First Drive: 2008 Volkswagen Jetta TDI - Previews

gregozedobe

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Location
Australia
TDI
Transporter T5 2.5TDI
VW R5 TDI with DPF: no bio-diesel, 507.00 oil (not 506.01).

soberups said:
Any speculation as to how well the '08 TDI's will tolerate biodiesel?
My Australian delivery MY2007 (new) Transporter T5 van (2.5L R5 TDI 128Kw motor) came with a DPF and had a little booklet attached to the keys (presumably so I couldn't deny getting it). It says (in many different languages):

"Diesel particulate filter warning lamp
When the warning lamp in the dash panel inser lights up (diagram of the warning light), you can support the self-cleaning action of the particulate filter by driving accordingly. Please refer to the Owner's manual, booklet>>Tips and Maintenance. The warning lamp will go out once the filter has been cleaned.
Do not use rape seed methyl ester fuel (Bio-diesel) in this vehicle!"

So it would appear VW Australia (at least) don't want you to use it (what a surprise).

I had a look at what I think was the DPF (a large cylinder approx 7" in diameter by 14" long immediately after the turbo). It has at least 2 sensors at the beginning (it's a bit hard to see behind the motor), and two at the end.

The DPF doesn't seem to reduce performance, in fact I think my T5 seems to go a little better (not run in yet) than the low mileage demo I test-drove last September.

The owner's manual specifically says I should use 507.00 oil NOT 506.01. 506.01 is still the recommended oil for the R5 motor without DPF. From searching FAQs on a Castrol web-site it seems the DPF requires a low Sulphur, Ash, Phosphorous, Sodium (low-SAPS) oil ie 507.00. I'm glad a people on this site like 507.00 as I was concerned anti-pollution concerns were going to force me to use an inferior grade of oil.
 

SilverGhost

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Location
Back in So Flo - St Lucie
TDI
'05 Golf - totaled :(, wife's '13 Beetle - buy back, TDIless
soberups said:
Any speculation as to how well the '08 TDI's will tolerate biodiesel?
Well, as the most recent post today (3 Feb 07)by gregozedobe shows, there may be a warning NOT to use bio-diesel. I remember this being discussed when the CR Jetta was spotted in Michigan at that alternative fuels show.

Seems that VW in Europe has run into problems with bio-d and DPF failing. They appeared to be concerned and working on a solution. We speculated that because of soaps or residual of some sort from the processing of bio-d was causing this. The newer "2nd generation" bio-fuels may be required for these newer cars, so time may be coming to an end for home brew in new diesels.

Jason
 

soberups

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Location
Newberg Oregon
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
>>Well, as the most recent post today (3 Feb 07)by gregozedobe shows, there may be a warning NOT to use bio-diesel....<<
My '06 PD Jetta is supposedly limited to B5, but myself and many others are running much higher % with no problems. I wonder how much credence to lend to this warning, at least with the use of retail ASTM-spec fuel.
 

Gettin50MPGs

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
jhintontdi said:
We had that car for 7 years. The 2000 Honda Insight was rated at 61/70 mpg. The 2006 was rated at 60/66 mpg. Americans just didn't buy it so it has been discontinued. No secret government hand at work here, just economics.
Americans would've bought them if they were

practical - I'm 6'4 and have a family of 5.....the insight is not practical.
available - ....they weren't
marketed - they weren't
afordable - they weren't
maintainable - they weren't

Place an suv on the market that gets 45 mpg REAL WORLD driving, decent performance, doesn't sound like a truck, nice inside and around the same price as a gasser with mainteance (IE Give the car a real chance) schedule I doubt the consumer will say "...you know, I like spending 3 dollars a gallon for gas..."
 

