Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/European_Union_Flag.jpg The models detailed here can be ordered now for imminent delivery. BlueMotion models are due to arrive in the UK in September. (http://www.girlracer.co.uk/motoring/news/1283-vw-launches-new-range-of-highly-efficient-golf-models.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/golf6.jpgGIRLRACER (http://www.girlracer.co.uk) - July 6, 2009

Now this is the engine that I want to see in our North American TDI's. --Ed.

Following the launch of the standard sixth generation Golf and the GTI and GTD performance models, Volkswagen is pleased to announce the ‘economy’ range, based on a new 1.6-litre common rail diesel engine, and which includes a BlueMotion variant.
All the new Golf models with this engine and five-speed manual gearbox achieve CO2 emissions of under 120 g/km, while the new Golf BlueMotion, the most efficient and technologically advanced iteration of the model yet produced, is capable of achieving 57.4 mpgUS on the combined cycle which equates to a theoretical range of over 800 miles, while emitting just 107 g/km of CO2.

Three versions of the 1.6-litre TDI engine are available to order. The first is an entry-level 90 PS – offered in S trim only – which returns 52.3 mpgUS on the combined cycle while producing 118 g/km of carbon dioxide. The second has more power at 105 PS and is available in S and SE trim. This has a combined economy figure of 52.3 mpgUS and a CO2 output of 119 g/km. This engine is also available with a seven-speed DSG automatic gearbox.

The third is the 105 PS in BlueMotion guise. This label is now well known as denoting the most efficient and least polluting model in Volkswagen’s range. Although it uses the same basic powerplant as the other new vehicles, the BlueMotion variant has significantly enhanced economy and carbon dioxide figures: 57.4 mpgUS and 107 g/km.... http://www.girlracer.co.uk/motoring/news/1283-vw-launches-new-range-of-highly-efficient-golf-models.html

Too bad VW doesn't seem to be doing anything to improve the FE of their gas compacts. The mileage of the gas Golf and Jetta is pathetic for their class -- barely better than the much larger Passat -- especially since the non-turbo option went up to 2.5L. I drive one only because the more efficient competition (Civic, Corolla, etc.) haven't been offered as wagons since the early 90s.

That's true, Dan. In Europe, they have some reasonably efficient gasoline engines and seem competitive with mileage. The TSI's and FSI's in Europe both seem relatively good in that regard. They probably sell 10x more cars in Europe than here so at the end of the day, they don't put much of their resources into making a good gasoline engine for North America. IIRC, the 2.5 is loosely related to half of the V10 from the Gallardo. The main goals were low cost and relatively high power compared to the competition. They achieved that and threw fuel efficiency out the window in the process. The NA 2.5 isn't available in Europe, for a number of good reasons.

It's a great pity that car manufacturers don't send their most efficient models to all markets.

The new Golf has a great petrol engine - the 1.4 TSI. The most efficient version gets 138g/km of CO2 (on the EU cycle), and is still more powerful than the 2.0L Golf from two generations ago. Having a 2.5L as the base model is ludicrous, IMHO.

Another example is the Honda Jazz/Fit, which you can buy as a 1.2L in the UK. It gets 129g/km CO2, but isn't available in the States or here in South Africa.

Anyway, my point is that manufacturers _have_ improved the gas mileage of their cars, but haven't introduced them to all countries, for whatever reason. My guess is that we won't see them until conditions are right - and that means higher fuel prices, higher taxes on vehicles, or both.

-Simon

Since VW's turbo models get nearly the same FE as their bigger-engine base (US) gas models, I've wondered if you'd get a FE boost by getting the turbo model (2.0, in the case of the current models, or 1.8 for the Mk4 models) and yanking out the turbo. I sure as heck don't need the extra power. I suspect on older vehicles it would be an easy thing to do, but on today's higher tech engines there are probably some glitches you'd have to deal with.

My BIL has a passat with the 1.8 turbo. That's actually a decent FE performer considering that it's a big, comfortable sedan. If he can hit mid-30's just by slowing it down I think it could hit 40 comfortably with a little effort. So VW can do it, its just a question of what the marketing jerks do.

Removing the turbo would probably improve the fuel economy if the engine could be tuned operate properly without it. What also might work is using a smaller turbocharged engine, instead of a larger naturally aspirated one, to produce the same power.

It's a great pity that car manufacturers don't send their most efficient models to all markets.

The new Golf has a great petrol engine - the 1.4 TSI. The most efficient version gets 138g/km of CO2 (on the EU cycle), and is still more powerful than the 2.0L Golf from two generations ago. Having a 2.5L as the base model is ludicrous, IMHO.

Another example is the Honda Jazz/Fit, which you can buy as a 1.2L in the UK. It gets 129g/km CO2, but isn't available in the States or here in South Africa.

Anyway, my point is that manufacturers _have_ improved the gas mileage of their cars, but haven't introduced them to all countries, for whatever reason. My guess is that we won't see them until conditions are right - and that means higher fuel prices, higher taxes on vehicles, or both.

-Simon

Same way with the Subaru Impreza. Here in the US, the base model comes with a 2.5 L engine, then wrx and sti comes with a 2.5L turbo. In other markets, the impreza goes all the way down to a 1.5L and 2.0L naturally aspirated engine, and I think the wrx is a 2.0L turbo like mine. Also, there's a 2.0L Diesel motor available too.

Most people want "the fast one" so it's cheaper for these non-domestic car manufacturers to offer fewer options. Our domestic manufacturers are supposed to be the ones offering us lots of options, but they're a bunch of idiots.

Since VW's turbo models get nearly the same FE as their bigger-engine base (US) gas models, I've wondered if you'd get a FE boost by getting the turbo model (2.0, in the case of the current models, or 1.8 for the Mk4 models) and yanking out the turbo. I sure as heck don't need the extra power. I suspect on older vehicles it would be an easy thing to do, but on today's higher tech engines there are probably some glitches you'd have to deal with.

Uh, no. Turbos are great because they actually ARE free power (or free FE with same power). Remember, turbos are driven off exhaust gases. Superchargers are the ones that eat power.

I'd like to think that, but from what I've seen looking at FE ratings over the years, putting a turbo on a car does appear to typically result in a 1-2mpg drop. Examples: VW Mk4 1.8L turbos do not beat the 2.0L NA engines. Current 2.0L turbos do not beat the 2.5L NA engines, which they should do handily. Subaru 2.5L turbos are 2mpg lower than Subaru 2.5L NA engines. And so on...

According to the official ratings... What if they're driven the way we do, minimize the usage / effect of the turbo?

There could be some nice gains if the car was driven to minimize use of turbo boost. I'm not entirely certain, but the engine may end up operating closer to what a similar sized naturally aspirated engine would be doing.