Passat Bluemotion good for 46 mpg US

Ramsey · Feb 12, 2007

VW To Introduce Ultra-Frugal BlueMotion Passat In Geneva

Via Winding Road

Volkswagen has just announced that it will debut its Passat Bluemotion next month in Geneva. The ultra-frugal sedan uses just 5.1 liters of diesel fuel per 100 km traveled (that’s about 46 miles-per-gallon to us Yanks), giving it a gut-busting range of 1350 km—nearly 840 miles. Though we haven’t seen any BlueMotions Stateside, this isn’t the first VeeDub so-equipped. The company rolled its diminutive Polo BlueMotion in Europe last summer, and it has reportedly met with breakneck demand, warranting a tripling of production figures.
No word yet on whether North American consumers will see any of Volkswagen’s next-gen whirling dervs, but here’s hoping.

12 February 2007
WORLD PREMIERE OF THE PASSAT BLUEMOTION IN GENEVA
Low fuel consumption: Passat BlueMotion consumes just 5.1 liters of diesel over 100 km
It just keeps running: Passat BlueMotion with 1,350 km range
Wolfsburg, Germany - The new Passat BlueMotion – no other vehicle of its size consumes less fuel. The saloon needs exactly 5.1 liters of diesel for 100 km. And just as convincing: a CO2 emission level of just 136 g/km. The world premiere of the Passat BlueMotion is 6th March at the Geneva Motor Show.
With the new Passat BlueMotion, Volkswagen is forcing ahead with the launch of vehicles that are particularly efficient and environmentally friendly. The first BlueMotion model was the Polo in the summer of 2006– an immediate success and its production figures have already been increased threefold due to the high demand throughout Europe. “BlueMotion” is now the seal of quality for a model version with the lowest rate of fuel consumption.
With reference to the new Passat BlueMotion this means: an average of 5.1 liters of diesel over 100 kilometers. The Passat Estate BlueMotion needs 5.2 liters (137 g/km) – also a top value, even in comparison to vehicles worldwide. Both body versions have a driving range of up to 1,350 kilometers with a full tank! With an average annual distance driven of 15,000 kilometers, this means that the driver only needs to refuel eleven times a year with an average of 68 Euro* in fuel costs per month.
Volkswagen can achieve such low consumption figures through the fine tuning of the engine, which was already extremely efficient. In this case a 77 kW / 105 bhp TDI engine with a diesel particulate filter fitted as standard. This fuel efficiency does not, however, reduce levels of agility. The Passat BlueMotion can accelerate up to 193 km/h (Estate: 190 km/h) if required. That is an element of the BlueMotion philosophy: fuel efficiency and agility in a combination that still makes driving fun.
* = Basis: 3rd week of 2007, price in Germany, details from the Association of the German Petroleum Industry

Please Bring it to the States

TurbinePower · Feb 12, 2007

Ramsey said:
Please Bring it to the States

I second this! And the Polo BlueMotion too!

Mike_Van · Feb 12, 2007

Sweet! A family-sized sedan/wagon that gets 40+ mpg is exactly what this country needs (again, since the B4 went away).

How many people in the U.S. would poo poo it's 'low' 105 hp even when seeing its 800 mile cruising range?

Would an organization that buys cars/fuel for its travelling salespeople have a reason to have their people drive anything else?

SilverGhost · Feb 12, 2007

Mike_Van said:
Sweet! A family-sized sedan/wagon that gets 40+ mpg is exactly what this country needs (again, since the B4 went away).

How many people in the U.S. would poo poo it's 'low' 105 hp even when seeing its 800 mile cruising range?

Would an organization that buys cars/fuel for its travelling salespeople have a reason to have their people drive anything else?

You were obviouslly thinking of the people over here; http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3074120 Only took a half dozzen posts before it degenerated into "lack of power is unsafe" type comments.

I look at it as a decent base engine that has a marketing angle (BlueMotion). And I think it could do well. Might even convince some of the B4 drivers to upgrade.

John C · Feb 12, 2007

Icould go for the wagon with a DSG gearbox for the wife. I'd expect similar fuel economy with e ther a DSG or totally manual gearbox.

John C

rotarykid · Feb 12, 2007

Now there is a car that is close to what mpgs my 97 Passat TDI produces that I have now .

bigEZ · Feb 12, 2007

105 hp? nothing a little rocketchip couldn't cure!

