2009 Jetta TDI Fuel Economy

RangerRick

New member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Location
Michigan
TDI
None
I just saw the fuel economy results for the 2009 VW Jetta TDI from the
EPA. They are pretty disappointing. The manual 6 speed is rated 30/41
(34 mpg combined) and the duel-clutch (DSG) auto is 29/40 (33 mpg combined). These are the new "realistic" EPA mileage ratings instituted
in 2008, so don't compare them with 2007 or earlier model year ratings.

This is pretty disappointing, apparently to meet emissions requirements
they had to tune it such that this was the best they could do. This
vehicle will not be the game changer in North America that some had
led us to believe. It probably will never deliver 50 mpg on the highway under any conditions. Sorry to deliver the disappointing news.
 

Lightflyer1

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Location
Round Rock, Texas
TDI
2015 Beetle tdi dsg
This is already posted in the new forum. The car will probably do better than this anyway. Under the new mine is rated at less than this and I easily get better than 40/50 city/highway. I would bet it gets 45/55 city/highway in the real world.
 

DrewD

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2004
My last TDI was rated at 42mpg on highway and could easily get 46mpg at highway speeds without even trying.
 

dr61

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Location
Redding, CA
TDI
2009 JSW TDI on order
2006 Jetta TDI manual: 30 city/37 highway
2009 Jetta TDI manual: 30 city/41 highway

Plus increased BHP and torque. Sounds like progress to me.

But why do the TDI's not do as well in these tests as owners do in normal driving? Does it have something to do with warmup time compared to a gasoline engine?
 

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
dr61 said:
...But why do the TDI's not do as well in these tests as owners do in normal driving? Does it have something to do with warmup time compared to a gasoline engine?
the same will apply to all cars- gassers too. the new EPA rating system is purposefully pessimistic, in part because of the uproar from the hybrid owners who weren't getting the estimated numbers in the real world.

what it means is that most people will be able to beat the new EPA numbers if they really try
 

mrGutWrench

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 29, 2002
Location
Carrboro, NC
TDI
'03 Jetta Wagon, 5-speed, 563K Miles (July '23)
tditom said:
the same will apply to all cars- gassers too. the new EPA rating system is purposefully pessimistic, in part because of the uproar from the hybrid owners who weren't getting the estimated numbers in the real world.
__. We went through the same thing in the early 80's (yeah, I know, before a lot of you were born but I was working with these issues then). There were a lot of new cars (things like front-wheel-drive GM, Ford, and Crysler cars, plus developed technology from Europe and Japan like electronic fuel injection) that were getting a lot better fuel economy on-road than cars from 6-8 years before but were really kickin' butt on EPA numbers. So people complained to their Congressmen who put the heat on EPA to "do something". So, rather than telling the truth, EPA discounted the lab number by 10% on the city and 22% highway.

what it means is that most people will be able to beat the new EPA numbers if they really try
__. I'd rephrase that "the few Americans who have the technical sophistication and care enough to accurately figure out their actual fuel economy will be able to beat the new EPA numbers pretty easily".

__. Once again, rather than telling the truth, EPA just lowered the bar to placate the stupid.

(PS My next to last VW was rated 48 MPG Highway - I often got 60 - 62 MPG tanks/950 to 1000 miles per tank. My "last VW" (and you can believe that it will be my last VW) is a little heavier and doesn't do as well but we're getting better.
 
Last edited:

velociT

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 10, 2006
Location
Not Austin, TX
TDI
06 Jetta TDI *sold*
The 06 was obviously underrated. If it follows the trend, it should get at least the same or better mileage as 05.5 and 06's.
 

Nocky

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Jetta wagon
The average Joe will not know that most VW diesels get more than the sticker shows. :confused:They will see the average of only 33mpg while the Prius average is 46mpg and diesel is 50c to $1 more. That is what will hurt VW sales.:(
 

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
joe will also notice that the other cars he is considering will be much lower than the tdi.
 

Spdmini

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Location
FS Arkansas
TDI
2012 JSW
Nocky said:
The average Joe will not know that most VW diesels get more than the sticker shows. :confused:They will see the average of only 33mpg while the Prius average is 46mpg and diesel is 50c to $1 more. That is what will hurt VW sales.:(
This is true, people don't get invovled enough in the purchase of a car, they gather some info, but rarely any of about mileage or range.
The other part of it is the price per gallon v. the miles per tank way of thinking. So many people I talk with say "OMG, I bet you are getting killed by diesel prices!" I say no, I fill up, travel 600 miles then repeat. Then I ask them how far they travel per tank, they have no idea.
I hope that the EPA has grossly understated the mileage, so when those and me that do get the '09 will all be laughing for even longer between fill-ups. :)
 

jfer1270

New member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Location
Maryland
TDI
looking
Do you think this will have any impact on pricing? On the tax credit (which they should've qualified for but....)
 

njkayaker

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
tditom said:
the new EPA rating system is purposefully pessimistic
The EPA highway test includes much more stop-and-go driving than people imagine.

