Why VW's get bad gas mileage?

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

Reply to
Jon R. Patrick
Loading thread data ...

Hold out for the new diesel Rabbits, coming in model year 2008.

-Bryan

Reply to
Bryan K. Walton

First of all, for some reason VWs seem to get mileage closer to the EPA ratings than some other brands (Honda, Toyota, etc.) - secondly, the base engine's architecture dates back to 1974. It's a great engine, but if you really want economy perhaps you should be looking at a TDI or similar.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Has an estimated fuel mileage been announced yet for the new Rabbit? What can we expect?

Reply to
Papa

"Papa" wrote in news:iZaBg.4497$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

22/30 according to the EPA. for a comparison: Mazda 3 28/35 Focus 27/37 Cobalt 25/34 Civi 30/38

(all are base engines with manual tranny. all are '07 models, except for civic with is '06

Reply to
Jon R. Patrick

That's not a very impressive set of numbers for the VW Rabbit diesel. Too bad.

Reply to
Papa

Those are the specs for the gas version. No, we don't have any idea of what mpg will be for the diesel rabbit. They are over a year away, and will have a brand new type of diesel engine in them. You are going to have to wait a while for mpg specs for the diesel rabbit.

-Bryan

Reply to
Bryan K. Walton

Well, that's good to hear. Maybe I'll buy one after all. Cheers.

Reply to
Papa

Reply to
none2u

"none2u" wrote in news:wdqdnRrrue6k-kjZnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@centurytel.net:

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

Reply to
Jon R. Patrick

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

Reply to
Jon R. Patrick

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

Reply to
Arrebeest

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

Reply to
tylernt

Reply to
none2u

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.

Reply to
Keep on Plonkin'

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.
Reply to
Brian Running

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

Reply to
Corey

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

Reply to
Mike Smith

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.

Reply to
Brian Running

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.

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.

Reply to
tylernt

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.