New Golf 1.6 FSI Mini Review.

Loading thread data ...

The 'plus' version is even worse.

Reply to
SteveH

Wouldn't be a great marketing ploy to called it the 'Golf Minus' would it? ;-)

Justin.

Reply to
Justin Cole

The 1.4 FSi has a 0-60 measured best on a sundial. One of the very few vehicles I've ever driven that has barely perceptible acceleration. The Golf SDi is another, the Rover non-turbo diesel 218 thing is possibly slower than a misfiring 2CV.

Reply to
Pete M

"Pete M" wrote in message news:ep5j9d$cf4$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org...

Did you ever try a mk3 Golf with the 1.4 60ps motor?

S-L-O-W- !!!

Tim..

Reply to
Tim..

In news: snipped-for-privacy@bt.com, Tim.. wittered on forthwith;

I drove a 1043 cc Mk2 Golf once, that wasn't quick...

Reply to
Pete M

SWMBO has had a 60bhp Seat Ibiza for about 5 years now. It redfines slow. Strangely though, we have never felt the inclination to get rid of it.

Reply to
Bob Sherunckle

We have acouple of Bitzer 1.4 75bhp's and to be honest their not slow at all! Easily keep up with yer common-or-garden Focus 1.6's.

Amazing how the same engine can have split personalities...

Tim..

Reply to
Tim..

Er, but the 1.6 focus IS slow. Painfully so. :)

Reply to
Albert T Cone

SteveH wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:44:49 +0000:

??>> Slow.

S> The 'plus' version is even worse.

And it was worse on petrol them my old Impreza !

I used to use a tenners worth for a return trip to work in the Impreza, so I put a tenner in the Golf even tho it was on a quarter of a tank, returned it on fumes. Same other then the lack of performance is was quite a nice car, for a poverty spec model.

Reply to
Geoff

Indeed!

Tim..

Reply to
Tim..

Well it's hampered by overly tall gearing, innit?

Reply to
DervMan

This tells us nothing because different fuel tanks and instrument electronics say different things...

Reply to
DervMan

A tenners worth of fuel varies in volume depending on what type of tank it's in ?

Reply to
Geoff

No, the needle position varies according the the tank its relative to.

Surely you've experienced a car that show full for the first hundred miles or so, then rapidly drop to the half way point, then dribble down until they reach the quarter, then hang around here for a bit before descending to empty inside twenty miles or so? As an example.

Reply to
DervMan

The 405 used to do that. The 206 seems to go down fast at first then slow down, but it's fairly constant.

Reply to
Iridium

The above is a consistent trend amongst many cars. My Mondeo did it, the Xantia TD at the Norwich fleet did it, my Ka did it, the Accord too (except it sat above full for the first hundred miles heh)...

Later stuff appears to be more accurate, but it depends. Many cars' instruments merely show you what the electronics think you want to know. Coolant gauges these days merely tell you if the engine is cold, warming up, normal, starting to get too warm or overheating - they're essentially six position dials. Proper gauges showed you the temperature...

It's going to be the same with fuel. "Full." "Half way there." "Think about stopping for fuel." "Stop now."

:)

Reply to
DervMan

Not really - I mean, the gear spacing is such that you can keep it on the boil ok, it's more hampered by the fact that it's woefully underpowered :)

Reply to
Albert T Cone

IIRC mine has numbers on if that helps heh. It's not one I ever look at for a great deal of time TBH heh.

The trip computer tells me all those things :-)

Reply to
Iridium

True.

Yes but I am talking about the same tank and gauge, I collect car, the gauge reads a quarter of a tank, I put in a tenner as that usually does the round trip to work, when I return the car the gauge is off the bottom of the scale, that tells me that it has used more then the tenner's worth of fuel.

Reply to
Geoff

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.