TDIPASSATGUY · Feb 12, 2007

Motor Options

1- Blue Motion
2- 2L turbo D
3- V6 turbo D
4- 2L turbo G
5- V6 G

drop the 2L non turbo gasser - the fuel economy not that good, the performance not that good

atifvw · Feb 12, 2007

The political agendas of EPA of north america will never let us have something like this.....as long as north american consumers are happy spending their hard eardened money on GM and Ford scams in the name of quality automobiles we're not going to see anything consumer/customer driven like this in north america.

My 2 cents....

Atif

Gettin50MPGs · Feb 12, 2007

atifvw said:
The political agendas of EPA of north america will never let us have something like this.....as long as north american consumers are happy spending their hard eardened money on GM and Ford scams in the name of quality automobiles we're not going to see anything consumer/customer driven like this in north america.

My 2 cents....

Atif

Hey ati, dont be so skeptical!

They'll let us have one.....or two......for the whole North America.

Yeah, I'm with yah on this. A car that gets 46mpg, nicely powered, nicely equiped, doesn't like a science experiment....I dont see the EPA or US Big Oil allowing this car to be marketed, maintenanced or sold en masse

Smokerr · Feb 12, 2007

While I found it interestring, I also noted the 105bhp. Not torque figure. When I was a kid, we could get the old 180D (190D?) up to 95, but it took us a 2 mile straight strech.

Maybe a good in town engine, but you need the get up and go. I would not have bought the Passat (134hp and 247ft lbs) with anything less. Frankly its too dangerous. Sometimes you need to get up and move it.

The experience with the 190D and my Ford Pickup with the 300 Six. Both got great mileage, good vehicles, but bogged down on hills badly, and passing was risky, and staying behind someone for 30 miles was severely frustrating. Thats a bad combo, on two lane roads with lots of hills.

So, yea, there is a minium required performance level.

DrSmile · Feb 12, 2007

Did they mention what the displacement of the engine was?

NM just found it 105 horse, 184 lb-ft 1.9 liters

Sign me up for one!

domboy · Feb 13, 2007

Smokerr said:
Maybe a good in town engine, but you need the get up and go. I would not have bought the Passat (134hp and 247ft lbs) with anything less. Frankly its too dangerous. Sometimes you need to get up and move it.

Yeah, we gotta have that powerful engine so we don't get killed while pulling out in front of somebody at the last possible second. Heaven forbid we learn a little patience...

donDavide · Feb 13, 2007

TDIPASSATGUY said:
1- Blue Motion
2- 2L turbo D
3- V6 turbo D
4- 2L turbo G
5- V6 G

drop the 2L non turbo gasser - the fuel economy not that good, the performance not that good

Add the 2.5 turbo D, should be somewhat equal (imho) of V6 gasser on perfomance

donDavide · Feb 13, 2007

DrSmile said:
Did they mention what the displacement of the engine was?

NM just found it 105 horse, 184 lb-ft 1.9 liters

Sign me up for one!

With that torque figure and a proper transmission I would think the car should be more that adequate. Rember 48hp Rabbits? Even 90 hp sounds like a small number but my Jetta has plenty of power.

Thunderstruck · Feb 13, 2007

Smokerr, call Jeff at Rocketchip. You'd be surprised at how well the car accelerates, especially from 60 to 100, when he ups the ante to 160 HP and around 300 ft. lbs.

Big_Rig · Feb 13, 2007

I had an 89 Jetta 1.6 with 52 hp. I managed to drive it 180,000 miles without any wrecks or problems relating to insufficient power, so 105 hp would be just fine. I did have to turn off the AC when climbing hills!

Intech · Feb 13, 2007

passing was risky, and staying behind someone for 30 miles was severely frustrating. Thats a bad combo, on two lane roads with lots of hills.

So, yea, there is a minium required performance level.[/quote]

I had a similar concern when I went to my first TDI, but Jeff (RC) took care of the problem, and it's been greta ever since.

domboy · Feb 13, 2007

Big_Rig said:
I had an 89 Jetta 1.6 with 52 hp. I managed to drive it 180,000 miles without any wrecks or problems relating to insufficient power, so 105 hp would be just fine. I did have to turn off the AC when climbing hills!

My point exactly. I think our concept of how much power a car actually needs is over-rated. My 90hp TDI is by far the fastest car I've owned, which perhaps isn't saying much. However, I have ridden in a friend's V8 Mustang Cobra, so I do know what a muscle car feels like. But I don't need that kind of power, even though it is pretty awesome.

P.S. I'm not trying to pick on you, Smokerr...

VW JUNKY · Feb 13, 2007

SilverGhost said:
You were obviouslly thinking of the people over here; http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3074120 Only took a half dozzen posts before it degenerated into "lack of power is unsafe" type comments.

