GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk5 => Topic started by: R32UK on 29 January 2009, 08:17
-
R32uk's car is the only R that returns more then the VW handbook specifys. From a cold start , and 8 mile journey, theres NO WAY your car will accurately return that figure, especially from cold as it runs a third richer and would use more then on a long run giving then a good mpg reading on the mfd. :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
From Brim to Brim that is the only way to correctly work out whether your R32 is giving you that figure.At 36mpg, thats 432 mile range!. IMPOSSIBLE!!
A 2.0lt TFSi cannot return that figure even driven with kid gloves, and your saying a V6 is more efficient!! :shocked:
Done from a cold start (5.5 degrees not garaged) With traffic, and stopping briefly at 2 sets of lights. I think that answers your questions for you Phil :wink:
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2697/29012009td0.jpg)
(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9101/29012009001nh5.jpg)
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/912/29012009002oz5.jpg)
-
Nice one. I dunno how you did it though, :laugh: 33mpg best I have even seen in my R and I was REALLY trying to ease along.
-
R32 I take it you live on that famous 8 mile downhill section of road :grin:
Just noticed your sig pic, looks suspisously like a downhill road.............
-
I don't see why people struggle to believe that the mk5 R32 isn't as thirsty as V6's of the past. The mk4 was pretty poor, but we now have FSI technology and when running at it's leanest the 3.2 can have an AFR of up to 65:1. Add to that the majority of the driving is done at less than 4000rpm, where the turbo boys are just into their power band.. well it's a rather efficient old lump.
I get 300 miles from a tank on my usual commute (and I don't hang about), which involves a short motorway blast, lots of twisty back roads, a couple of speedy dual carriageways, 14 roundabouts, 8 sets of traffic lights, and finally a 15 minute crawl through stop-start traffic as I get into the town centre. On a pure motorway run I've seen over 400 miles from a tank.
-
R32uk's car is the only R that returns more then the VW handbook specifys. From a cold start , and 8 mile journey, theres NO WAY your car will accurately return that figure, especially from cold as it runs a third richer and would use more then on a long run giving then a good mpg reading on the mfd. :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
From Brim to Brim that is the only way to correctly work out whether your R32 is giving you that figure.At 36mpg, thats 432 mile range!. IMPOSSIBLE!!
A 2.0lt TFSi cannot return that figure even driven with kid gloves, and your saying a V6 is more efficient!! :shocked:
Done from a cold start (5.5 degrees not garaged) With traffic, and stopping briefly at 2 sets of lights. I think that answers your questions for you Phil :wink:
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2697/29012009td0.jpg)
(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9101/29012009001nh5.jpg)
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/912/29012009002oz5.jpg)
Sigh . . .
That type of comment by Phil Mcavity is just one of the reasons why I often can't be arsed to post on this forum! :rolleyes:
As usual, Phil repeatedly posts utter, UTTER bollox. Not to mention how he repeatedly contradicts his own posts. I'm sorry to say it, but I really think that Phil is basically abusing his position of trust (of being a moderator) by posting such polarised, unsubstantiated, and simply un-true rubbish. And when anyone else tries to disagree with him, he gets all arsey, or even deletes the thread.
-
Nice one. I dunno how you did it though, :laugh: 33mpg best I have even seen in my R and I was REALLY trying to ease along.
I got 36.6 in this exact same car doing a 22mile run to work so easy off on the right foot bro :)
-
I don't see why people struggle to believe that the mk5 R32 isn't as thirsty as V6's of the past.
Agreed. The Mk5 R32, when driven with restraint, really can give quite respectable fuel economy, just like my mighty V8 RS4 can. However, if you do have a heavy right foot, then that is where the VR6 engine looses out to the 2.0TFSI, and even the RS4 engine. The VR6 (just like all narrow angle V engines) need to run much richer (when compared to in-lines, conventional angle Vs [60 or 90 degree], or boxers) when developing high power due to the complications of less efficient engine cooling
The mk4 was pretty poor, but we now have FSI technology and when running at it's leanest the 3.2 can have an AFR of up to 65:1.
Erm, I suggest you lift the bonnet on a Mk5 R32 - because they definately do NOT have FSI. They still have manifold-sited injectors. And I'm slightly cautious of your lean AFR - at that quoted rate, that would need to be for miniscule timescales - because not only would you melt holes in your piston crowns, you would also get tremendous amounts of sulphur dioxides (and sulphur oxide derrivatives). I would hazard a guess that most modern engines (when using Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol [ULSP], available in the UK and Western Europe, but not anywhere else, particularly North America) would be able to safely achieve a lean AFR 25 or 30:1. Only direct injection petrol engines can go routinely leaner, but not for extended periods, because the primary EGT will be carefully monitored during lean burn mode.
