Why VW's get bad gas mileage?

> That's not a very impressive set of numbers for the VW Rabbit diesel.
> Too bad.
>
>
out of curiousity, I looked up the EPA numbers for the jetta diesel, and
they're 36/41
I can certainly only expect the Rabbit to match(at least!)

JP

Jon R. Patrick wrote:
> First, I'm a fan of VW, so I'm not just here attacking them. I had an
> 87 Fox I used my last 2 years of college, and it's one of those cars
> I'm sorry I ever got rid of.
> I MAY be in the market to replace my current ride (a focus), and the
> new Rabbit has caught my eye... reminding me of the days that I loved
> driving my first VW.
>
> I was doing some research last weekend, and I'm shocked. I know
> they've been moving VW upmarket for years, and honestly the rabbit
> seems a much better buy than the Golf was...
>
> but the kicker is that the VW gets (with the base gas engine)
> *terrible* gas mileage when compared to it's peers.
> The civic is also brand new and gets much, MUCH better gas mileage.
> I don't like the corolla, but it's a mileage champ too.
> I love the Mazda 3, and it gets comparitively terrible gas mileage
> when compared to the honda and toy., but still better than the VW.
>
> I could go on (my ford gets better mileage with an auto tranny)...
> but I wonder WHY? Anybody have a feel for it.
>
> (I'm basing this on EPA estimates, as a standard for comparison)
> JP

Don't know Volkswagen's were allways the most thirsty compairt to other EU
cars.
but if you look at the ammount of mk2 golf's still running and the direct
compeditors opel(GM) kadett E /astra F and Ford Escort There allmost gone.


--
Arie
mk4 Golf variant 2001

> Rabbit 22/30 2.5L 150hp
> for a comparison:
> Mazda 3 28/35 2.0 140
> Focus 27/37 2.0 136
> Cobalt 25/34 2.2 148
> Civic 30/38 1.8 140

The Rabbit has a 5-cylinder engine. More displacement = more HP = more
fuel consumption, as a general rule.