THis is from VOrtex as they like lots of power. We can do power and economy here. Heck if you want lack of power try my 1961 40hp vw Single cab. It can do a blistering 62mph and still carry 3/4 ton! LOL! Also try driving a 26 hp Steyr Puch Haflinger on the road! Talk about scarry! Might muster 50 on a down hill and all up hills are 35mph! LOL! Needless to say I don't go on the free way.
Still waiting on my Diesel Mini van. When ever that happens!
later

frugality · Feb 13, 2007

Intech said:
passing was risky, and staying behind someone for 30 miles was severely frustrating. Thats a bad combo, on two lane roads with lots of hills.

So, yea, there is a minium required performance level.[/quote]

I had a similar concern when I went to my first TDI, but Jeff (RC) took care of the problem, and it's been greta ever since.

I second that! In general, my Golf in stock configuration was adequate for most use, but wasn't good for passing on 2-lane roads or for getting up to speed on shorter entrance ramps with 70mph limits here. Adding Smog .205 nozzles helped, and then getting RC2 put a bit of a 'yee-haw!' grin on my face.

And only a 2-3 mpg drop from stock. Whether that's due to the nozzles and chip, or just my foot, I don't know.

I would question whether that configuration noted at the beginning of this thread is 'adequate'. With each new model getting heavier and heavier, I think you'll find it straining to keep up with traffic when you have a few people and a load of camping gear in it.

itsmejerry · Feb 13, 2007

Don't worry about the HP numbers. It's all in the torque.
BTW-- Anyone know if the original author did the Ltrs per KM /Imperial Gallon, conversion to US miles per US Gallon? I'm thinking 46 sounds a bit high for this engine. Perhaps 40-41. But then again, It would be nice if it were.

characterzero · Feb 13, 2007

speed

190 km/hr =118 mi/hr (Mach 0.16

)

faster than my jetta can go! (not chipped of course)

donDavide · Feb 13, 2007

Big_Rig said:
I had an 89 Jetta 1.6 with 52 hp. I managed to drive it 180,000 miles without any wrecks or problems relating to insufficient power, so 105 hp would be just fine. I did have to turn off the AC when climbing hills!

My Dad had an 86 Jetta as a back up for a few years and it was very peppy around town and was fne on the highway. It felt more peppy than my 84 Quantum TD.

diesel4ever · Feb 13, 2007

itsmejerry said:
Don't worry about the HP numbers. It's all in the torque.
BTW-- Anyone know if the original author did the Ltrs per KM /Imperial Gallon, conversion to US miles per US Gallon? I'm thinking 46 sounds a bit high for this engine. Perhaps 40-41. But then again, It would be nice if it were.

It is 46mpg as you can see from my reference chart,
Sorry, I can't attach images.

5.1L/100km=46.1Miles/US galon=55.3Miles/Imp.galon

troy_heagy · Feb 13, 2007

SilverGhost said:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3074120 Only took a half dozzen posts before it degenerated into "lack of power is unsafe" type comments.

Stupid. I've been driving a 90hp Dodge since 1990. Never been in any kind of accident, because it's the DRIVER that makes the difference between safe or not safe.

donDavide · Feb 13, 2007

Why not put that engine in th Rabbit or Jetta!?!?!?!?!?

IntelGuyTDi · Feb 13, 2007

Cheers. Someone who needs more power than the 1.9 TDI "to be safe" should buy a Volvo.

troy_heagy said:
Stupid. I've been driving a 90hp Dodge since 1990. Never been in any kind of accident, because it's the DRIVER that makes the difference between safe or not safe.

Master2192 · Feb 13, 2007

troy_heagy said:
Stupid. I've been driving a 90hp Dodge since 1990. Never been in any kind of accident, because it's the DRIVER that makes the difference between safe or not safe.

Exactly! Daily I think I use less than 30hp in my Subaru, that includes merging onto the freeway. And I've never felt that accelerating slow was unsafe.

Dorado · Feb 13, 2007

Mike_Van said:
How many people in the U.S. would poo poo it's 'low' 105 hp even when seeing its 800 mile cruising range?

The TV add should show a fastfood-fed stocky US family jamming themselves into the vehicle with a dog or two in the back, taking the car for up a steep highway climb to test drive the torque...

But then again, TV here in the US rarely shows entire families in car ads anymore. Even cars as big as the Hummer, are advertised with only the driver inside of it ...

Passat Bluemotion good for 46 mpg US

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

New member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

BANNED

Veteran Member

Active member

Active member

Veteran Member