Car and Driver: 2008 TDI Jetta named one of 2008's most fuel efficient surprises

IndigoBlueWagon

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
South of Boston
TDI
'97 Passat, '99.5 Golf, '02 Jetta Wagon, '15 GSW
wrenchman30 said:
my a5 gets 43.3 or better no matter how hard its driven. also interstate driven 95% of the time.
If you're getting 43 you're really not driving that hard. I've seen 15.5 on the MFA in my A5 on the highway. Not easy, but attainable (100 MPH in 4th, going uphill). And if I drive really hard in my Jetta wagon I can drop it into the high 30s. I got 38 driving into the rockies at 85 MPH (88 indicated) with the A/C on.
 

PlaneCrazy

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 3, 2000
Location
Province of Quebec, Canada
TDI
Gone...
wrenchman30 said:
the dsg is a manual transmission. just has a computer do the shifting. my a5 gets 43.3 or better no matter how hard its driven. also interstate driven 95% of the time.
No way. Manual implies that a human does the job entirely.

It is an automatically-shifted mechanical transmission, when used in full automatic mode.

When "manually" shifted, it is a semi-automatic. Actually manual shifting is a misnomer. It is actually "manual gear selection". It won't even let you put it in a gear too low for the speed of the car (like the Tiptronic on my B5.5). A true manual tranny implies the possibility of a misshift generating thousands in repairs :D. Like the BMW 325i in the shop way back when I had a bimmer: the guy's daughter blew a shift...result was $7k in engine damage. And it was the second time she did it.

For a transmission to be manual in my book, there has to be a third pedal on the floor that isn't an old GM-style parking brake. Mechanical or hydraulic, automatic clutch or torque converter, that's just the underlying technology. It is, and remains, an automatic.
 

lbhskier37

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Location
Appleton, WI
TDI
none yet (2008 soon)
Dunno513 said:
Not to sound skeptical of some peoples dreams, but anyone that thinks that a vehicle with a 5% larger displacement, and 20% higher tq and hp will get better fuel milage just because of a new technology is, well, dreaming.

s..
Not hard at all. Go to fuel economy.gov and start comparing cars. Just as an example try comparing Corvettes. Back in 1985 the Corvette was rated at 20mpg highway. The 2000 model is rated at 25mpg and the 2007 model is rated at 26mpg. All while getting more power and torque. All this is because of technology. Emissions technology. In the 80s for cars to pass emissions they had to run rich because catalytic converters of the time couldn't clean NOx. As cats got better, engine efficiency went up. In fact average efficiency of si engines has gone up about 1% every year for the last 20 years.

On the diesel side catalytic converters have been stuck because our government drug its feet getting ULSD mandated. ULSD allows real exhaust aftertreatment like we have been enjoying in SI engines for years.

Oh and about getting better mileage with an engine that has more torque and hp, no problem. There are two ways to improve torque and hp. Improve effiency or throw more fuel in.
 

IndigoBlueWagon

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
South of Boston
TDI
'97 Passat, '99.5 Golf, '02 Jetta Wagon, '15 GSW
I just browsed through the December mileage competition results and The A5s in that group seem to mostly get between 40-43 MPG. Some high 30s, and a couple of high 40s, 5-speed and DSG included. I don't recall what the new EPA highway cycle looks like, but IIRC it has some real highway speeds unlike the last test.

This reinforces (for me, anyway) that the EPA data is a good indicator of what the car will actually get. Many people will get mid to high 30s, and when they can drive all highway and keep the speed down they'll break into the 40s. Some will do better. After all, we've got people out there that are getting 60 MPG in a B4. That doesn't reflect the way most of us drive.

A smooth, powerful, safe, quiet 3400 lb. 5 passenger car that approaches 40 MPG isn't bad. What does a 2.0T Jetta get in the same cycle? Mid 20s?
 

PlaneCrazy

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 3, 2000
Location
Province of Quebec, Canada
TDI
Gone...
IndigoBlueWagon said:
What does a 2.0T Jetta get in the same cycle? Mid 20s?
Must be much better than that. In my Passat 2.0T wagon (6-speed manual), I can get, no sweat, about 34 mpg at 70 mph. In fact in the summer I average about 31-32 mpg with the car; admittedly most of my driving is either highway or rural roads and small towns...but still that ain't half bad. I have had 550 mile tanks out of it on road trips. Not quite TDI land, but not 15 mpg SUV land either.
 