Huracan

Veteran Member
Joined
May 14, 1999
Location
Saratoga, CA
TDI
1999 Jetta GL Dark Green , 2010 Jetta White
Photo background

Couldn't help mentioning that the background of the first five pictures in the Car and Driver article are from Valencia Spain, City of Arts and Sciences, by Santiago Calatrava.
 

darkscout

Grammar Scout
Joined
May 28, 2006
Location
Michigan
TDI
2003 Golf
Gettin50MPGs said:
Place an suv on the market that gets 45 mpg REAL WORLD driving, decent performance, doesn't sound like a truck, nice inside and around the same price as a gasser with mainteance[sic] (IE Give the car a real chance) schedule I doubt the consumer will say "...you know, I like spending 3 dollars a gallon for gas..."
I'd like to add. I also want a car that runs on rainbows and happy tears. Can transport the offensive line of a football team and never needs an oil change.

You're going to start running into laws of thermodynamics 'soon'. Knocking on wood, you're not going to get 45 MPG out of something that looks like the Ford Excursion. The energy required to keep that at speed given the thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines, you just can't get there. Right now people are finding out that it's hard making their TDI / Hybrid get 45 MPG REAL WORLD. There haven't been any leaps and bounds in efficiency in the last few years, nor do I see one coming soon.

Walmart and other large fleets are running prototype trailers that have side skirts, trucks that have a near 0 gap between them and the trailer. All for efficiency gains of 1-2%. You want an additional 10 MPG, look at what some experimenters have done with their aerodynamic profile. Get closed wheels (No rims). Add a wing to the back to get better flow. Add covers to the rear tires. (Like the Insight). Oh. It's ugly? Oh. Sorry. You asked for efficiency.

The closest thing you're going to get is maybe a station wagon. Lower frontal area and still reasonable carrying capacity.

I don't know what you drive, but my car doesn't sound anything like a truck. I've had a few "this sounds a bit rough" from the outside, but never anything from the cabin. I've idled next to a Ford & Dodge at a stoplight before, both were massively overpowering my own car.

Engineers are working on engines that have longer mainteance[sic] intervals but it's a trade off. We could go back to rocker arms. No timing belt to ever break. But then you have to deal with valve lash. OCI are already up to 30k in certain circumstances.

Reminds me of what we were told in freshmen engineering. If anyone comes up to you and asks you to design something, ask them to pick 2: Cheap, Fast, Reliable.

What do you want: Beautiful, Efficient, Large?
 

supton

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 25, 2004
Location
Central NH (USA)
TDI
'04 Jetta Wagon GLS
Yep, all true. It's too bad that we can't fix the losses in the motor: 1/3 to the radiator, 1/3 out the exhaust, and 1/3 for actual usage (IIRC, but that might be for NA, dunno about tubo apps, and oh yeah, diesel is what, 40%?).

That said: if we could make an ICE 100% efficent, we'd only get a tripling of fuel economy. That SUV that only gets 15mpg? 45 at best. Problem is, getting to that 100% into actual mechanical energy (or more reasonably, 90%). Don't know about the other technologies (Stirling engines, turbines, etc), but nothing seems to have trumped this issue.
 

maloosheck

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Location
Sterling, VA
TDI
2K6 1K2 BRM, 2K8 7L6 BWF, 85 16 MF
RabbitGTI said:
Anyone know if a cutaway version of that motor is making the rounds of the Autoshows? If so, can anyone post photos?
I am looking for them as well. Anyone?
 

PlaneCrazy

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 3, 2000
Location
Province of Quebec, Canada
TDI
Gone...
TDI tidbits: saw my first 2006 Special Edition today, in a nice aqua blue, new colour (general manager thought it looked a bit "sissy"). I was at the dealer closing on a nice new 2007 Passat 2.0T wagon with manual tranny to replace our wrecked Jetta.

Other tidbit. In summer of 2006 (according to the General Manager) Environment Canada said VW couldn't certify the TDIs under the new emissions regs.

In Dec. apparently they had a change of heart (if you look closely at the regs there are exception rules for "Canada only" models that don't have to conform to our version of EPA regs, and which were expressly written to allow alternate techologies like diesels to enter the country), but VW told them it was too late, they couldn't turn around and order a production shift so late in the game for 2007; the TDI plant capacity was diverted elsewhere.