The test (old and new) are pessimistic and they should be (the pessimism is intentional). The purpose of the numbers is to be able to compare differences between cars using the same standard.

dr61 said:
But why do the TDI's not do as well in these tests as owners do in normal driving?
The reasons probably include (not limited to):

1) TDI drivers tend to be much more concerned about MPG and drive differently than normal drivers.
2) The EPA highway test is not "highway" driving the way people understand it.

Note that the Prius too can be driven to maximize mpg and, thus, get better than the EPA numbers.

mrGutWrench said:
So people complained to their Congressmen who put the heat on EPA to "do something". So, rather than telling the truth, EPA discounted the lab number by 10% on the city and 22% highway.
It sure would be nice to see a reference for this. The EPA recently changed the test (making the numbers "worse" and also applied an adjustment to the old data. Thus, results for older and newer cars are comparable.
 
Last edited:

njkayaker

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
AmericanMuscleDubbn' said:
Is VW looking to sell these cars by word of mouth?
It worked for the prior TDIs. I suppose it depends on how many they plan/expect to sell.

dr61 said:
2006 Jetta TDI manual: 30 city/37 highway
2009 Jetta TDI manual: 30 city/41 highway
Note that the old EPA numbers for the 2006 where 36 city/41 highway. I guess the old numbers for the 2009 might have been 36 city/45 highway.

It is a bit disappointing. All the prior "guesses" seemed to indicate that the expected EPA numbers would be "fantastic" (>50 mpg highway). We have had similar guesses made for the Accord diesel.

A 4 mpg increase (10%) for an engine with 40 more hp is kind of realistic.

I wonder what the mpg numbers would have been be for a 100hp engine (of the new type)? It's not like the Jetta needs 140hp. I'd much rather have higher mpg than hp.

Is there a European equivalent to the EPA numbers? If so, I wonder what those are for the PD and CR Jetta.


drwho said:
If they EPA has tampered with these numbers they should be discredited. We all know how much those clowns hate diesels.
People sure do like conspiracies! I haven't seen any creditable indication that the EPAs have "tampered" with any numbers.
 
Last edited:

Doonie

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Location
Milwaukee
TDI
none
njkayaker said:
People sure do like conspiracies! I haven't seen any creditable indication that the EPAs have "tampered" with any numbers.
It's not the fault of the EPA. They get their orders from the trilateral commission in Argentina, headed by JFK, Elvis, and Princess Diana.
 

njkayaker

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Doonie said:
It's not the fault of the EPA. They get their orders from the trilateral commission in Argentina, headed by JFK, Elvis, and Princess Diana.
Thanks! That clears everything up!
 

Dimitri16V

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Location
DE
TDI
01 Golf, 04 Golf
AmericanMuscleDubbn' said:
Is VW looking to sell these cars by word of mouth?
No, they will run a "das auto" commercial , pointing to Jettas German engineering. ( naturally, no mention of it being assembled in mexico )
You go to be amazed by VW marketing gurus, they went from "Fahregugen" to "das auto " in a span of 16 years.
 

trapperkeeper

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Location
Northeast, US
TDI
Golf MK4, Jetta MK5
Perception = Reality. That's something it's taken me many years as a supervisor to learn. It doesn't matter that the new VW TDIs will likely beat the EPA numbers. What matters is Joe Q american car buyer will do the little bit of research, see the higher initial cost for the diesel, see the much higher cost per gallon for diesel and see that the diesel "gets" poor MPG compared to other gassers and hybrids and voila! Poor diesel sales for VW after the initial surge of enthusiasts buy a few of the 2009s...
 

Ernie Rogers

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2001
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah
TDI
Beetle, 2003, silver
Hi, folks,

I have some medicine for this problem, but first a little thinking---

Who do you think measures the fuel economy more carefully, VW or EPA? My guess is VW. When the guy said he expects some drivers to get 60 mpg, he wasn't making up that number. We WILL get much better than 60 mpg-- watch and see.

My greater concern is about whether there will be a rebate for fuel economy.

