Author Topic: Golf fuel consumption though the years...  (Read 9515 times)

Offline chris1h

  • Here all the time
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
  • MK6 GTI BLACK 3 DOOR
Re: Golf fuel consumption though the years...
« Reply #10 on: 07 March 2016, 16:29 »
few years time a mk9 R will be 45 mpg average!  :grin:
MK6 GTI - 2011 - PEARL BLACK - 3 DOOR  - 18" MONZA SHADOWS  -  RNS510/DAB  -  ACC  - SUNROOF  -  WINTER PACK  - DYNAUDIO  -  VIENNA LEATHER  - PARKING SENSORS  - BLUETOOTH

Offline fredgroves

  • Serious forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 7,932
  • Professional Um Bongo drinker
Re: Golf fuel consumption though the years...
« Reply #11 on: 08 March 2016, 09:30 »
I see this on the wife's 1.6TDI Audi A1. Around the doors the mpg is much better than a 2.0TDI, but on the longer journeys at motorway speeds, I get the impression that a 150/184ps 2.0TDI lump that isn't trying as hard would be more economical. The mpg really drops up above 70mph on the 1.6 unit, even though it's 5th gear is at around 2200rpm at 80mph, same as a GTD's 6th gear.

Isn't the main thing that effects MPG as you describe that the RPM needed for the extra speed takes it into the turbo charged zone of the revs..

Ok, so there is a major difference in drag between 70 and 80mph (inverse square and all that) but I'd guess it was more due to the turbo running...

With all the "smart motorway" stuff now I've given up charging up and down the motorways. Switch on the ACC, set it to the speed limit and relax. I've noticed that far more of the traffic is doing the same now, probably because Robocop and his buddies will have eaten your licence after one trip if you don't. On the other hand, I'm not actually getting there any later than I was previously, so maybe this controlled motorway stuff does actually work like they said it would. However I am glad I have ACC!
Current: Mk8 GTI DSG, Adelaides, DCC, HUD, HK, Winter Pack, Rear Camera.. Aka "HMS Weasel"

Gone: 2017 Mk7.5 GTD,manual, NavPro
Gone: 2014 Mk7 GTD, manual, NavPro, DCC

Offline Mk7-GTD

  • Here all the time
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
Re: Golf fuel consumption though the years...
« Reply #12 on: 08 March 2016, 11:09 »
few years time a mk9 R will be 45 mpg average!  :grin:

A few years time the Mk9 R will probably have a 1.4 engine, sad.

Offline Sootchucker

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,348
Re: Golf fuel consumption though the years...
« Reply #13 on: 08 March 2016, 11:38 »
On that note, read the other day (in Auto express) that the Golf later this year will have a new 1.5 Petrol TSI engine (to replace the current 1.4 unit - not sure if the new one has ACT technology), and a new 1.5 diesel to replace the current 1.6 TDI lump.

The new, more efficient engines are designed to comply with even stricter emissions regulations due to be introduced in 2020. The 1.5-litre turbocharged petrol will replace the turbocharged 1.4 TSI that’s used in cars like the VW Golf and Skoda Octavia; it will make its first appearance in the facelifted version of the Mk7 Golf, due before the end of this year.

The diesel replaces the VW Group’s venerable 1.6 motor - although its introduction will be phased in around a year after the petrol’s. It will make its debut in the facelifted Audi A3, but close to the end of that car’s life, in late 2017. It is unlikely to appear in the Mk7 Golf; it’ll be phased into the Mk8 instead.

“The installation of the engine in cars like the Golf and A3 is very straightforward,” said a high-level VW source. “The engines are all new but their dimensions are very similar to what we currently use, so they can slot into existing cars or facelifts.”


I think the whole motor industry for some years now has been making a move to smaller more efficient more powerful engines, so to go from 1.4 to 1.5 liters was quite a surprise (thought it would be a 1 or 1.1 liter unit) ?

After all, not that many years ago the R32 was hauling an impressive 3.2l V6 lump outputting 250ps and 235 g/km CO where as the current R has "only" a 2l 4 pot unit but outputting 300ps with Co of only 165 (159 DSG).
« Last Edit: 08 March 2016, 11:44 by Sootchucker »
2022 Tiguan R-Line 2.0 TSI 4-Motion. Nightshade blue, pano roof, IQ lights, Nav Pro, Harmon Kardon, Heated Windscreen, Heated rear seats, Wireless charging, Heads up display, dual height boot floor, Keyless with electric tailgate, Electronic TPMS, underbody protection, Area View Cameras

Offline monkeyhanger

  • Serious forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 6,663
Re: Golf fuel consumption though the years...
« Reply #14 on: 08 March 2016, 15:28 »
Smaller engines are only more economical when rhey're not being worked. The GTD is a better 70+mph cruiser than the 1.6TDI A1 in mpg terms. Topgear once showed that a BMW  M3 was more economical than a Prius when doing 100mph around a track. Ford's "miracle" 1L turboed engine is very thirsty when not driving like a nun. When not driving to EU test conditions a 1.4 turbo with similar output will be more economical. An engine like that 1L is almost always being worked hard in normal driving and mpg suffers as a result.
Whey ya bugger! It's finally arrived after an 8 month wait....
MK7 R 5 door, manual, Lapiz Blue, Prets.

Offline Mk7-GTD

  • Here all the time
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
Re: Golf fuel consumption though the years...
« Reply #15 on: 10 March 2016, 07:43 »
Smaller engines are only more economical when rhey're not being worked. The GTD is a better 70+mph cruiser than the 1.6TDI A1 in mpg terms. Topgear once showed that a BMW  M3 was more economical than a Prius when doing 100mph around a track. Ford's "miracle" 1L turboed engine is very thirsty when not driving like a nun. When not driving to EU test conditions a 1.4 turbo with similar output will be more economical. An engine like that 1L is almost always being worked hard in normal driving and mpg suffers as a result.

Not sure if they ever hit 100mph but I know which one I would rather have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKIryzmF-VM

Offline Organisys

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,332
  • Old and Slow...
Re: Golf fuel consumption though the years...
« Reply #16 on: 10 March 2016, 13:47 »
Unless there is drastic weight saving or a step change in battery technology (hybrids) then simple laws of physics say that the end result will be much the same.

 :wink:

... it's turned into a fashion show for poofters.