So we actually came close to TDI continuity in 2007. Unfortunately bureaucrats screwed it up. That is, if you believe a dealer (this guy is the General Manager...one would hope more in the loop than a junior salesman).
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
We maintain a few small Sprinter fleets, and those are capable of getting a real world 25 MPG...and even the smallest Sprinter will dwarf ANY SUV in shear volume. The same CDI technology employed in that 2.7L 5 cylinder could easily be put into a 2.2L-ish 4 cylinder, bolted to a more efficient manual or DSG-type transmission, and placed into a modest sized SUV like a Highlander and likely get close to 40 MPG I'd imagine.

Anyone in Europe have some fuel economy figures for the T'reg R5 TDI?
 

PlaneCrazy

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 3, 2000
Location
Province of Quebec, Canada
TDI
Gone...
Here you go: 174 hp, 295 lb-ft, 8.3 L/100 km (34 mpg imperial, 28 mpg US) on the highway, 13.2 L/100 km (21.4 mpg Imperial, 17.8 mpg US) in town.

Official figures from the VW UK site.

Bigger issues than the engine with large SUVs like the Touareg, are weight and especially aerodynamics. The 170 hp/258 lb-ft TDI in a Passat wagon, for example, is rated at 5.4 L/100 km on the highway for a similar engine ouput and equal cargo utility. The 250 hp gas V6 with DSG and 4-motion, in the Passat wagon, gets better mileage on the highway (7.7 L/100 km) than the Touareg. There's a big penalty for driving an SUV, basically tied as the least efficient vehicle format on the road with large pick-up trucks. Any engine is basically going to be trying to push a brick through the air.
 
Last edited:

PlaneCrazy

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 3, 2000
Location
Province of Quebec, Canada
TDI
Gone...
Hey I just continued browsing on the VW UK site. Damn, I wish VW would bring over some of their interesting PETROL errr...GASOLINE engines over here! The TDI drought would be more bearable. Look at some of these figures (all quoted in miles per imperial gallon):

Golf:
170 1.4 L TSI: 48.7 mpg highway
115 hp 1.6 L FSI: 50.4 mpg

That ain't half bad for gassers. The TSI looks especially juicy: 0-60 in 7.9 seconds, top speed 136 mph!!! From a tiny 1.4 L.

For the masochists you can get a NA 80 hp 1.4 L that will do 51.4 mpg though 0-60 is a longish 13.9 seconds. Not much worse really than a 90 hp TDI. For the REAL masochists, you can get a 75 hp, non-Turbo SDI diesel that will get 60.1 mpg on the highway but take 16.7 seconds to 60 mph. N. Americans would cringe at that, but to me the simplicity and cheapness of a normally-aspirated diesel that gets 60 mpg on the highway appeals big-time. I don't sprint at stop lights and the 101 mph top speed is far more than I'll ever need; if I need to go faster than 100 mph I'll take my plane instead.
 

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
Cummins and many engine research labs are working on engines that will generate peak thermal efficiencies of 60%.

They are not mature technologies yet, nor are they cost-effective for mass-production. But it is possible. Much higher is not really feasible in IC engines that must still meet ever-stricter emissions. They need fuel-penalizing aftertreatment and reduced peak cycle temperatures that reduce efficiency.

Note that these are peak numbers. You can pretty much divide by 2 for every case to arrive at averaged efficiencies. The state of the art: 35% for gasoline engines, 42% for passenger car Diesels. Therefore 17.5% and 21% from tank-to-wheel on the average.

It's interesting to note that today's state-of-the-art gasoline engines are matching the efficiencies of IDI Diesels of the past and catching up (best-point BSFC around 240-245 g/kWh gasoline energy equivalent). Eventully, the industry outlook is that there won't be much of a distinction like today's gasoline and Diesel engines. Small engines will reach 45-50% thermal efficiency, large engines 55-60%.
 

supton

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 25, 2004
Location
Central NH (USA)
TDI
'04 Jetta Wagon GLS
That's good to see: getting nearly the same for gas and diesel. I mean, a barrel of oil has both gas and D2, might as well maximize useful energy out of that, regardless of what the motor runs on.