Add to that the majority of the driving is done at less than 4000rpm, where the turbo boys are just into their power band.. well it's a rather efficient old lump.
Maybe the K04 boys, but the K03 in the standard GTI starts its power band from 1750rpm. :wink:
I get 300 miles from a tank on my usual commute (and I don't hang about), which involves a short motorway blast, lots of twisty back roads, a couple of speedy dual carriageways, 14 roundabouts, 8 sets of traffic lights, and finally a 15 minute crawl through stop-start traffic as I get into the town centre. On a pure motorway run I've seen over 400 miles from a tank.
Exactly. Horses for courses and all that. Fuel consumption is substantially dictated by the nut holding the steering wheel. An FSI GTI, or R32, or even an RS4, when driven with restraint (the latter with some serious restraint and discipline :rolleyes:) can absolutly achieve better fuel economy when compared to a TDI which is regularly caned.
I had the misfortune of driving a new Merc A-class diesel (A140), and in the 201miles I drove it (you had to cane the bast@rd - it didn't have enough guts to drag the skin off a rice pudding), it used £45 of diesel !!!!! :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
-
And to add to that post I will even stick my neck out and say with the right conditions, no traffic and less fuel in the tank or stuff/crap in the boot, Im convinced I could get 40mpg. (might get pulled or a few strange looks) but Im sure its possible.
If you also look at the amount of time it took me, it was only about 2-3mins over what it usually takes me. So all in all... not bad at all for a 3.2 :wink:
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
-
Well bugger me.. it's only the 90deg 3.2 V6s in audis that use FSI.. yet the narrow angle 3.6 in the passat does use FSI, in that case this engine is even more amazing :grin:
The 65:1 is at the very extreme end of the 'ultra lean burn' and yes for a minute amount of time.. but still worthy of mention. Interesting stuff this stratified injection. Well.. interesting to me :laugh:
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
But then again, if you drive a ED30 with a very light foot, like you have with your R32, wouldnt you achieve even better fuel consumption with the ED30 as well?
We should get a ED30 owner to test and see what they can achieve - in theory, it should be better then the R32 obviously - but wow, you get some good MPG in your car R32UK!
-
I got 38MPG in mine once on a run across the Boston (50+miles - rubbish single carridgeway 50MPH limit and not much chance of overtaking), anyway now I know it can do I dont need to do it again :grin: My 'overall' average according to the comp is around 24MPG - but more importanty it get loads of smiles per mile which is what counts! :smiley:
-
had mine about 18 months and never seen over 24 untill last weekend when i got 29mpg. strangley it was after i had fitted a short shifter :undecided: :huh:
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
But then again, if you drive a ED30 with a very light foot, like you have with your R32, wouldnt you achieve even better fuel consumption with the ED30 as well?
We should get a ED30 owner to test and see what they can achieve - in theory, it should be better then the R32 obviously - but wow, you get some good MPG in your car R32UK!
Unfortuntely I dont drive like that all the time (well not on the way home anyway :evil:)... average is approx 26mpg :undecided:
-
And to add to that post I will even stick my neck out and say with the right conditions, no traffic and less fuel in the tank or stuff/crap in the boot, Im convinced I could get 40mpg. (might get pulled or a few strange looks) but Im sure its possible.
And probably a few choice words too - sommat like "WTF are you driving an R32 like a granny, give it to me, and I'll drive it like it was made for!" :evil: :evil: :evil:
If you also look at the amount of time it took me, it was only about 2-3mins over what it usually takes me. So all in all... not bad at all for a 3.2 :wink:
At the other end of the scale, look at the instantaneous fuel consuption when you hold the pedal to the metal - that will make you wince! :shocked:
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
Hmmmmmmm. If an R32 and an Ed30 are both driven in identical manners, then I would still have to say that the Ed30 would still be more economical - not only on fuel, but also because the R32 is a higher insurance group, higher road tax, and costs more to service and maintain (Haldex oil and filter change, 6 spark plugs instead of 4, a more difficult timing belt with an extra idler roller, larger brake components [which will naturally cost more at the stealers :rolleyes:]).
