuel consuption figures are not too bad. I have the under powered non turbo 316 and it gives 7.5km/ltr round town through an auto gear box. I am pretty heavy footed tho and it is better on the longer runs giving aprox 9km/ltr. (Sorry you Yanks are going to have to do the maths.)

Its good on the corners with the reduced weight of the smaller block. Its all about momentum....

Would be interesting to see your set up. I wonder how much more power you are getting than me. I ve read that it is a common misconception that turbos reduce the fuel consuption but you are getting more power. Maybe at the same power out-put a turbo'd engine uses less fuel but you are having to drive the turbo so maybe not.

Good luck with the new car and wellcome to UB!

Hi Kistoni,
Thanks for the inputs, appreciate it. Will monitor my consumption further and post the average km/L when it stabilizes.

Regards.

**MA2LIS700** · 08-17-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by witeshark

7.5km/ltr is ~ 17.6 MPG, and 9km/ltr ~ 21 MPG

Thanks for the quick math Witeshark. And in your opinion, how does that rate relatively fare?

witeshark · 08-17-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MA2LIS700

Thanks for the quick math Witeshark. And in your opinion, how does that rate relatively fare?

Yeah very reasonable