VW isn't competing . They don't have to and wont. If you think they are ,
you are making a big error. The Polo isn't even here to compare too. It
should be. By default the Rabbit becomes the entry level car from VW. The
engine is too big for entry level. But they aren't consumer oriented, and
are a Take it or Leave it company, and are performance orientated. And sell
all their cars. Toyota is building 5 new plants, to keep up with demand
and just beat GM this month in sales. VW is trying to sell $22,000 cars to
teenagers with pimped out rides. That is not competing. They can care less
about your comparisons. They protect themselves by limiting production. The
Rabbit is just moving sales around from other VW brands. My main beef about
VW is they don't compete. The Rabbit is the wrong car, at the wrong time ,
with the wrong engine at the wrong price. It would of been an excellent
release when the Focus first came out, No one had a hatch, and before gas
shot up. Its not now. Its just decent. Its their response to the Yaris,
Scion, Fit ,Echo,Versa. because that's all they got. But its not competing.
And other Korean ,or other cars too which are getting much better. See my
point about the wrong time. Your comparisons are pointless. Price defines
more about comparisons are , then size does. The Rabbit isn't as good but
cost marginally less then the Mazda , Focus and Honda with a hatch. It
should be more reliable and cost less then the Golf or Jetta. Because they
are taking crap off the car. So compared to what they have, Well, Its not
bad. There is some demand for cheaper VWs with higher reliability. The
Original Rabbit saved VW. They were against the wall. The Rabbit name has
sales value for sure. The Rabbit should have a 110-120 hp engine max to
compete with the Fit, Yaris, and Versa. Then it would be a comparable
powered car ,with a hatch, but bigger, and cost marginally more. And then
it would take sales from others , who say those cars are too small. And will
give up mileage, and pay more to get a bigger car . The Rabbit as it
stands is made for these people. People who wanted a Cheaper Golf. People
who had , or wanted a Rabbit before. People who still have an older hatch VW
already. There's one more group I cant think of, somebody mentioned a month
or so ago. But that's it. Any other sales are residual, or extra. However
you can compare what you want. But The Civic with a hatch, Focus wagon ,And
Mazda wagon are all $19,000, I say those because they don't have a hatch.
The Civic 4 door is $14,500. I wouldn't compare that either because its got
no hatch. I like Hondas , but they are priced slightly higher and have
interference engines. Toyotas don't. The Yaris, Echo, and Scions are all
Toyota Echos. I don't know about the Cobalt. You just think VW is
competing with those cars. Because that's what you want to compare. But in
reality , Its not competing with anybody and doesn't have to be as good .
"Jon R. Patrick" > wrote in message
88.18...
> "none2u" > wrote in
> :
>
>> VW doesn't have a car to compare to those others here. The polo
>> probably would stand up just fine. All those subcompacts have 110 hp
>> range engines with comparable great mileage. VW doesn't have an engine
>> that small here. You cant compare apples and oranges. The Rabbit
>> mileage should be the same as the base engine jetta, or very close.
>
> But in this market is *does* have to compete. If it's in the same size-
> catagory, so it'll be compared with those cars.
> The fact is, I'm interested in the Rabbit, but I can't find a reason to
> buy it. Everytime I do, I find another car that's just as nice, but
> cheaper and more fuel efficient. Then, add in there MAY be a question as
> to reliability, and the crappy dealer nearby, and suddenly that Mazda
> looks good.
> Finally, you're wrong. The Polo would compete with the Honda Fit, Nissan
> Versa, and Toyota Yaris. The Rabbit competes against the cars
> previously mentioned.
> Here's the engine sizes for you to argue over. Note I'm still limiting
> the EPA and now HP stats for the base engines only.
> brand epa engine Power
> city/hwy size (HP)
>
> Rabbit 22/30 2.5L 150hp
> for a comparison:
> Mazda 3 28/35 2.0 140
> Focus 27/37 2.0 136
> Cobalt 25/34 2.2 148
> Civic 30/38 1.8 140
>
>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Rabbit 22/30 2.5L 150hp
>> for a comparison:
>> Mazda 3 28/35 2.0 140
>> Focus 27/37 2.0 136
>> Cobalt 25/34 2.2 148
>> Civic 30/38 1.8 140
>
> The Rabbit has a 5-cylinder engine. More displacement = more HP = more
> fuel consumption, as a general rule.

My experience across 3 VWs is that they pretty much get the same or better
mileage as the EPA estimated city and highway. Perhaps VW's mileage numbers
are a bit more realistic than other makes.

> but the kicker is that the VW gets (with the base gas engine) *terrible*
> gas mileage when compared to it's peers.

I've wondered about that, too. I think one key is in the engine design
philosophies of VW and the various Japanese makers. In general,
Japanese engines are oversquare, have lower torque, and have a powerband
much higher in the RPM range. As a general thing, you've got to rev
them more, and they've got less low-end grunt. This is especially true
of Honda engines.

VW's engines are less oversquare, have greater torque, and have it lower
in their rev range. They've got more low-end grunt, don't need to be
revved as high to get into the powerband, and are nicer around-town
engines as a result.

I suspect this design trade-off results in an engine that is not quite
as efficient volumetrically, but in real-life gives good results. I
don't like having to rev the daylights out of an engine to get to the
meat of the powerband. However, I recently bought a Corolla for my
mother-in-law, and I was very impressed with the fact that the base
engine has variable valve timing, four valves per cylinder, and in spite
of the power peak being high in the rev range, has good off-the-line
acceleration. It just won't have as much grunt with a full load as VW's
2.0.

Agreed about the tradeoffs. But you can still get good mileage. I have a
2003 Jetta 1.8T, so that has quite a bit more power than the base engine,
but rated the same for fuel economy (23 city/31 highway). I tend to have
mixed driving, although my commute is mostly on the highway. I very rarely
get less than 30mpg on a tank. On long trips where the driving is
exclusively highway (and when I can sometimes set the cruise for 100+miles),
I have gotten as high as 35mpg -- even doing 75mph.

