Why VW's get bad gas mileage?

We need to stress here that the EPA does the testing and BY LAW the
automakers must put on the sticker EXACTLY what the EPA tells them.
It's illegal for them to over- OR under-state their fuel mileage.

Just a little FYI.

JP


Brian Running > wrote in
m:


> 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 Cobalt has only 2 hp less and gets (or is claimed to get) 10% better
> fuel economy.

Drive both. The VW offers a better ride all around. Same deal with Civics
and the like. Yeah, they're fine low-end cars but their ride just comes up
short compared to the VW. To some that matters more than squabbling over
gas mileage.

In article > ,
Brian Running > wrote:
>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.

From what I have read, that is mostly with respect to the city EPA
mileage for Toyota's hybrid cars.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

In article > , "Bill Kearney" > wrote:
>> The Cobalt has only 2 hp less and gets (or is claimed to get) 10% better
>> fuel economy.
>
>Drive both. The VW offers a better ride all around. Same deal with Civics
>and the like. Yeah, they're fine low-end cars but their ride just comes up
>short compared to the VW. To some that matters more than squabbling over
>gas mileage.
>

One other factor to consider regarding VW, their 'home' market wants a car
that can cruise the autoban(sp) for miles and hours. Takes a bit of tuning
I suspect to have a small engine crank out 100mph for a couple hundred
miles without wearing out or having problems from over work.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

I think you may be right,I haven't got the exact mileage out of my Toyota.
But I am not convinced it isn't possible yet. My Echo is rated 32/39. The
Corollas the same and the drivetrain is too. To Canada all day freeway with
heat on averaging 70-75 for 800 miles,exiting for gas and coffee breaks, I
got 35. Maybe if I slowed down I might of got it. Sometimes around town I
get27- 29 , AC on solid . I know I can drive easier, to get better mileage,
But you must drive like an old lady. And Corollas/Echos- same drivetrain are
geared so high , people are pushing the gas too much to get the car to
accelerate faster. Causing less gas mileage. If you drive it the way they
say, you cant keep up with traffic, but you may get the mileage. The tach
never exceeds 1900 up to 60 mpg. The overdrive locks in at 40. but you can
barely touch the gas and have to think way ahead. Or the OD drops off or
passing gear kicks in. The transmission adjust to your driving and changes
the shift points and the passing gear point based on how hard you drive. I
had the trans reset once and my mileage went up, but as soon as I was using
the gas more, it adjusted again. I think , for now if you drive the car in
an unreal world way, you may get the mileage. But if you want to be like
everyone else, its not happening. And the car will adjust. and the mileage
will drop. My 85 1.6 diesel best I ever got was 40 mpg. The motors tired.
When I first got it , it was getting 36. It would get 30 with the AC never
shut off all summer.
"Brian Running" > wrote in message
m...
>> 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.

I believe VWs gas mileage figures are easier to hit. I don't agree that that
means everyone's else's figures are wrong. VWs have more power and its
easier to drive without getting in the gas pedal too much. Smaller cars with
less power and better mileage are more susceptible to drops in gas mileage
because people use the gas too much to keep up with traffic.
"Jon R. Patrick" > wrote in message
88.18...
>
> We need to stress here that the EPA does the testing and BY LAW the
> automakers must put on the sticker EXACTLY what the EPA tells them.
> It's illegal for them to over- OR under-state their fuel mileage.
>
> Just a little FYI.
>
> JP
>
>
> Brian Running > wrote in
> m:
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>

> I think , for now if you drive the car in
> an unreal world way, you may get the mileage. But if you want to be like
> everyone else, its not happening.

Yep, I'd rather have a car and numbers that actually matched real-world
driving conditions not something artificial and unlikely to be reproduced.
Well, I'd rather get great mileage AND real-world driving conditions... but
that ain't happening any time soon it seems.

> We need to stress here that the EPA does the testing and BY LAW the
> automakers must put on the sticker EXACTLY what the EPA tells them.
> It's illegal for them to over- OR under-state their fuel mileage.
>
> Just a little FYI.

