EPA flexing their muscles

Is this not the same engine?

https://www.vw.com/models/golf-sportwagen/section/performance/

tikal said:

Also, is the 47 mpg is with four passengers and the trunk full of stuff going hwy speed?

Click to expand...

Because all the miles you put on your TDI are with 4 passengers and the trunk fully loaded?

As if nobody reports MPG numbers for their TDI with an unloaded car on flat terrain?

No, that was empty with just me. Detroit airport to a job site in the middle of Ohio and back. Cruise set at 80 mph with the automatic-distance-following thing doing its thing, mostly 70-75 due to traffic.

Those reporting that sort of mileage from a common-rail TDI aren't reporting that in mountain driving at max GVWR, either. Remember, I used to have one of those cars (P-D, but fuel consumption isn't much different from a common-rail). 47 mpg US = 5.0 litres per 100 km. I don't think mine EVER did that. 5.5, all the time. 5.0? Not with me driving it. Sure, it could probably be achieved by hypermiling. Certainly not loaded to GVWR doing 130 km/h.

The Toyota "Dynamic Force" engine is well designed, it is connected to an efficient transmission with a tall top gear, and the car (Camry) has well-sorted aerodynamics. It works.

No, the Camry is not a wagon, but that's what the Rav4 is for. You can get the same engine and (I think) transmission in a Rav4. Not efficient enough for you? Get the hybrid version. (Camry and Rav4 both have that option)

Don't want Toyota? The Mazda Skyactiv powertrains also do very well. Same concept of technology. Today's "wagon" is a CUV ... that's what people buy. Mazda CX-3, CX-5, etc, take your pick.

I don't know if VW has seen fit to put the 1.4 TSI in a wagon. It does appear that VW is discontinuing the wagons in the USA, though ...

I'm not locked into a particular technology. I am in favour of "what works".

And the ALH "works". Continues to. Although to be fair, my BHW and my AWM also continue to work, 15 years and 200k+. I'd say they work the same as they did when new, but that would be a lie, thanks to Rocketchip.

My non-fixed CJAA+ DSG A5 sedan was able to tag 50+ pretty consistently the few times I ran a tank start to finish and bothered to check. Mostly highway, but fast (80+) with some "spirited" driving mixed in. I did tend to use the Tip mode a lot on my drive home, which consists of lots of two lane and twisties.

What really sucks to me is that there are cars capable of 65+ MPG, real world, that I would actually most likely want to drive, with not only existing tech, but tech that is over a decade old or older, but we cannot get those here.

jack is making a good point. Sure, newer gasoline powered cars do much better than they used to, but FE tends to drop more when loaded or driven harder. This is especially true with turbo gassers. Ask any Ford 150 owner what FE does when the truck is loaded or driven hard. FE drops to V8 levels pretty quickly.

Diesels in general don't tend to do that. I've seen 52 MPG at 80+ MPH trips in my ALH. And FE rarely gets below 45, even making a lot of short trips in Winter. I don't think a Camry, or even a Golf TSI, would see anything close to those numbers under similar conditions.

I know I get tasked with driving a lot of different cars home and back, to give thorough test drives and get readiness to set after major work, even if I was not the one who did the job. And most all of them suck fuel down in a horrible fashion the way I drive. Just going by the amount the gauge drops, but still pretty obviously noticeably bad.

I replaced an engine in a Santa Fe, the standard 2.4L GDI bolted to the 6sp autobox. It was a shop trade in that we decided to fix and sell. I drove it to and from work for a week, and it netted an abysmal 22 MPG. And I didn't even drive it as fast as I drive my cars, kept it below 80 on the highway. That is a very popular vehicle. And this was just the FWD model. That is worse than twice the fuel consumption of my Golf. And I bet many Americans would consider that "good". I mean, it is a four cylinder, right?

I just finished and sold one of my project 2.slo Jettas, and it managed 24 MPG on its last tank with me. LMAO. At least it ran and drove well, and the new owner doesn't drive nearly as much as I do. I really think a lot of those cars' issue with bad fuel economy was the gearing. It screams along at nearly 4k RPM at 80. Which is ridiculous. I have often wondered what one would get with a TDI's 02J behind it.

On the heavier Q5 the difference between the diesel and the new 4-banger is exactly as said above. You can get decent mpg in the gasser if you don’t load it down and if you drive like a grandma. If you choose sport mode you can get tolerably good performance (you ignore the frenetic shifting patterns) at a steep loss of economy.

Personally I think the higher statutory mpg rules under Obama’s EPA (ambitious though they were) are preferable to the complete and total rollback to prior levels that the current EPA wants. Although they aren’t a first order contributor to air quality as noted above, they are an indirect contributor through the methods used to extract petroleum, a resource which in itself there is a compelling interest not to overuse.