IndigoBlueWagon

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
South of Boston
TDI
'97 Passat, '99.5 Golf, '02 Jetta Wagon, '15 GSW
The vw site says 21 city/29 highway. I don't know if that's the new or old EPA test. And if the diesel gets 30% better economy it's pretty much on target, although the city number is a bit more than 30% higher than the 2.0T. And of course the GLI requires premium (95 RON).

Interesting that the 2.0T is only available in the GLI next year, not in the regular Jetta.
 

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
impetus19 said:
Unfortunate that a 300 hp <20mpg car can pass emissions and a 40mpg diesel cant.
That is only in dumb america :mad: where we have extreme emissions that make no sense on a class of vehicles that aren't sold here BY ANYONE !!!! :eek: :cool: . That really gives us clean air :rolleyes: when ban the so called light duty diesel polluters-( all of us here at least know that this is bullsh!t ) To ban a class of vehicles that no car manufacturers even sells here while we continue to allow a few more years of pollution spewing loophole vehicles sales makes sense to me :rolleyes: :confused: .

In the US & California we have by over regulations banned fuel efficient clean diesels compared to any SUV or other loophole vehicle that currently fill our roads so those loophole vehicles can pour a few more years of pollution in our air .

And if they sold a 3 cyl 70+ mpg US Polo TDI in the US I would park my Passat in a minute to get one . I care less than nothing about 0-60 but I do care a h3ll of a lot about 0-1,000 miles on a tank of fuel .

And only in stupid automatic america where only a select few know how to row their own gears would any automatic be considered the more efficient option . Any manual trans car in a well trained drivers hands will always beat the mpgs of even the highest tech auto-shift box .

And all you get from a 6 spd over a 5 spd is one more gear option to help acceleration not an improvement in mpgs . The final drive in high gear is going to be the same in a the 5 or 6 spd . In a 6 spd over a 5 spd you just have one extra gear to skip while shifting through the gears while trying to push for the highest mpgs possible .
 

ATLSilverTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Location
Atlanta
TDI
2006.5 Special Edition Jetta - Silver
Dsg 2008...

Why does the debate always get down to a DSG being an automatic/manual/semi-automatic. We looked at the figures and the EPA ratings say one thing, but it is being purported that users of 2006.5 or better are getting high 40's.

Whether it is in your eyes a manual or automatic, let's face facts, the DSG as any "automatic" is a more complicated device that 1) adds more weight, 2) has a drag coefficient through use of fluids, and I also assume DMFW. The DSG is a great transmission and granted I would love to have a manual, however if you live in the city with crappy traffic, I made a sacrifice to go "automatic" and forego the manual... sorry it just gets overwhelming.

I am assuming we are comparing 2006.5 or possibly 2006s manuals to DSGs... anything else is like comparing apples to oranges.
 

SBAtdijetta

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
'10 Jetta Cup 6spd, '02 Jetta Auto
Keep in mind that only a few are doing the competition. The fueleconomy.gov site also has a range of #'s(posted below). I still think the average TDI will meet or exceed its 2006 EPA #'s, and well exceed the 2008 numbers that are even lower.

Old 2006 numbers were City 36/Mixed 38/ Hwy 41; and I think most drivers are doing better than that. The 2008 numbers 30/33/37 are way too low.

The new CR 2.0TDI will well exceed the 2008 EPA numbers whenever they are officialy released.


2006 Volkswagen Jetta​
DISCLAIMER:
Average user estimates are based on data from Your MPG users rather than official sources. Since the source data cannot be verified, neither DOE nor EPA guarantees the accuracy of these estimates.​

4 Cylinder, 1.9 Liter, Manual 5-spd
Number of Vehicles:
46​
Average User MPG:
41.9​
Range:
34 - 54 MPG​
Updated On: 12/26/2007

Hide Individual Estimates

Average MPG

State

Driving Conditions
Estimate

Stop & Go
Highway

Last Updated
1
45.2​
NE​
10%​
90%​
03/10/2007​
2
41.5​
VT​
20%​
80%​
07/16/2007​
3
41.0​
SC​
40%​
60%​
04/30/2006​
4
40.6​
VA​
70%​
30%​
03/23/2006​
5
47.1​
OK​
10%​
90%​
10/18/2005​
6
37.4​
FL​
71%​
29%​
11/14/2005​
7
40.6​
FL​
25%​
75%​
08/29/2007​
8
47.5​
MI​
10%​
90%​
11/14/2005​
9
34.4​
TX​
88%​
12%​
09/23/2007​
10
41.9​
AR​