-
Well bugger me.. it's only the 90deg 3.2 V6s in audis that use FSI.. yet the narrow angle 3.6 in the passat does use FSI, in that case this engine is even more amazing :grin:
But we were only talking about the R32s 3.2 donkey! :tongue: And are you absolutely sure that the R36 Passat does actually have FSI? Because there was an aweful lot of mis-information from the stealers when the Mk5 R32 came out, with them stating it had FSI, when it categorically didn't (and the UK sales brochures never made any mention of the 32 having FSI either).
The 65:1 is at the very extreme end of the 'ultra lean burn' and yes for a minute amount of time.. but still worthy of mention. Interesting stuff this stratified injection. Well.. interesting to me :laugh:
OK, point taken. :wink: So where did you get the info on these AFRs then? :smiley:
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
Hmmmmmmm. If an R32 and an Ed30 are both driven in identical manners, then I would still have to say that the Ed30 would still be more economical - not only on fuel, but also because the R32 is a higher insurance group, higher road tax, and costs more to service and maintain (Haldex oil and filter change, 6 spark plugs instead of 4, a more difficult timing belt with an extra idler roller, larger brake components [which will naturally cost more at the stealers :rolleyes:]).
[/quote]
Ok ok... maybe went a little too far with that one! :undecided:
who the hell wants to drive slowly anyway??? :evil: :evil: :evil: I only did it to prove a point.... I think that has clearly been done!! I wouldnt expect Phil to answer to any of this (he will probably just delete it anyway) :lipsrsealed:
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
But then again, if you drive a ED30 with a very light foot, like you have with your R32, wouldnt you achieve even better fuel consumption with the ED30 as well?
Yup, correct. OK, here are the official figures for the Ed30 and the R32 (manual first, and DSG second), in mpg:
Ed30 (man) R32 (man)
Urban: 24.8 18.8
Extra-urban: 44.1 33.6
Combined: 34.0 26.2
Ed30 (DSG) R32 (DSG)
Urban: 26.2 21.4
Extra-urban: 44.8 36.2
Combined: 35.3 28.8
So, going by these figures - who can notice the important traits and differences between the two types of engine?
We should get a ED30 owner to test and see what they can achieve - in theory, it should be better then the R32 obviously - but wow, you get some good MPG in your car R32UK!
He must be seriously skint to drive like that. I bet he's having Tesco Value beans on toast every night for his tea (oh, sorry, that is actually standard nosh for students! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:)
-
But we were only talking about the R32s 3.2 donkey!
yes yes :grin: my exclamation was pointed at the fact I'd been misinformed yet again.. and because I was getting such great fuel economy I accepted it as truth without checking!
I had some literature posted to me regarding the FSI and ultra lean burn when the engines first started appearing (before I upset my local VW sales guy, who was also linked to VW press, by telling him I thought the very first mk5 GTI's were rubbish :embarassed:). Which box of files it is in at home.. I dread to think, although some of it can be found online, even though I know how much you dislike wikipedia :grin:
BTW there is no chance an R32 is cheaper to run than an ED30, I'd never claim that.. unless of course you get all service parts and labour free of charge, and don't pay insurance or tax :tongue:
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
Hmmmmmmm. If an R32 and an Ed30 are both driven in identical manners, then I would still have to say that the Ed30 would still be more economical - not only on fuel, but also because the R32 is a higher insurance group, higher road tax, and costs more to service and maintain (Haldex oil and filter change, 6 spark plugs instead of 4, a more difficult timing belt with an extra idler roller, larger brake components [which will naturally cost more at the stealers :rolleyes:]).
Ok ok... maybe went a little too far with that one! :undecided:
who the hell wants to drive slowly anyway??? :evil: :evil: :evil: I only did it to prove a point.... I think that has clearly been done!! I wouldnt expect Phil to answer to any of this (he will probably just delete it anyway) :lipsrsealed:[/quote]
ROTFLMAO
-
does no one watch top gear these days, jesus :rolleyes:
they did a run, ALL 3 cars blew away the book figures.
All 3 cars showed 0 miles left and yet went on to do over 100 miles more and STILL had fuel left proving the onboard computers where crap.
just all meet up and have a cock waving competition and be done cos lets face it - IS IT THAT FCUKING IMPORTANT :laugh:
:tongue: :kiss:
PS. nice comments TT :wink:
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
But then again, if you drive a ED30 with a very light foot, like you have with your R32, wouldnt you achieve even better fuel consumption with the ED30 as well?
