If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
> 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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
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 > > |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
> 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
> 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
> 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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why VW's get bad gas mileage?
> > 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A modest fuel saving proposal: no more than 3000 RPM | Daniel W. Rouse Jr. | Driving | 133 | October 1st 05 04:16 AM |
Tips to Boost Gas Mileage & Performance | Michael Sinatra | Ford Mustang | 11 | August 21st 05 06:00 AM |
Tips to Boost Gas Mileage & Performance | Michael Sinatra | Corvette | 2 | August 19th 05 08:55 PM |
Tips to Boost Gas Mileage & Performance | Michael Sinatra | Corvette | 1 | August 18th 05 06:14 PM |
Tips to Boost Gas Mileage & Performance | Michael Sinatra | Corvette | 1 | August 16th 05 01:26 AM |