01/09/2006​
11
40.7​
NV​
52%​
48%​
08/09/2006​
12
40.3​
OK​
33%​
67%​
03/27/2006​
13
44.0​
AZ​
30%​
70%​
02/16/2006​
14
35.1​
FL​
90%​
10%​
10/21/2007​
15
38.8​
IA​
41%​
59%​
09/29/2007​
16
44.7​
MI​
51%​
49%​
01/19/2007​
17
44.0​
MN​
35%​
65%​
03/07/2006​
18
43.0​
SC​
50%​
50%​
05/20/2007​
19
42.1​
IL​
26%​
74%​
06/22/2006​
20
45.0​
WA​
50%​
50%​
04/25/2006​
21
53.8​
VA​
20%​
80%​
05/10/2006​
22
44.0​
OH​
50%​
50%​
05/15/2006​
23
39.1​
MN​
47%​
53%​
06/13/2006​
24
45.6​
PA​
20%​
80%​
06/28/2006​
25
39.1​
MN​
49%​
51%​
12/11/2007​
26
46.6​
MN​
10%​
90%​
03/21/2007​
27
44.6​
MN​
20%​
80%​
09/06/2006​
28
42.4​
MI​


12/23/2007​
29
40.3​
NC​
37%​
63%​
02/20/2007​
30
43.0​
NJ​
30%​
70%​
02/23/2007​
31
48.0​
MN​
10%​
90%​
02/23/2007​
32
37.4​
NC​
80%​
20%​
02/24/2007​
33
40.0​
IL​
49%​
51%​
11/02/2007​
34
39.3​
TX​
39%​
61%​
12/02/2007​
35
41.5​

35%​
65%​
10/20/2007​
36
39.4​
TX​
47%​
53%​
04/21/2007​
37
38.5​
CT​
39%​
61%​
12/09/2007​
38
41.6​
MO​


12/20/2007​
39
44.0​
MN​
40%​
60%​
08/07/2007​
40
42.0​
MD​
30%​
70%​
10/19/2007​
41
37.0​
NJ​
40%​
60%​
10/20/2007​
42
50.3​
OH​
20%​
80%​
11/04/2007​
43
43.9​
MD​
30%​
70%​
11/11/2007​
44
41.0​
PA​
60%​
40%​
11/24/2007​
45
44.0​
TN​
10%​
90%​
11/25/2007​
46
40.6​
WA​
50%​
50%​
12/17/2007​

Just my take,

Steve

IndigoBlueWagon said:
I just browsed through the December mileage competition results and The A5s in that group seem to mostly get between 40-43 MPG. Some high 30s, and a couple of high 40s, 5-speed and DSG included. I don't recall what the new EPA highway cycle looks like, but IIRC it has some real highway speeds unlike the last test.

This reinforces (for me, anyway) that the EPA data is a good indicator of what the car will actually get. Many people will get mid to high 30s, and when they can drive all highway and keep the speed down they'll break into the 40s. Some will do better. After all, we've got people out there that are getting 60 MPG in a B4. That doesn't reflect the way most of us drive.

A smooth, powerful, safe, quiet 3400 lb. 5 passenger car that approaches 40 MPG isn't bad. What does a 2.0T Jetta get in the same cycle? Mid 20s?
 
Last edited:

IndigoBlueWagon

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
South of Boston
TDI
'97 Passat, '99.5 Golf, '02 Jetta Wagon, '15 GSW
SBAtdijetta, your bar chart compares 2006 actual mileage figures with 2008 EPA estimates. Apples and Oranges.

The 2006 actual figures are about 10% higher than the EPA estimates for mixed driving. This seems reasonable since most people who track and post their fuel economy are doing so because the car is getting good mileage, not poor mileage.

The EPA says that highway mileage is about 10% lower in the new measure than old. If you agree with this then the '08 rated by the old EPA test would probably show about 38 MPG combined. If drivers that get good fuel economy get 10% better than that (like they do in '06) then you'd see right around 40 MPG. That seems reasonable and realistic.

We'll know better in a year or so when these cars are on the road and starting to break in.
 

PlaneCrazy

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 3, 2000
Location
Province of Quebec, Canada
TDI
Gone...
FWIW, I have always been able to slightly exceed Transport Canada mileage figures with a TDI. For example, they claimed 5.7 L/100 km with the Passat TDI on the highway, and I have been able to get about 5.4 by following the speed limit. With my Jettas, it was the same thing.