It just sucks that the war on diesel is in exact opposition to higher fuel economy. And the engines that some of us want to purchase that DO offer good fuel economy are made verboten. Or the ones that we can get are hidden behind stratospheric MSRPs. The diesel F150 "starts" at $46k. So, yeah, I could buy a 30 MPG full sized pickup. But I'd be in debt up to my eyeballs for years to do so, and so I'd end up just making do with something that gets 15 MPG instead.

F150 pricing makes little sense to me. You can buy a less well equipped F250 for the same money as the lowest trim level available F150.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

F150 pricing makes little sense to me. You can buy a less well equipped F250 for the same money as the lowest trim level available F150.

Click to expand...

And, as we saw first hand in Dearborn, they (Ford) are building mostly the tarted up model F150s as fast as they can. Makes no sense to me either.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

jack is making a good point. Sure, newer gasoline powered cars do much better than they used to, but FE tends to drop more when loaded or driven harder.

Click to expand...

So the 47mpg would maybe drop to 44mpg if the car had 800 pounds of cargo in it? Which still has it getting double the mpg of most vehicles on the road, and this is supposed to make us TDI owners feel so triumphant why?

I'm just stoked that there are more than zero fuel efficient vehicles that are available for purchase in the USA.

oilhammer said:

I know I get tasked with driving a lot of different cars home and back, to give thorough test drives and get readiness to set after major work, even if I was not the one who did the job. And most all of them suck fuel down in a horrible fashion the way I drive. Just going by the amount the gauge drops, but still pretty obviously noticeably bad.

I replaced an engine in a Santa Fe, the standard 2.4L GDI bolted to the 6sp autobox. It was a shop trade in that we decided to fix and sell. I drove it to and from work for a week, and it netted an abysmal 22 MPG. And I didn't even drive it as fast as I drive my cars, kept it below 80 on the highway. That is a very popular vehicle. And this was just the FWD model. That is worse than twice the fuel consumption of my Golf. And I bet many Americans would consider that "good". I mean, it is a four cylinder, right?

I just finished and sold one of my project 2.slo Jettas, and it managed 24 MPG on its last tank with me. LMAO. At least it ran and drove well, and the new owner doesn't drive nearly as much as I do. I really think a lot of those cars' issue with bad fuel economy was the gearing. It screams along at nearly 4k RPM at 80. Which is ridiculous. I have often wondered what one would get with a TDI's 02J behind it.

Click to expand...

hah, that's pretty pitiful.

My near 6000 lb V10 powered Touareg, complete with air suspension, low gear transfer case, permanent AWD and locking differentials, has averaged 21-22 on long highway trips doing 80-85... and it has 550 ft lbs of torque

My sister had that 98 New Beetle with the AEG, I couldn't stand the 4000 RPM at 80. I eventually got a used TDI 5th gear that I installed in it, dropped RPMs by nearly 500 at 80. Made a big difference in noise, so much quieter. I did a couple hundred miles of highway driving doing about 80-90 on I-5 once and it got 30 MPG.

Wasn't a quick car, but not so horrendeously slow either. It was still kinda fun in its own way.

I am down to one 2.slo now, anothe 2001 Jetta that need an engine. Owner decided to let a little coolant leak get low enough to overheat the engine, and decided "meh, I'll keep driving it" until it said "meh, you're an idiot, I'm done" and it has zero compression.

Fortunately, the pack rat that I am, I have a low mileage unit that I harvested from the dealer that had less than 10k miles on it before being tooefed by a pothole and cracking the pan. Insurance bought them a new engine. I saved the old one, put a new pan and new bearings in it, just for such an occasion. Been sitting for a LONG time, though, so hopefully the lifters will pump up.

They are pretty decent cars just thirsty.

But getting back to the diesels, here is one of my regulars here today:



You'd never know by looking at it, but it has covered some distance:



It got a new high tone horn today.

Yes there are a few choices for fuel efficient relatively larger vehicles in the US and if I ask a question about how a certain gasoline powered vehicle operated under load is not to put down the gasoline engines, it is to get more date from people who have driven them under load conditions.

Ok, so gasoline engines have come a long way in the last decade or so. In the same way has light duty diesel engines have progressed (normalized to performance output vs efficiency under load). The availability of light duty diesel vehicles is just not here in the US so consequently we can say that gasoline technology is 'catching up' to light duty diesel engines. Well in a sense I agree, since light duty diesel engines are disappearing from our buying choices in the US so gasoline is ahead in this sense

Matt-98AHU said:

Wasn't a quick car, but not so horrendeously slow either. It was still kinda fun in its own way.

Click to expand...

I've had more fun behind the wheels of ~100 hp stickshift four banger beaters than just about anything with 3x the power.

turbobrick240 said:

I've had more fun behind the wheels of ~100 hp stickshift four banger beaters than just about anything with 3x the power.