MY MEDICINE: I went to my local dealer and put down a deposit, reserving first choice from the cars that come in, at MSRP. Then, I took the sales manager out to my car and showed him my MPG on the ScanGuage. I suggested in a soft voice that when his demo car comes in in a few weeks, that we take it out to the "test track" and actually measure the MPG of his 2009 Jetta. I will prepare a suitably sworn report, with a witness, about the true mileage capability. He will provide a suitable financial consideration for my assistance.

And, I think the number might be newsworthy enough to make the local news outlets, and beyond? Anyway, let's hope so. A car that's not yet broke in will be a serious handicap.

Ernie Rogers
 

ofhs93

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Location
Scranton, PA
TDI
Jetta GL, 99.5, Silver
I'm REALLY interested in seeing the results of this. Ernie we will ALL be waiting anxiously for your report :)
 

supton

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 25, 2004
Location
Central NH (USA)
TDI
'04 Jetta Wagon GLS
Ernie, any chance you will note the mpg at the various steady-state speeds? Ie, 60mpg at 40mph, 50mpg at 60, etc?

I recall Popular Mechanics doing this years ago (well, in the old magazines I've seen--I wasn't alive back then!). Do any magazine reviewers do this today? Seems so simple to do with a Scangauge...
 

RangerRick

New member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Location
Michigan
TDI
None
When I saw the EPA numbers for the manual 2009 Jetta TDI (30/41 mpg), I went to the Volkwagen website in the UK to see what they said
the fuel economy was for what they call the Jetta wagon in Europe
(VW Golf Estate). They
listed it in liters/100 km and mpg. Since they listed both, I could
see they were using miles per imperial gallon. They reported
33.1 city and 49.0 highway (miles per US gallon after conversion).
For their combined city/highway rating, 42 miles per US gallon.

This is substantially better than what the EPA just reported, but they
use a different test and with, no doubt, different engine calibration to
different emission requirements. Nonetheless, the UK VW website
reports substantially higher numbers, for whatever that is worth.
 

knarfy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
nj
TDI
2004 silver
anyone know if rocketchip will be available for the 09 model?
 

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
drwho said:
This does not look good. Those numbers are nothing to brag on. Probably only a 4 mpg deviation at the most. My 2000 Beetle never hit the city numbers, but did the highway a few times. Maybe Volkswagen is right, but that is quite jump downward from their claimed figures. I wonder if the cars they tested were the same as the ones we are getting? I will still test drive one, but I am not going to go on what the Volkswagen dealership tells me until I hear from people on here that know how to figure mileage. If the figures stand true, I will not be buying one. If they EPA has tampered with these numbers they should be discredited. We all know how much those clowns hate diesels.
From the EPAs own website on the test today they discount the actual mpgs on diesels by +18.3 % from actual .

So the real EPA numbers for the 2009 TDI-CRs Jetta sedan are ;

36 city / 49 highway / 40 extra urban , on the 2009 manual TDI-CR

36 city / 44 highway / ?? extra urban , on the 2006 manual TDI-PD
 

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
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf

On page 16 of 179 the example they give for diesels is ;


With respect to the mpg-based values diesels still preform the best of the four types of vehicles in the above chart . Now exceeding the window sticker values by 18.3 % .
As stated clearly in the EPA documentation there is a 18.3 % error in these numbers . Making the tested real EPA rating mpg 36 city / 49 highway / 40 extra urban mpgUS on the 2009 TDI-CR Jetta sedan . So with these being the real numbers that means the high side of the rating range was around or higher than 45-48 city / 58-60 highway / 45-50 extra urban mpgs US .
 

NorthernMage

Veteran Member
Joined
May 5, 2005
Location
Victoria, BC
TDI
2012 Jetta TDI, 6MT, Platinum Grey
Thanks Rotarykid, reading that was an eye opener, there is a table on page 8 that lays out the differences and explains them below;

"As can be seen, diesels appear to perform the best with respect to their label fuel economy, outperforming the label by 4.3%. Conventional gasoline vehicles come very close to meeting their label, falling short by only 1.4%. Conventional vehicles with relatively high combined fuel economy (here assumed to be 32 mpg or more, representing the top 10% of conventional vehicles in terms of fuel economy) performed only slightly worse, falling short by 1.7%. Hybrids fall short by a much larger margin, 8.2%. Thus, the greater shortfall seen with hybrids appears to be more related to hybrid technology than to simply high levels of fuel economy.
With respect to the mpg-based label values, diesels still perform the best of the four types of vehicles, now exceeding their label values by 18%.
b Those conventional vehicles with relatively high fuel economy fall next, followed by the typical conventional vehicle and hybrids. Thus, the YourMPG estimates indicate that hybrid performance differs from that of conventional vehicles, including those with high fuel economy."