With my 2.0T, I can match the TC highway number at the speed limit, but I have not been able to exceed it. The TC number is 6.8 L/100 km; I can get that at about 100 km/h, in summer. That's just a bit more than 1 L/100 km more than my wife's TDI, and overall, her average on the TDI in summer is about 6.3 and mine with the 2.0T is about 7.5-7.6 (driving at "normal" speeds of about 10-20 km/h more than the posted speed limits, the "de facto" speed limit in Quebec).
 

Tom Servo

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2000
Location
LA (Lower Alabama)
TDI
2005 Gol TDI, blue and falling apart
ATLSilverTDI said:
The DSG is a great transmission and granted I would love to have a manual, however if you live in the city with crappy traffic, I made a sacrifice to go "automatic" and forego the manual... sorry it just gets overwhelming.
:rolleyes:

You can't be serious.

Unless you've got some disability that limits your legs, or you've got back problems, how on earth is driving a manual trans in traffic 'overwhelming'?

The only time I ever regretted getting a stick was after I threw my lower back out and got stuck in traffic going to work every day. But that was only temporary, and then only on the absolute most painful days.

I don't mean to pick on you but it just escapes me how working the gears can be so diffifcult for so many Americans.
 

SBAtdijetta

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
'10 Jetta Cup 6spd, '02 Jetta Auto
Right the bar chart I stole from the fueleconomy.gov web site is showing 2008 numbers (I could not get it to show 2006 vs actual users numbers)... My only point is that actual MPG seen from our 1.9 PD A5 TDI's are anywhere from slightly to greatly better than 2006 ratings of 36/38/41. Thus 2008 figures will be even lower and in my opinion not accurate for the TDI.

Steve

IndigoBlueWagon said:
SBAtdijetta, your bar chart compares 2006 actual mileage figures with 2008 EPA estimates. Apples and Oranges.

The 2006 actual figures are about 10% higher than the EPA estimates for mixed driving. This seems reasonable since most people who track and post their fuel economy are doing so because the car is getting good mileage, not poor mileage.

The EPA says that highway mileage is about 10% lower in the new measure than old. If you agree with this then the '08 rated by the old EPA test would probably show about 38 MPG combined. If drivers that get good fuel economy get 10% better than that (like they do in '06) then you'd see right around 40 MPG. That seems reasonable and realistic.

We'll know better in a year or so when these cars are on the road and starting to break in.
 

SBAtdijetta

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Location
Houston, TX
TDI
'10 Jetta Cup 6spd, '02 Jetta Auto
The poster is from Atlanta, GA i hear they have traffic close to as bad as here in Houston, TX. Its not regular traffic like you are thinking of... It is gridlock...You move 3ft. and then stop and move 10ft more and stop, it takes like 5+ min to move a mile.

I drive a 5spd and if i get caught in rush hour bumper to bumper here its sucks....:( If I had to drive in that every day, I would have and auto, or not drive if possible.

Tom Servo said:
:rolleyes:

You can't be serious.

Unless you've got some disability that limits your legs, or you've got back problems, how on earth is driving a manual trans in traffic 'overwhelming'?

The only time I ever regretted getting a stick was after I threw my lower back out and got stuck in traffic going to work every day. But that was only temporary, and then only on the absolute most painful days.

I don't mean to pick on you but it just escapes me how working the gears can be so diffifcult for so many Americans.
 
Last edited:

IndigoBlueWagon

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
South of Boston
TDI
'97 Passat, '99.5 Golf, '02 Jetta Wagon, '15 GSW
I commuted to Boston (35 miles) regularly for almost 30 years. The drive can take as little as 30 minutes and as long as 2 hours. I drove a stick from learning to drive until 1985 when I bought an automatic, and then went back to a stick in 1996. Driving into Boston from the airport could sometimes take an hour to go the two miles. When I went back to a stick (I bought an automatic because the cars I bought at that time were not available with manual transmissions) I didn't even notice the difference. VW clutches are so light, and diesels are so easy to drive in traffic that I really don't think there's any penalty. But apparently 94% of American drivers feel otherwise.
 

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
Tom Servo said:
:rolleyes:

You can't be serious.

Unless you've got some disability that limits your legs, or you've got back problems, how on earth is driving a manual trans in traffic 'overwhelming'?

The only time I ever regretted getting a stick was after I threw my lower back out and got stuck in traffic going to work every day. But that was only temporary, and then only on the absolute most painful days.

I don't mean to pick on you but it just escapes me how working the gears can be so diffifcult for so many Americans.
I have only one good leg , my right leg is good but my left leg is useless and I will not give up my manual trans . Denver & Charlotte have gridlock at times and I still seem to get around town in my manual trans VWs .