Click to expand...

There absolutely is something to the adage: "It's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow."

Especially with a stick shift.

Of course when you have a high powered car, you only get to use its full potential for a very limited time since it's so easy to achieve extra legal speeds.

Whereas your 100 hp ****box, it's foot to the floor every chance you get... and most people don't even realize you're giving it all that effort. LOL. But as the driver, you're sure as hell entertained!

My wife an I used to "race" our rabbit Diesels and no one knew...

redbarron55 said:

My wife an I used to "race" our rabbit Diesels and no one knew...

Click to expand...

Had 'er pinned for almost 15 minutes!



I hit 62 MPH at one point



Years ago a friend in Canada lent me an old non turbo diesel mercedes, I asked how long you could run it at full throttle, he told me he thought the full throttle duty cycle was %100... Ok. I actually got the car up to 120KPH at one point, going downhill, I believe that record has not been bested since, I probably had the pedal on the floor for %80 of the time I was driving the car...

I actually drag raced (on a real race track) my 1971 Westfalia camper (the last year for the 1600 engine for us, so about 50hp) against my friend's 1966 Bus. The time was in the mid 20s, but we had fun. Normally I raced my '73 Bug which had a 2180 in it... it was MUCH faster, LOL.

Y'all haven't experienced anything until you've driven a diesel Vanagon (48hp) or the old 1200 Transporters (40hp... my friend has a '63 "double door" panel van).

When I was a kid our family's first VW Bus was a '64. If we were all aboard it didn't want to go much over 50. My dad traded it for a '66 21 window (i think) bus with the fabric roof and, if I recall, 53 HP. Significant improvement.

My 48 HP '78 Rabbit got around fine. Lots of pedal to the floor, but that was fun.

'64 and '66 (for the US market) used the same 1500 engine. 1963 was the changeover year from the 1200 40 horse to the 1500. Bus didn't get the 1600 until the '68 change. Europe still had the 1200 Bus standard through '67, and they still had a standard 1200 Beetle available into the '70s!

We got the Type 4 engine, detuned and with dual carbs instead of EFI, in the Bus starting in '72, but again Europe made do with the 1600 not only through '79 but into the first few years of the T3 (Vanagon) albeit with a laid down cooling fan arrangement.

Our family Bus was a '75, so it was an 1800 Type 4 engine, and got EFI that year too. Ran great, very dependable. I was still driving it in '94 until I finally gave it up due to rust. Mechanicals were still good, and lived on in other various projects. They bumped them up to 2 liters in '76. The '76-'79 (I have a '79 now) 2.0L EFI Bus, provided it isn't cursed with a slushbox, is actually a pretty decent running vehicle. Peppy around town, and can cruise along at 70 fairly easily. Certainly not fast, but a far cry from any of the older ones. Power disc brakes, too.

For some reason, though, when the T3 came out, they just carried over that engine, only it was now saddled with a few hundred pounds more curb weight. And I assume that the Type 4 engine was "maxed out" displacement wise, from a safe factory level, at 2000 cc. This was the same size the 914 2.0 and 912E used. So they either had to add two more cylinders, which was unlikely although the original Type 4 engine design DID allow for this, or come up with a totally new engine. They did neither. They ended up revamping the old air cooled Beetle engine, the 1961 1200/1500 design, with water cooling and huge cylinders, with some design bits from the Type 4 (aluminum case, hydraulic lifters, 5 bolt flywheel, dual crank seals, spin on filter) but the 'waterboxer' is clearly based on the older engine. They even use the same valve covers. So it was more powerful, but plagued with water jacket seal leaks.

What I could never figure out is, they put the diesel (laid down at 40 degrees) in the back of the Vanagon, and the diesel was anatomically the same arrangement as the gas inline engines of the era, why didn't they just cobble together a low compression larger displacement I4 gasser for them instead? LOTS of people did conversions like that, and VAG in South Africa ended up doing just that. The poor waterboxer just seemed lost and out of place.

Maybe our first bus was a '63. I distinctly remember it was a 40 HP engine. But I don't remember a lot else. It was a long time ago.

A buddy of mine has a nice wasserboxer Westy Vanagon. He's always fixing something or other on the engine, mostly leaks I think. There's a shop around here that specializes in Vanagon conversions. I think they do mostly 2.slow and Subie swaps. There's a member here, Syncrogreg, who has done some top notch swaps. He put a subaru diesel boxer in his syncro vanagon. I think he does more VW engine swaps these days.

tikal said:

Yes there are a few choices for fuel efficient relatively larger vehicles in the US and if I ask a question about how a certain gasoline powered vehicle operated under load is not to put down the gasoline engines, it is to get more date from people who have driven them under load conditions.