Yup, correct. OK, here are the official figures for the Ed30 and the R32 (manual first, and DSG second), in mpg:
Ed30 (man) R32 (man)
Urban: 24.8 18.8
Extra-urban: 44.1 33.6
Combined: 34.0 26.2
Ed30 (DSG) R32 (DSG)
Urban: 26.2 21.4
Extra-urban: 44.8 36.2
Combined: 35.3 28.8
So, going by these figures - who can notice the important traits and differences between the two types of engine?
We should get a ED30 owner to test and see what they can achieve - in theory, it should be better then the R32 obviously - but wow, you get some good MPG in your car R32UK!
He must be seriously skint to drive like that. I bet he's having Tesco Value beans on toast every night for his tea (oh, sorry, that is actually standard nosh for students! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:)
lol, just goes to show, you didnt read what i said R32uk, an R32 from cold start , on an 8 miles journey will not show 36mpg on your cars Trip log, which was the whole point of my post. As usual, youve misread my wording. I can do 36mpg in an r32 but only will get the trip meter to show that after a 30 mile run!!! doh!!!.
you posted , i do 8 miles a day or what ever and return 36mpg. Your photo's mean nothing, and im sure after a long journey those photos are correct
.
T_T, you really are a work of art. :rolleyes:
Go back and READ my 1st post :lipsrsealed:
-
R32uk's car is the only R that returns more then the VW handbook specifys. From a cold start , and 8 mile journey, theres NO WAY your car will accurately return that figure, especially from cold as it runs a third richer and would use more then on a long run giving then a good mpg reading on the mfd. :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
From Brim to Brim that is the only way to correctly work out whether your R32 is giving you that figure.At 36mpg, thats 432 mile range!. IMPOSSIBLE!!
A 2.0lt TFSi cannot return that figure even driven with kid gloves, and your saying a V6 is more efficient!! :shocked:
Done from a cold start (5.5 degrees not garaged) With traffic, and stopping briefly at 2 sets of lights. I think that answers your questions for you Phil :wink:
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2697/29012009td0.jpg)
(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9101/29012009001nh5.jpg)
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/912/29012009002oz5.jpg)
Sigh . . .
That type of comment by Phil Mcavity is just one of the reasons why I often can't be arsed to post on this forum! :rolleyes:
As usual, Phil repeatedly posts utter, UTTER bollox. tries to disagree with him, he gets all arsey, or even deletes the thread.
Me personally, ive deleted 6 threads since being a moderator, Majority are done by admin :smiley:
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
Hmmmmmmm. If an R32 and an Ed30 are both driven in identical manners, then I would still have to say that the Ed30 would still be more economical - not only on fuel, but also because the R32 is a higher insurance group, higher road tax, and costs more to service and maintain (Haldex oil and filter change, 6 spark plugs instead of 4, a more difficult timing belt with an extra idler roller, larger brake components [which will naturally cost more at the stealers :rolleyes:]).
Ok ok... maybe went a little too far with that one! :undecided:
who the hell wants to drive slowly anyway??? :evil: :evil: :evil: I only did it to prove a point.... I think that has clearly been done!! I wouldnt expect Phil to answer to any of this (he will probably just delete it anyway) :lipsrsealed:
ROTFLMAO
[/quote]
LOL yes right T_T, thats what you'd like me to do :drool:,
-
does no one watch top gear these days, jesus :rolleyes:
they did a run, ALL 3 cars blew away the book figures.
All 3 cars showed 0 miles left and yet went on to do over 100 miles more and STILL had fuel left proving the onboard computers where crap.
just all meet up and have a cock waving competition and be done cos lets face it - IS IT THAT FCUKING IMPORTANT :laugh:
:tongue: :kiss:
PS. nice comments TT :wink:
:laugh:
-
lol, just goes to show, you didnt read what i said R32uk, an R32 from cold start , on an 8 miles journey will not show 36mpg on your cars Trip log, which was the whole point of my post. As usual, youve misread my wording. I can do 36mpg in an r32 but only will get the trip meter to show that after a 30 mile run!!! doh!!!.
you posted , i do 8 miles a day or what ever and return 36mpg. Your photo's mean nothing, and im sure after a long journey those photos are correct
.
T_T, you really are a work of art. :rolleyes:
Go back and READ my 1st post :lipsrsealed:
What planet are you from??? This was done at just after 6 this morning (my clock is 15mins fast) The car was from a cold start (not garaged like in my previous post).... and involved stops unlike my post on another thread.
Do you really think I would get out of bed earlier just to get my mpg up?? If you look at the time it took and the distance you can clearly see that its correct. Im with T_T on this one mate... you dont half talk some SH1T!