The last time I was in England, I drove a 1.6L Focus. Felt a bit underpowered, but did just fine on the highway (albeit with typical Ford idle issue). I can understand that OEM's here want to maximize profit, minimize parts bins; and that consumers really aren't interested in paying alot for a small underpowered car--but geez, base Focus engine here is what? 2.3L?
 

darkscout

Grammar Scout
Joined
May 28, 2006
Location
Michigan
TDI
2003 Golf
oilhammer said:
We maintain a few small Sprinter fleets, and those are capable of getting a real world 25 MPG...and even the smallest Sprinter will dwarf ANY SUV in shear volume. The same CDI technology employed in that 2.7L 5 cylinder could easily be put into a 2.2L-ish 4 cylinder, bolted to a more efficient manual or DSG-type transmission, and placed into a modest sized SUV like a Highlander and likely get close to 40 MPG I'd imagine.

Anyone in Europe have some fuel economy figures for the T'reg R5 TDI?
Pick 2: Fast, Efficient, Large.

2.2L 4 banger in a vehicle normally (over)powered by a V8. Everyone would be wondering why it seems so slow.
 

Master2192

Active member
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
PlaneCrazy said:
For the REAL masochists, you can get a 75 hp, non-Turbo SDI diesel that will get 60.1 mpg on the highway but take 16.7 seconds to 60 mph. N. Americans would cringe at that, but to me the simplicity and cheapness of a normally-aspirated diesel that gets 60 mpg on the highway appeals big-time. I don't sprint at stop lights and the 101 mph top speed is far more than I'll ever need; if I need to go faster than 100 mph I'll take my plane instead.
Currently to squeeze 31mpg out of my 98 Subaru 2.5RS, it probably takes me 40 to 50 seconds to get up to 60 mph. So I'd definitely take that little diesel engine if it would double my fuel economy. We will never see anything like that over here though, too many people in a hurry.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
It is truly interesting how so many people have different perceptions of power and what they think they "need".

Go take a CRD LIberty for a spin....at a stop light, when the light turns green...STAND ON IT! That violent thrust accross the intersection is near muscle-car authority...and it can get 30 MPG if driven conservatively. But people will say "oh, it's a 4 cylinder, I can't have that" never mind the CRD Libby leaves the 3.7L V6 in the dust...:rolleyes:
 

darkscout

Grammar Scout
Joined
May 28, 2006
Location
Michigan
TDI
2003 Golf
oilhammer said:
It is truly interesting how so many people have different perceptions of power and what they think they "need".

Go take a CRD LIberty for a spin....at a stop light, when the light turns green...STAND ON IT! That violent thrust accross the intersection is near muscle-car authority...and it can get 30 MPG if driven conservatively. But people will say "oh, it's a 4 cylinder, I can't have that" never mind the CRD Libby leaves the 3.7L V6 in the dust...:rolleyes:
I think this settles it.

I'll work on getting the US to follow Euro Emissions.

You work on those small town folk who think cylinder count compensates for parts of male anatomy. Where If a car comes with a V6 and a V8 they'll get the V8 because it 'has a higher horse power'. Heck get some to even test drive a diesel.

Not to mention "and it can get 30 MPG if driven conservatively". They're going to drive it like their V8 and then complain when they don't get 30 MPG. I *can* get up to 55 mpg in my A3. I normally get 40-45. I'm 24 and too lazy to change my driving habits. But at least I know that all of you aren't liars.
 

rotarykid

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Location
Piedmont of N.C. & the plains of Colorado
TDI
1997 Passat TDI White,99.5 Blue Jetta TDI
darkscout said:
I think this settles it.

I'll work on getting the US to follow Euro Emissions.

You work on those small town folk who think cylinder count compensates for parts of male anatomy. Where If a car comes with a V6 and a V8 they'll get the V8 because it 'has a higher horse power'. Heck get some to even test drive a diesel.