I don't think there's any need for a condescending tone, Jon. Look,
FYI, the EPA uses a prescribed cycle which may or may not match
real-world driving conditions. If your daily driving perfectly matches
the methodology that the EPA uses, then you might get exactly the EPA's
numbers in your real-world driving. If, on the other hand, you don't,
your numbers are going to vary. Haven't you wondered why your actual
mileage doesn't correspond exactly with the EPA's?

An engine with a torque curve that extends lower into the RPM range will
be a better engine for around-town driving with any kind of load. It
will handle multiple passengers or heavy loads in stride. An engine
with a peaky torque curve that maxes up at 5000 RPM will need to be
flogged harder in real-world driving, and if that car regularly carries
four people or heavy loads, it's going to work harder and use more fuel.
There's a reason some cars make their EPA numbers, some exceed them,
and some don't make them. This is my explanation for this phenomenon.

Regardless of what the EPA says, my VWs have always exceeded their
mileage figures in my real-world use.

"Jon R. Patrick" > wrote in message
88.18...
>
> We need to stress here that the EPA does the testing and BY LAW the
> automakers must put on the sticker EXACTLY what the EPA tells them.
> It's illegal for them to over- OR under-state their fuel mileage.
>
> Just a little FYI.
>
> JP
>

FYI, your statement is incorrect. According to its own information, the EPA
does not buy every car and test it for gas mileage. The EPA sets the test
procedure, the manufacturers test their own vehicles, and the EPA confirms
the tests on a small percentage of vehicles. In fact, the actual gas
mileage is not even measured-- it is calculated based on a vehicle's
emissions. See:
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f05045.htm
for more information.


What Vehicles Are Tested?
Not every vehicle is tested for fuel economy. Instead, manufacturers are
required to split each model into smaller groups, based upon the various
options available that can impact fuel economy (such as vehicle weight,
transmission type and engine size). A vehicle from each of these groups with
the highest projected sales must be tested. Also, passenger cars and light
trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds
are exempt from fuel economy requirements, and are not tested for fuel
economy (however, they are still subject to Federal emission requirements.)

Manufacturers test all the vehicles at their laboratories. EPA confirms
about 10-15 percent of the vehicles at its National Vehicles and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.



How are Vehicles Tested?

Vehicles are driven over identical driving patterns by professional drivers
in controlled laboratory conditions on a dynamometer, which is like a
treadmill for cars. The conditions that occur during driving, such as wind
drag and inertia are accounted for on the dynamometer. There are two types
of tests that are conducted: city and highway tests.

The city test is approximately 11 miles long and simulates a stop and go
trip with an average speed of about 20 miles per hour (mph). The trip lasts
31 minutes and has 23 stops. About 18 percent of the time is spent idling
(as in waiting for traffic lights). A short freeway driving segment is
included in the test. The engine is initially started after being parked
overnight.

The highway test simulates a 10 mile trip with an average speed of 48 mph.
The vehicle is started "hot" and there is very little idling and no stops



How Are the Label Estimates Calculated?

Fuel economy estimates are calculated from the emissions generated during
the tests using a carbon balance equation. We know how much carbon is in the
fuel, so by precisely measuring the carbon compounds expelled in the exhaust
we can calculate the fuel economy.

After the vehicles have been tested, the results are adjusted downward to
account for conditions that occur on the road that can affect fuel economy
which don't occur during laboratory testing, such as cold temperature,
aggressive driving, excessive use of power-hungry accessories, among others.
The city is adjusted downward by 10 percent, and the highway by 22 percent.
The equation for calculating the city or highway average fuel economy, given
in miles per gallon (mpg), is:

FEave = (total sales / [(sales1/FE1)+ (sales2/FE2) + ...+ (salesn/FEn)]

The calculation for combined fuel economy weights the city at 55 percent and
the highway at 45 percent using the following equation:

FEcomb = 1 / (( .55 / city FE) + (.45 / hwy FE))

wrote:
>
>> 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.

Because they don't make the 1.8T anymore. Unless you meant the 2.0T?
But that's 200 hp, not exactly what you'd put into an "economy" Rabbit.
I'm referring to the 1.4L Twincharger engine, found in the Euro Golf GT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twincharger
http://snipurl.com/uluc
http://www.autoblog.com/2005/10/24/a...s-twincharger/

0-60 in under 8s, 39 mpg in an A5.

--
Mike S