Corey

"Brian Running" > wrote in message
m...
>> but the kicker is that the VW gets (with the base gas engine) *terrible*
>> gas mileage when compared to it's peers.
>
> I've wondered about that, too. I think one key is in the engine design
> philosophies of VW and the various Japanese makers. In general, Japanese
> engines are oversquare, have lower torque, and have a powerband much
> higher in the RPM range. As a general thing, you've got to rev them more,
> and they've got less low-end grunt. This is especially true of Honda
> engines.
>
> VW's engines are less oversquare, have greater torque, and have it lower
> in their rev range. They've got more low-end grunt, don't need to be
> revved as high to get into the powerband, and are nicer around-town
> engines as a result.
>
> I suspect this design trade-off results in an engine that is not quite as
> efficient volumetrically, but in real-life gives good results. I don't
> like having to rev the daylights out of an engine to get to the meat of
> the powerband. However, I recently bought a Corolla for my mother-in-law,
> and I was very impressed with the fact that the base engine has variable
> valve timing, four valves per cylinder, and in spite of the power peak
> being high in the rev range, has good off-the-line acceleration. It just
> won't have as much grunt with a full load as VW's 2.0.

wrote:
>> Rabbit 22/30 2.5L 150hp
>> for a comparison:
>> Mazda 3 28/35 2.0 140
>> Focus 27/37 2.0 136
>> Cobalt 25/34 2.2 148
>> Civic 30/38 1.8 140
>
> The Rabbit has a 5-cylinder engine. More displacement = more HP = more
> fuel consumption, as a general rule.
>

The Cobalt has only 2 hp less and gets (or is claimed to get) 10% better
fuel economy. That argument doesn't wash. I think the explanation is
simple: VW isn't as concerned about fuel economy as some other
manufacturers. That's not evil or anything; they choose to focus on
other factors, like low-end torque, flexibility/driveability, etc.
However, I can't help but ask why they can't bring the Twincharger
engine over here and let us have it all - high efficiency and excellent
power from a small package. A Rabbit 4-door with 170 hp would be all
the car I'd really need to satisfy me (well, 4Motion would be nice).

--
Mike Smith

> Agreed about the tradeoffs. But you can still get good mileage. I have a
> 2003 Jetta 1.8T, so that has quite a bit more power than the base engine,
> but rated the same for fuel economy (23 city/31 highway). I tend to have
> mixed driving, although my commute is mostly on the highway. I very rarely
> get less than 30mpg on a tank. On long trips where the driving is
> exclusively highway (and when I can sometimes set the cruise for 100+miles),
> I have gotten as high as 35mpg -- even doing 75mph.

I suspect (but I don't know for sure) that Toyota, et al., don't achieve
their EPA ratings in real-world, day-to-day use. I know for a fact that
my VWs have always exceeded theirs. I get a consistent 26 mpg in city
driving with my 2.0 (but in the winter it drops off considerably),
though it's rated 24 by the EPA. My '85 1.6 Diesel got 41 in the city,
and was rated 37, I believe. I recall reading an article in the last
two months in which it was stated that Toyota's EPA mileage ratings are
very optimistic and do not translate to the real world.

> > The Rabbit has a 5-cylinder engine. More displacement = more HP = more
> > fuel consumption, as a general rule.

> The Cobalt has only 2 hp less and gets (or is claimed to get) 10% better
> fuel economy. That argument doesn't wash.

I agree that it's not a law written in stone, just a general
observation. That extra 5th cylinder also adds rotational mass,
frictional losses, and weight, so those count against fuel economy. But
yeah, I'm sure a lot could be changed in the tuning, both in the ECM as
well as intake manifold shape and length, cam timing, etc.

> However, I can't help but ask why they can't bring the Twincharger
> engine over here and let us have it all - high efficiency and excellent

Well, I've seen Jettas and Passats with the 1.8T, so I see no reason
why VW couldn't offer one in the New Rabbit as well. Historically the
Jetta and Golf have always been built on the same platform so it should
be a bolt-in deal.