Not to mention "and it can get 30 MPG if driven conservatively". They're going to drive it like their V8 and then complain when they don't get 30 MPG. I *can* get up to 55 mpg in my A3. I normally get 40-45. I'm 24 and too lazy to change my driving habits. But at least I know that all of you aren't liars.
Not going to happen as all the large displacement polution spewing big 3 gas hogs would fail the C02 part of the regs .

We the diesel drivers were sacrifised on their alter so they could continue to polute a little longer . They don't build or sell one vehicle that has to meet the current "tier II bin 5 regs" , cleaner air on paper I love it :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: .
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
TDIMeister said:
If you succeed in making this happen, you are GOD Himself.
LOL, indeed! :D

Apparently, CARB is considering "stricter" emission standards:



Stricter standards for California?
by Liz Turner

The creak of shifting goal posts in California is sending shivers through the auto industry once again, and could delay or prevent some companies from launching diesel cars into the US . California and New York , which has adopted California ’s vehicle emission standards, currently have the strictest diesel rules, and because together those states account for one-sixth of the total U.S. market, those are the standards automakers see as essential to meet before launching vehicles onto the market.

Honda’s Manager of Environmental and Energy Analysis, John German, told DieselForecast that he’s heard California is planning to make testing cycles for high speeds and acceleration even more stringent. This would particularly hit diesel engines because the amount of NOx increases at heavy loads. It is possible diesel cars could be given some more time to comply.

German added: “That’s not to say we can’t achieve the new standards.”

Spokesman for the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Jerry Martin, told DieselForecast that he could not guarantee that standards would remain as they are for the near future, He said: “We reserve the right to make changes when it is appropriate if we can improve air quality.”

The appearance of CARB Chairman Robert Sawyer at the launch of DaimlerChrysler and VW’s joint Bluetec venture in November can be seen as a positive sign for the future of diesel in California . However Tom Cackette, CARB’s Chief Deputy Executive Officer gave a strongly worded presentation at the Department of Energy’s 2006 DEER (Diesel Engine-efficiency and Emissions Research) conference in Detroit the month before, stressing the health risks associated with diesel. He said: “The average standard in California is about 45% lower than Bin 5. And by the middle of the next decade, half of new vehicles must meet PZEV (about 75% below Bin 5). In other words, if diesels meet the minimum, the challenges are to drop.”

Carmakers are responding differently to the perceived threat of changing standards. A spokesman for Ford told us that shifting emissions targets is one reason why the company is not rushing to bring diesel to market.

BMW Product and Technology Communications Manager Tom Plucinsky told us: “We expect regulations to change over time, and our technology will improve over time. We have had a lot of experience with diesel—meeting emissions regulations doesn’t scare us.”

Mercedes-Benz is equally bullish. Product PR Specialist Michelle Murad told us the company was not worried about ever-tightening standards saying: “Our cars are always over-engineered, so they far exceed the minimum standards.”

Volkswagen spokesman Keith Price commented: “If regulations change, it would cause a delay [to the company’s plans] but I believe the 2008 standards will remain as they are.”

CARB's Martin says: “If standards change, it would be through a public hearing process and the auto industry can come and take part. It won’t be overnight and it won’t be in secret.”
http://www.dieselforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=326



Light-duty diesels are coming dangerously close to meeting LEV II (equivalent to Bin 5), and that simply can’t be allowed to happen. :rolleyes:

Wonder how they can concoct a new set of standards to exclude LD diesels yet allow gas SUVs? Should be interesting to see what they come up with.
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
TDIMeister said:
Cummins and many engine research labs are working on engines that will generate peak thermal efficiencies of 60%.

They are not mature technologies yet, nor are they cost-effective for mass-production. But it is possible. Much higher is not really feasible in IC engines that must still meet ever-stricter emissions. They need fuel-penalizing aftertreatment and reduced peak cycle temperatures that reduce efficiency.