The other interesting part is the mention of them downgrading the EPA reading by a further 9.5% as mentioned below;

"We also are finalizing an additional downward adjustment to fuel economy estimates within the 5-cycle method. We put in place a downward adjustment to account for effects that cannot be replicated on the dynamometer. There are many factors that affect fuel economy that are not accounted for in any of our existing test cycles. These include road grade, wind, tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice, effects of ethanol in gasoline, and others. We are finalizing a 9.5% downward adjustment to account for these effects. The detailed technical basis for this adjustment factor is contained in section III.A.5 of this Final Technical Support Document."

Note the compensation for ethanol in the fuel, how much ethanol is there in D2?

Further reading shows that they know that they biased the fuel economy of the Hybrids upwards by using hot starts;

"On average, hybrid fuel economy was 11% less than the composite EPA label values. The average onroad fuel economy of the Toyota Prius vehicles was closer to their composite label values than those for the two Honda models. On average, the onroad fuel economy of the 14 hybrids tested varied more than the conventional vehicles. This could be due to hybrids’ greater sensitivity to operating conditions which can either take full advantage of the hybrid technology or essentially nullify it. The fact that many vehicles started out testing with a hot start likely biased onroad fuel economy upwards to some degree. Thus, the actual shortfalls found would have been greater to some degree if testing had begun with a cold start. "

So if you factor in the admitted 18.3% penalty as well as the 9.5% downward correction for all the ethanol we burn while always driving uphill into the wind while overloaded on underinflated tires in a snow storm, then I guess VW might have been right with its 50+ Mpg estimate. Take the EPA of 41 Hwy and add 27.8% and you get 52.4 Mpg. The people who achieve the high Mpg here make sure their tires are overinflated, loads are light and conditions are good before making their mileage runs so they will likely achieve over 60 Mpg. The other thing of note is that the "trip length" for the EPA in their formulae is 7.5 miles (we barely warm up by then) at an average speed of 19.6 mph in the city, now what type of vehicle would that favour - anyone????
 
Last edited:

NorthernMage

Veteran Member
Joined
May 5, 2005
Location
Victoria, BC
TDI
2012 Jetta TDI, 6MT, Platinum Grey
I guess I should qualify my remarks above, I am not trying to slam the EPA, they have to satisfy many masters while answering to the auto industry and the government. I don't think there is a conspiracy here but the methods used in their new 5 cycle measuring program favour vehicles designed for short, low speed trips and penalize those designed for sustained autobahn speeds. If you live in LA and never leave it then the EPA might be your bible, if you live in the Midwest and drive long distances at speed, not so much....

Take the EPA measurements with a grain of salt, the real facts will emerge once these vehicles hit the market. It is a shame that the EPA has put a damper on what is exceptional technology, of course it is exceptional technology that is not invented here. I do believe that the EPA is anti-diesel from comments that their leadership has made in the past, that type of culture filters down in any "corporation" so we can't expect any favours from them. Just my two cents worth....

I
 

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
NorthernMage said:
Thanks Rotarykid, reading that was an eye opener, there is a table on page 8 that lays out the differences and explains them below;

"As can be seen, diesels appear to perform the best with respect to their label fuel economy, outperforming the label by 4.3%. Conventional gasoline vehicles come very close to meeting their label, falling short by only 1.4%. Conventional vehicles with relatively high combined fuel economy (here assumed to be 32 mpg or more, representing the top 10% of conventional vehicles in terms of fuel economy) performed only slightly worse, falling short by 1.7%. Hybrids fall short by a much larger margin, 8.2%. Thus, the greater shortfall seen with hybrids appears to be more related to hybrid technology than to simply high levels of fuel economy.
With respect to the mpg-based label values, diesels still perform the best of the four types of vehicles, now exceeding their label values by 18%.
b Those conventional vehicles with relatively high fuel economy fall next, followed by the typical conventional vehicle and hybrids. Thus, the Your MPG estimates indicate that hybrid performance differs from that of conventional vehicles, including those with high fuel economy."