I will give this to a manual trans city driver they can't yab on their cell phone , put on their make up , read a book or you fill in the blank while rowing your gears in heavy traffic . Oh yeh I just thought of something I heard once that it might be a good thing that you have to actually pay attention to driving in a manual trans car in heavy traffic :rolleyes: .
 

10then34

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Location
North Dakota
TDI
'06 Jetta
A while ago I saw a chart with the DIN rated fuel economy for the various versions of the Golf available in germany.

The 1.9l BRM stick-shift without DPF was the best in the lineup. The various 2.0s, DSGs and versions with DPF fared a bit worse (I assume that those 2.0s where PD type engines and not yet CR).
 

Smokerr

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Location
Alaska
TDI
Passat Wagon GL,2005,Silver
Blue_Hen_TDI said:
"31 mpg city/39 mpg highway"

Hopefully that's not correct.
Keep in mind the Jetta is now Passat sized. Figures for the Passat with the automatic were 27-38. The numbers I keep seeing are close to that.

Also more stuff on it emissions wise. Emissions supersedes fuel mileage, so they cannot max mpg if emissions gets in the way.

As time goes by and they get a better handle on the emissions end, they will probably be able to increase the fuel mileage.

Trucks right now are lucky to break even, and the average for the fleets has been down 2-3%.

The only increase I read about was John Deere with their tractors, and it was not the engine that did it, but integrating the entire system, engine, cooling and drive system
 

lbhskier37

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Location
Appleton, WI
TDI
none yet (2008 soon)
Smokerr said:
Trucks right now are lucky to break even, and the average for the fleets has been down 2-3%.
Trucks doing worse or breaking even with the new emissions regulations because their regulations are still loose enough that they can use conventional techniques like EGR and retarded injection timing to pass emissions, all which cause a big drop in efficiency. This is the big reason the PD lost efficiency to the older motors, they needed to use these efficiency robbing techniques.

With exhaust aftertreatment (which btw will be required on big trucks in the next round of emissions) they can lean the mixture back down to pre-emissions regulation levels and get much more efficient combustion, then let the aftertreatment deal with the NOx after the fact. This is much like SI engine cars of today can be far more efficient than say in the 70s because the 3-way catalyst lets them run stoiciometric creating efficient combustion and deal with the pollution afterwards where as before the 3-way cat most engines had to run rich to pass emissions, giving us the horrible gas hog sub-200hp V8s of the 70s.
 

donDavide

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Location
Severna Park, Maryland USA
TDI
2003 Jetta ;2006 Golf; 2015 Jetta S
Traffic- try driving here

Tom Servo said:
:rolleyes:

You can't be serious.

Unless you've got some disability that limits your legs, or you've got back problems, how on earth is driving a manual trans in traffic 'overwhelming'?

The only time I ever regretted getting a stick was after I threw my lower back out and got stuck in traffic going to work every day. But that was only temporary, and then only on the absolute most painful days.

I don't mean to pick on you but it just escapes me how working the gears can be so diffifcult for so many Americans.
A manual is not so bad in the city, but the DC and Baltimore Beltway and connecting roads are terrible. Stop and go. 1st gear is to short to creep and shifting to 2nd launches the car then all of a sudden you have to stop. Do that for miles. I love my Jetta TDi but my Passat TDi is much more plesant is this traffic.
 
Last edited:

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
lbhskier37 said:
Trucks doing worse or breaking even with the new emissions regulations because their regulations are still loose enough that they can use conventional techniques like EGR and retarded injection timing to pass emissions, all which cause a big drop in efficiency. This is the big reason the PD lost efficiency to the older motors, they needed to use these efficiency robbing techniques.
This is true to most extents, but advancements in other areas (e.g. improved injection systems, combustion development, thermal management and friction reduction) blunted the effects and in some cases continued to improve the fuel economy overall. In a large number of cases, worsened fuel economy cannot be traced solely to these emissions measures, but to larger and heavier vehicles as these same models evolved over time.

With exhaust aftertreatment (which btw will be required on big trucks in the next round of emissions) they can lean the mixture back down to pre-emissions regulation levels and get much more efficient combustion, then let the aftertreatment deal with the NOx after the fact. This is much like SI engine cars of today can be far more efficient than say in the 70s because the 3-way catalyst lets them run stoiciometric creating efficient combustion and deal with the pollution afterwards where as before the 3-way cat most engines had to run rich to pass emissions, giving us the horrible gas hog sub-200hp V8s of the 70s.
No, this is not entirely true, and was already stated in another thread. NOx aftertreatment for Diesel engines require the use of an active reductant, whether it be hydrocarbons from additional injected fuel or urea-type additive.