Note that these are peak numbers. You can pretty much divide by 2 for every case to arrive at averaged efficiencies. The state of the art: 35% for gasoline engines, 42% for passenger car Diesels. Therefore 17.5% and 21% from tank-to-wheel on the average.

It's interesting to note that today's state-of-the-art gasoline engines are matching the efficiencies of IDI Diesels of the past and catching up (best-point BSFC around 240-245 g/kWh gasoline energy equivalent). Eventully, the industry outlook is that there won't be much of a distinction like today's gasoline and Diesel engines. Small engines will reach 45-50% thermal efficiency, large engines 55-60%.
'Meister - you're probably aware of this, but both Cummins and Detroit Diesel have demonstrated HDD engines at >50% peak BTE at 2010 HD emission levels:


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2006/session3/2006_deer_aneja.pdf

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2006/session3/2006_deer_nelson.pdf


Caterpillar came up a little short of the goal apparently (so far):

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2006/session3/2006_deer_milam.pdf
 

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
IMO, I believe the Tier2 regulations, while being unwieldly complex at first glance, is a good framework, and I'm a little worried what Tier3 will bring.

Ideally, Tier3 will use the same bin categories as Tier2 but if anything only sets corporate average limits for other regulated emissions like HC and CO (current only NOx has a 0.07 g/mile corporate limit). HC and CO limits have not proportionally followed NOx and PM (which gives rise to all the anti-Diesel conspiracies), so here's a chance to right that.

Changing as little as possible and using the same bin categories makes it a little simpler for the automakers to certify. Maybe the EPA will just say that Tier3 will only mean corporate average emissions of ALL regulated emissions have to meet, say, Bin4 level.

Driving cycles may also be revised to better reflect real driving conditions across a wide geographic and climactic cross-section in the U.S., and include periods of winter operation, summer A/C useage, and wider use of the total engine operating range.

 

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
wxman said:
'Meister - you're probably aware of this, but both Cummins and Detroit Diesel have demonstrated HDD engines at >50% peak BTE at 2010 HD emission levels
Yes, I based my post on those papers you linked to, among others. 60% will require addition of thermoelectric converters placed in the exhaust or cooling systems, or some sort of turbo compound or exhaust-driven electrical recuperator setup.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2005/session6/2005_deer_fairbanks2.pdf



Edited to fix link
 
Last edited:

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
If I were a car company marketing an efficient car, I'd have a three-cylinder up front, put rear drums on, and then I can say that the thing has six cylinders. :cool:

Well?
 

supton

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 25, 2004
Location
Central NH (USA)
TDI
'04 Jetta Wagon GLS
Err, most master cylinders are dual (two pistons); and disc brake calipers each have one piston (unless if you go back to the 60's with their 2 or 4 piston per). So really, the brake system has 6 cylinders already.

I'm not sure about ABS but I think that introduces another2-4 cylinders also. [Not sure how those modulate the brake pressure.]
 

Fardrive

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
SilverGhost said:
I think when someone on here saw the car in Michigan last year the VW reps were saying 60mpg highway and 45mpg city. Sounds absurd considering what the outgoing model gets, but we don't know what all else was done to this engine to make it 50 state legal.

Well, I have no idea what this model gets, but the E.P.A. rated my 1982 Diesel Rabbit (no turbo), at 58 highway miles per gallon, and it seems to me that VW ought to be able to add 2 highway miles per gallon to a car given over two decades in which to do so. Besides, the Rabbit was "not exactly streamlined." It was among the earlier VW models to get a wind tunnel test as an integral part of the design process.

If VW reps. claim 60 miles per gallon, while the statement may or may not be "incorrect", I see nothing whatsoever "absurd" about it. Frankly, "It's about time" we saw figures like those: very slight improvements on the figures from the 1980s. Maybe we should give some "real credit" to the design freedom (for Emissions Controls) granted by "cleaner fuel." Then again, maybe not. I just don't know. :confused:
 

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
Fardrive: Your 1982 diesel Rabbit's EPA numbers were 11% high in the city, 22% high on the highway - they added those correction factors in 1985. So, 45 MPG corrected.
 
Top