Ok, so gasoline engines have come a long way in the last decade or so. In the same way has light duty diesel engines have progressed (normalized to performance output vs efficiency under load). The availability of light duty diesel vehicles is just not here in the US so consequently we can say that gasoline technology is 'catching up' to light duty diesel engines. Well in a sense I agree, since light duty diesel engines are disappearing from our buying choices in the US so gasoline is ahead in this sense

Click to expand...

With the exception of Ram/Jeep. The 3 liter V6 diesel is spreading. In addition to the Ram 1500 and Jeep Cherokee, it will soon be on the lots in the Wrangler and Gladiator. So if you want a diesel SUV, there's your options. Of course that not the same as the Suburban or Excursion, but at least it is an option.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Maybe our first bus was a '63. I distinctly remember it was a 40 HP engine. But I don't remember a lot else. It was a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Yeah, 40hp was the first three months of 1963 production. Then, they made all the US spec Transporters get the "ambulance" engine, minus the 12v electrics, which came in '67 to all ours as standard. So it was one of the last of its kind. '63s are also the last of the narrow rear hatch, and if it was a deluxe, the last of the wraparound corner windows.

My friend found his '63 double door (cargo doors on both sides) panel van hidden in a basement garage, parked there in the early '70s. We drug it out, trailered it to a carwash and blew it clean, inside and out, brought it home. Put new fuel lines on it, a new battery in it, sprayed some WD40 on the carb linkage, primed the bowl, and it started right up and ran perfect.

My other friend found a later '63, with the 1500, in the '80s in a garage, but was in excellent shape. It was a walk-through (meaning no front bench seat, just individual L/R seats) deluxe, BUT, it had no sunroof, so no roof windows either. And it was all white, no two-tone. Very rare ordered options. Only one like it I have ever seen.

Also have another friend who had a '66 slider, so the optional sliding side door, which was also pretty rare for us. And it was a regular kombi that was not originally equipped with rear seats. Another odd-ball.

Last I read Chrysler moved the launch date of the diesel Wrangler to "probably later this year." Gladiator is still scheduled for release soon. I think diesels in trucks these days more than ever are real when you see on on a dealer lot.

oilhammer, maybe our bus was a '64. It didn't have the narrow rear hatch. And it was a base version, with a walk-through. The '66 was a deluxe with with a full front seat. I gasp to think of what that van would be worth today in good condition.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Last I read Chrysler moved the launch date of the diesel Wrangler to "probably later this year." Gladiator is still scheduled for release soon. I think diesels in trucks these days more than ever are real when you see on on a dealer lot.

oilhammer, maybe our bus was a '64. It didn't have the narrow rear hatch. And it was a base version, with a walk-through. The '66 was a deluxe with with a full front seat. I gasp to think of what that van would be worth today in good condition.

Click to expand...

A couple online automotive publications have driven/reviewed the diesel Wrangler in the last week. Must be getting close.

Still blown away at what the 4x2 Silverado 3.0 Duramax can do fuel efficiency wise. I like the fact it's a straight 6 instead of a V6, too.

Watching some of the engineers describe and show on a cutaway model all the internal design features of the engine, it's pretty amazing how much of it seems like a knock-off of the VW EA288 family...

The splitties have skyrocketed so much in value that now people are turning to the bays (the T2). But the idiots that drag rusted hulks out of the woods and slap them on samba for $10k are just looking for something that will not ever happen.

Oddly enough, a LOT of our splitties and even some bays have been bought up and shipped BACK to Europe. The deluxe was more common here, due to the exchange rate making them only a couple hundred more than the standard kombi. So while Europe had kombis and panels and pickups splattered all over their roads for decades (still do, actually), we didn't get nearly as many of those. And the commercial stuff thanks to the Chicken Tax stopped after 1971.

Some T3 trucks have been brought in, though, and those were around in the 4WD days (1986+) so those are worth a fortune. Imagine being able to sell a worn, used, but still functioning dime-a-dozen F150 from the late '80s for $20k+.

I was at the Owls head transportation museum classic car auction with my uncle when this '70 campmobile rolled onto the block. We were surprised when the gavel came down at $55k. My uncle owned several bread loafs back in the 70's that he got used quite cheap. Between those, his '67 912, dune buggy and corvair, he could nearly start his own air cooled transport museum- provided he had kept them all.

http://owlshead.org/auctions/detail/1970-volkswagen-camper

kjclow said:

With the exception of Ram/Jeep. The 3 liter V6 diesel is spreading. In addition to the Ram 1500 and Jeep Cherokee, it will soon be on the lots in the Wrangler and Gladiator. So if you want a diesel SUV, there's your options. Of course that not the same as the Suburban or Excursion, but at least it is an option.

Click to expand...

So basically light duty diesel engines smaller than 3.0L range are pretty much non-existent nowadays in North America and in the foreseeable future!