Especially with these new aftertreatment schemes, you DON'T have the freedom to calibrate the engine to run at its most efficient point, emissions be damned, and let the aftertreatment deal with it after the fact. The amount of reductant consumed is directly proportional to the amount of engine-out NOx that needs to be converted, and the consumer will not accept having to refill the urea tank too frequently, or in the case of non-urea-based NOx treatment, accept the large hit in fuel economy.

Also, when dealing with such stringent regulations that amount to mere parts-per-million NOx in the exhaust stream, and where the warming-up phase of a driving cycle -- while the catalysts are still ineffectual -- produces the bulk of the emissions in a tiny fraction of the driven distance, it is NOT acceptable to let the engine produce as much emissions to run most efficiently; the exhaust must be as clean as possible right out of the get-go.

That's why despite the advancements in aftertreatment technology, this has not removed the intense spotlight from combustion development and internal measures to minimize engine-out emissions.
 

MPLSTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Location
Champlin, MN
TDI
06 Jetta DSG
I have a 06 DSG, my mileage is down because of winter diesel and cold and snow. But I'm still getting 40-44MPG. Summer driving is around 45.5-46.5MPG @70. BTW it's worth the the decreased mileage from a A4. Drives so much better, and more room. Besides a A4 auto would not get any better.
 

Dunno513

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Location
Mirror Lake, NH
TDI
2006 NB PD-TDI DSG
After seeing some of those A5 fuel #'s, I don't feel so bad anymore... Having a lifetime average of 42.9 so far (closer to 42.5 by the end of winter) with a DSG doesn't look so bad from the bumbling beetle's aerodynamics..

But I have to say that some of those posted #'s seem a bit off the bell curve when looking at the majority.. could it be that some of those are posted by men with another form of numerical ..ahem.. exaggeration...:rolleyes:

Always makes me wonder how honest people are with those #'s... or how freeking slow they drive:D
 
Last edited:

MPLSTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Location
Champlin, MN
TDI
06 Jetta DSG
Dunno513 said:
After seeing some of those A5 fuel #'s, I don't feel so bad anymore... Having a lifetime average of 42.9 so far (closer to 42.5 by the end of winter) with a DSG doesn't look so bad from the bumbling beetle's aerodynamics..

But I have to say that some of those posted #'s seem a bit off the bell curve when looking at the majority.. could it be that some of those are posted by men with another form of numerical ..ahem.. exaggeration...:rolleyes:

Always makes me wonder how honest people are with those #'s... or how freeking slow they drive:D
I post my mileage on the monthly conpetition. Aug, Sept and Oct my monthly average was above 45 all three months. Look them up
 

Lightflyer1

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Location
Round Rock, Texas
TDI
2015 Beetle tdi dsg
Low 50's mpg is possible on the highway on long trips.
600 miles or more
Below 70 mph indicated, 5th gear
Flat to gently rolling terrain
Cruise on, right lane, leave the pedals alone
Nice day, little traffic, widely spaced cities

It is also possible in town as well but involves work to achieve. My 5 mile commute only allows me a 37 mpg return mostly. My recent trip out to Parris Island and back was quite nice! Round trip on 3 tanks of fuel.
 

porschefreek

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Location
ohio
TDI
06 tdi
I thought the new TDI was going to get 40city and 60highway..i sold v-dubs and that was the projected mpg range
 

DrSmile

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Location
New Jersey USA
TDI
05 GLS PD 5spd Wagon
lbhskier37 said:
Not hard at all. Go to fuel economy.gov and start comparing cars. Just as an example try comparing Corvettes. Back in 1985 the Corvette was rated at 20mpg highway. The 2000 model is rated at 25mpg and the 2007 model is rated at 26mpg. All while getting more power and torque. All this is because of technology. Emissions technology. In the 80s for cars to pass emissions they had to run rich because catalytic converters of the time couldn't clean NOx. As cats got better, engine efficiency went up. In fact average efficiency of si engines has gone up about 1% every year for the last 20 years.
Interesting that you're using a car with pushrods as an example of modern engine technology. The corvette achieves it's higher highway mpg through the use of a double overdrive Tremec [SIZE=-1]T-56 [/SIZE]extended ratio transmission. I believe 6th is a very tall .5 ratio. Basically the car almost idles at 65mph...
 
Last edited:
Top