The other interesting part is the mention of them downgrading the EPA reading by a further 9.5% as mentioned below;

"We also are finalizing an additional downward adjustment to fuel economy estimates within the 5-cycle method. We put in place a downward adjustment to account for effects that cannot be replicated on the dynamo meter. There are many factors that affect fuel economy that are not accounted for in any of our existing test cycles. These include road grade, wind, tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice, effects of ethanol in gasoline, and others. We are finalizing a 9.5% downward adjustment to account for these effects. The detailed technical basis for this adjustment factor is contained in section III.A.5 of this Final Technical Support Document."

Note the compensation for ethanol in the fuel, how much ethanol is there in D2?

Further reading shows that they know that they biased the fuel economy of the Hybrids up wards by using hot starts;

"On average, hybrid fuel economy was 11% less than the composite EPA label values. The average on road fuel economy of the Toyota Prius vehicles was closer to their composite label values than those for the two Honda models. On average, the on road fuel economy of the 14 hybrids tested varied more than the conventional vehicles. This could be due to hybrids’ greater sensitivity to operating conditions which can either take full advantage of the hybrid technology or essentially nullify it. The fact that many vehicles started out testing with a hot start likely biased on road fuel economy up wards to some degree. Thus, the actual shortfalls found would have been greater to some degree if testing had begun with a cold start. "

So if you factor in the admitted 18.3% penalty as well as the 9.5% downward correction for all the ethanol we burn while always driving uphill into the wind while overloaded on under inflated tires in a snow storm, then I guess VW might have been right with its 50+ Mpg estimate. Take the EPA of 41 Hwy and add 27.8% and you get 52.4 Mpg. The people who achieve the high Mpg here make sure their tires are overinflated, loads are light and conditions are good before making their mileage runs so they will likely achieve over 60 Mpg. The other thing of note is that the "trip length" for the EPA in their formula is 7.5 miles (we barely warm up by then) at an average speed of 19.6 mph on the highway, now what type of vehicle would that favour - anyone????

I missed that part about the ethanol penalty being figured in . If that is the case the 30 city / 41 highway / 34 extra Urban window sticker number is actually .

So the real EPA mpgs are 38 city / 52.4 highway / 44 extra Urban mpgUS . Now these are mpg numbers to sing about . Post these numbers where ever anyone quotes the under posted figures and maybe all the bad feelings about the new TDI-CRs will go away .
 

mrGutWrench

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 29, 2002
Location
Carrboro, NC
TDI
'03 Jetta Wagon, 5-speed, 563K Miles (July '23)
NorthernMage said:
I guess I should qualify my remarks above, I am not trying to slam the EPA, they have to satisfy many masters while answering to the auto industry and the government. I don't think there is a conspiracy here but the methods used in their new 5 cycle measuring program favour vehicles designed for short, low speed trips and penalize those designed for sustained autobahn speeds. If you live in LA and never leave it then the EPA might be your bible, if you live in the Midwest and drive long distances at speed, not so much....
__. NM, you may not know the background on this. In the '60's, California Air Resources Board was founded with the task of developing the science of cleaning up the air and establishing the technology of the testing that would show the progress being made. They did some surveys and came up with their best guess as to the "typical" urban trip. It involves getting in a car at home, starting with the cold engine, driving a couple of miles across city streets (with stop signs and lights), stopping for a cup of coffee and switching off the car for a couple of minutes. Then you get in the car, hot-start it and drive onto a freeway for about 8 miles; finally, you get off the freeway and drive on the city streets again to home. (Of course, the figured that your return trip would be the reverse.) Not bad, but only an estimate for 1964. So ARB set regulations calling for testing to this vehicle use model. Then the Clean Air Act of 1966 picked up on ARB's existing regulations (they pretty much had to because ARB had done the only existing technical work).

__. The way they get mileage numbers is analyze the amount of carbon in the exhaust in the "first and third bags" (there's literally a bag that's filled with exhaust for each of the phases - cold start city, hot start highway, and final city mileage phase). They do the same thing for the highway number from the second bag.

__. The "EPA" test is really a 45 year old California guess at how to measure (or really estimate) some data points. And once they get these data points (which really reflect just guesses), they arbitrarily deduct a certain percentage so people won't b!tch at them for having a number that's too low. No wonder the whole process is close to worthless.

Take the EPA measurements with a grain of salt, the real facts will emerge once these vehicles hit the market. It is a shame that the EPA has put a damper on what is exceptional technology, of course it is exceptional technology that is not invented here. I do believe that the EPA is anti-diesel from comments that their leadership has made in the past, that type of culture filters down in any "corporation" so we can't expect any favours from them. Just my two cents worth....
__. I think it's more inertia and ignorance. They're not in the energy business - it's the clean air business.
 
Top