-
Top effort for driving just to get your mfd to show 36.whatever mpg!. Wouldnt have wasted my fuel personally!!!, but etto :smiley:
-
Now now. There are better ways to say "I disagree with you". Not picking on you R32UK this applies to all - a little consideration costs nothing :smiley:
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
But then again, if you drive a ED30 with a very light foot, like you have with your R32, wouldnt you achieve even better fuel consumption with the ED30 as well?
Yup, correct. OK, here are the official figures for the Ed30 and the R32 (manual first, and DSG second), in mpg:
Ed30 (man) R32 (man)
Urban: 24.8 18.8
Extra-urban: 44.1 33.6
Combined: 34.0 26.2
Ed30 (DSG) R32 (DSG)
Urban: 26.2 21.4
Extra-urban: 44.8 36.2
Combined: 35.3 28.8
So, going by these figures - who can notice the important traits and differences between the two types of engine?
We should get a ED30 owner to test and see what they can achieve - in theory, it should be better then the R32 obviously - but wow, you get some good MPG in your car R32UK!
He must be seriously skint to drive like that. I bet he's having Tesco Value beans on toast every night for his tea (oh, sorry, that is actually standard nosh for students! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:)
lol, just goes to show, you didnt read what i said R32uk, an R32 from cold start , on an 8 miles journey will not show 36mpg on your cars Trip log, which was the whole point of my post. As usual, youve misread my wording. I can do 36mpg in an r32 but only will get the trip meter to show that after a 30 mile run!!! doh!!!.
you posted , i do 8 miles a day or what ever and return 36mpg. Your photo's mean nothing, and im sure after a long journey those photos are correct
.
T_T, you really are a work of art. :rolleyes:
Go back and READ my 1st post :lipsrsealed:
how can his photos mean nothing as he' is clearly showing you that his trip computer has recorded 36mpg over an 8 mile journey? :huh:
what you should have said was there's no way his LONG TERM average trip computer (the one that resets after 99 hours 59 minutes) can show that sort of figure
should be a bit more clearer on which trip log you are on about
my journey trip computer regularly shows 55+mpg but my LONG TERM trip computer shows approx 50mpg
-
oh jesus, why go to such lenght mate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, what are you trying to proove???. your journey must be undisturbed, no traffic cue, no stop starts in 8 miles, good on you but no need to be anti .
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
But then again, if you drive a ED30 with a very light foot, like you have with your R32, wouldnt you achieve even better fuel consumption with the ED30 as well?
Yup, correct. OK, here are the official figures for the Ed30 and the R32 (manual first, and DSG second), in mpg:
Ed30 (man) R32 (man)
Urban: 24.8 18.8
Extra-urban: 44.1 33.6
Combined: 34.0 26.2
Ed30 (DSG) R32 (DSG)
Urban: 26.2 21.4
Extra-urban: 44.8 36.2
Combined: 35.3 28.8
So, going by these figures - who can notice the important traits and differences between the two types of engine?
We should get a ED30 owner to test and see what they can achieve - in theory, it should be better then the R32 obviously - but wow, you get some good MPG in your car R32UK!
He must be seriously skint to drive like that. I bet he's having Tesco Value beans on toast every night for his tea (oh, sorry, that is actually standard nosh for students! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:)
lol, just goes to show, you didnt read what i said R32uk, an R32 from cold start , on an 8 miles journey will not show 36mpg on your cars Trip log, which was the whole point of my post. As usual, youve misread my wording. I can do 36mpg in an r32 but only will get the trip meter to show that after a 30 mile run!!! doh!!!.
you posted , i do 8 miles a day or what ever and return 36mpg. Your photo's mean nothing, and im sure after a long journey those photos are correct
.
T_T, you really are a work of art. :rolleyes:
Go back and READ my 1st post :lipsrsealed:
how can his photos mean nothing as he' is clearly showing you that his trip computer has recorded 36mpg over an 8 mile journey? :huh:
what you should have said was there's no way his LONG TERM average trip computer (the one that resets after 99 hours 59 minutes) can show that sort of figure
should be a bit more clearer on which trip log you are on about
my journey trip computer regularly shows 55+mpg but my LONG TERM trip computer shows approx 50mpg
EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!, should of worded better , but that was all my initial responce was about. cheers Rhyso
-
Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that :grin: :grin:
Hmmmmmmm. If an R32 and an Ed30 are both driven in identical manners, then I would still have to say that the Ed30 would still be more economical - not only on fuel, but also because the R32 is a higher insurance group, higher road tax, and costs more to service and maintain (Haldex oil and filter change, 6 spark plugs instead of 4, a more difficult timing belt with an extra idler roller, larger brake components [which will naturally cost more at the stealers :rolleyes:]).
Ok ok... maybe went a little too far with that one! :undecided:
who the hell wants to drive slowly anyway??? :evil: :evil: :evil: I only did it to prove a point.... I think that has clearly been done!! I wouldnt expect Phil to answer to any of this (he will probably just delete it anyway) :lipsrsealed:
ROTFLMAO
[/quote]
i never delete your posts T_T, i just deal with the complaints from users under the report to moderator tab :wink:
-
Top effort for driving just to get your mfd to show 36.whatever mpg!. Wouldnt have wasted my fuel personally!!!, but etto :smiley:
How would driving at 36.3mpg be a waste of fuel.
Im sorry toph but the guy is blatantly calling me a liar. At least hold your hands up Phil and admit your wrong. That was geniuine mileage from a cold start this morning. If you dont believe me then I will be happy to do before and after pictures.... thought that 3 pictures would have been enough.
But either way... dont be a d1ck about it phil, does not look good for a mod to behave in this way :wink:
-
mk5 forum down today or summat :undecided:
and waits
(http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp359/chuffs69/popcorn.gif)
-
The fact is you challenged R and he provided evidence in his favour. Can you not just agree that on this occassion he is in fact correct and you are not. Go on try it, it's fun
-
Dont think so..... Just the usual delluded Phil!
You do realise i could get the long term mpg to show the same figure!! Go away... take 5 and then THINK about it!
-
ok , nuff said, best wishes all :smiley:
-
you leaving again ???
-
Baby.. Toys... Pram???? :grin: :grin: :grin:
-
yes best to chuff . all the best mate.
-
Don't R32ists have a forum of their own? They are not GTI's are they?
If they are not GTI's then it's fine for we GTI'ers to poke fun at them in our own forum, shirley.
-
Don't R32ists have a forum of their own? They are not GTI's are they?
If they are not GTI's then it's fine for we GTI'ers to poke fun at them in our own forum, shirley.
I think the word you were trying to say was 'surely'. And no. and no again to your questions egbert/sharpie. :grin:
-
Surely you can't be serious
-
R32/GTI banter appreciated and encouraged, but don't call me Shirley.
-
R32/GTI banter appreciated and encouraged, but don't call me Shirley.
Ok, Tophetta :kiss: :tongue:
-
Sigh . . .
That type of comment by Phil Mcavity is just one of the reasons why I often can't be arsed to post on this forum! :rolleyes:
As usual, Phil repeatedly posts utter, UTTER bollox. Not to mention how he repeatedly contradicts his own posts. I'm sorry to say it, but I really think that Phil is basically abusing his position of trust (of being a moderator) by posting such polarised, unsubstantiated, and simply un-true rubbish. And when anyone else tries to disagree with him, he gets all arsey, or even deletes the thread.
:grin:
-
Add to that the majority of the driving is done at less than 4000rpm, where the turbo boys are just into their power band.. well it's a rather efficient old lump.
Maybe the K04 boys, but the K03 in the standard GTI starts its power band from 1750rpm. :wink:
Come on now Sean, you must have known when you posted that comment I wouldn't let you get away with it :wink:
KO4 is starting its power band from 2200rpm (unmodified) and by 4k revs has already passed its peak torque pulling figure. :cool:
-
R32uk's car is the only R that returns more then the VW handbook specifys. From a cold start , and 8 mile journey, theres NO WAY your car will accurately return that figure, especially from cold as it runs a third richer and would use more then on a long run giving then a good mpg reading on the mfd. :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
From Brim to Brim that is the only way to correctly work out whether your R32 is giving you that figure.At 36mpg, thats 432 mile range!. IMPOSSIBLE!!
A 2.0lt TFSi cannot return that figure even driven with kid gloves, and your saying a V6 is more efficient!! :shocked:
Without meaning to get too involved in this, I can easily get 36mpg if i drive sensibly. And I've seen 400miles out of 1 tank. (okok, so it only happened once but it shows that it's achievable!)
-
It's all getting a bit serious over whether a car can do 36mpg or not isn't it :shocked:
If it can great, if it can't tough. Either way there is no reason to fall out about it and start attacking each other!!
Thread locked as I can't see the point of this becoming a sensible conversation.
One last point though....my long term fuel consumption is only just over 20mpg....but I'm still happy :cool: