2009 Jetta TDI Fuel Economy

Dimitri16V said:

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.

Click to expand...

So no more unpimping?

dr61 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Great point. As we all know the "old" TDI does an easy 10mpg better on the freeway than the EPA figures. Driven "properly" I expect an easy low to mid 50s on the 2009. I base this not on opinion but rather from data off of the UK Jetta website indicating consumption of 4.8L/62 miles =48.9 MPG US (it is rated at 58.9 Imperial MPG). Here is a link.

Fuel Economy

When I bought my 2005.5 Jetta, Manual 5 speed, The sticker had an EPA estimated Fuel economy of 43 mpg. With the almighty Diesel broken in I have been acheiving 52-53 mpg on the highway consistently. Besides the EPA is a goverment agency, you going to believe them?

A lot of government agencies have lost credibility recently, comes from backing the Green Agenda with false science I guess. Once it has been shown that your data has been falsified it takes decades to build back the trust. One of the fallouts from the whole Global Warming debacle has been the loss of faith in Scientists and Engineers who have been shown to "modify" the models to produce the results they wanted - the whole "temperature hockey stick" disaster is a prime example.
Unfortunately Government Scientists and Engineers are being lumped in with Lawyers now adays, you know they are lying because their lips are moving. The only ones with any credibility are the independents who have no grants or axes to grind, and they are mostly amateurs with no credentials - but I trust them a lot more than the EPA or NASA.

I heard some place tha there were some aerodynamic changes to the new Jetta to assist in getting better highway MPGs. Does anyone know what was done, so I can do it to my 2005.5?

Thanks, Mike
2005.5 A5 Jetta TDI 5m RC 1++

Ernie Rogers said:

I went to my local dealer and put down a deposit, reserving first choice from the cars that come in, at MSRP.

Click to expand...

Hi Ernie,

I too have a deposit down for a 2009 TDI, in my case a SportWagen. Like you I'll get right of first refusal on whatever comes in at MSRP. I'm fine with that because I expect great things from this car and feel that the EPA numbers are quite conservative. Once word of this car's real world MPG performance gets out on the street you'll probably have to sleep overnight waiting in line in your dealer's parking lot just to touch one!

This car will replace my wife's '05 Pilot so her fuel economy should double (if not better). She currently averages 20+/- MPG on a commute of ~20 miles each way that's mostly highway. We'll miss the AWD, but don't really need it in this part of the country. I think that FWD with traction control and the weight of the engine over the drive wheels should handle most of our 'weather'. If not, my vehicle is a 2004.5 Dodge Ram 3500 4x4 with a Cummins HO diesel (325 HP, 600 lb-ft of torque) that'll go anywhere, anytime. I'm already a diesel believer ...

Cheers,

Stuart

Hello, Stuart,

About snow-- We get some of that here in Utah. My Beetle has just normal tires. The driveway to our house is long, at about a 15% grade. I drive up it with little trouble all winter.

Ernie Rogers

sw23185 said:

Hi Ernie,

I too have a deposit down for a 2009 TDI, in my case a SportWagen. Like you I'll get right of first refusal on whatever comes in at MSRP. I'm fine with that because I expect great things from this car and feel that the EPA numbers are quite conservative. Once word of this car's real world MPG performance gets out on the street you'll probably have to sleep overnight waiting in line in your dealer's parking lot just to touch one!

This car will replace my wife's '05 Pilot so her fuel economy should double (if not better). She currently averages 20+/- MPG on a commute of ~20 miles each way that's mostly highway. We'll miss the AWD, but don't really need it in this part of the country. I think that FWD with traction control and the weight of the engine over the drive wheels should handle most of our 'weather'. If not, my vehicle is a 2004.5 Dodge Ram 3500 4x4 with a Cummins HO diesel (325 HP, 600 lb-ft of torque) that'll go anywhere, anytime. I'm already a diesel believer ...

Cheers,

Stuart

Click to expand...

After taking a 2006 Prius on a 2000 mile trip, I've decide to quit making the comparison between any hybrids and my 2006 Jetta TDI.

The Prius is a POS for a road car, and it's not comfortable at all under any circumstances.
And It can't manage close to the same mileage average my Jetta regularly cranks out.

Ernie Rogers said:

Hello, Stuart,

About snow-- We get some of that here in Utah. My Beetle has just normal tires. The driveway to our house is long, at about a 15% grade. I drive up it with little trouble all winter.

Ernie Rogers

Click to expand...

Hi Ernie,

Yep, I know that you get snow - we moved here from Park City! Great to hear that your New Beetle does well with the white stuff, but since this area only gets one measurable snowstorm every 2-3 years I'm not too worried ...

Cheers,

Stuart

Clear This Up!

First, I have it from a fairly trustworthy source that one reason for the delay in the 09 Jettas is that they are re-calculating the EPA numbers. Rumor is 38 city/44 highway. Under the new stricter numbers, this would equal or surpass the numbers of the champ, the 96-97 B4's.
Second, before we engage in more MINDLESS government bashing(I won't mention any names), the EPA numbers used from 1985 to 2007 were very accurate. Let's take an example: the 04-05 Passat PD TDI would have been rated 30 city/49 highway under the pre-1985 system. A VERY careful driver could obtain these numbers, although the highway number would be tough. The 1985-2007 numbers were 27 city/38 highway; the highway number is beatable. Under the 2008 ratings, the B5.5 would be rated something like 24 city/34 highway, with the highway number being way too low.
So...from 1985 to 2007 we were getting pretty accurate numbers. So what was the problem? You guessed it:the MORONS in America who are a disgrace to the word "citizen." Just imagine some boobalonius Americanus "pointing" his "Mc Blammo Deluxe" SUV, running in the left lane at 75 miles an hour, occasionally braking as he makes wild lane changes. He has not checked his tire pressure in a month, uses PEANUT OIL in his crankcase, and thinks air filters are those pine tree fresheners hanging on the mirror. When this "Amurrricun" somehow manages to do the math to compute fuel economy, and comes up short, he then calls RUSH LIMBAUGH and rants about how incompetent the GOVERNMENT is. Or is his poor fuel economy all the fault of those autoworker's unions?

EPA numbers vary, drivers vary, opinions vary......

dr61 said:

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?

Click to expand...

There is noting real on those resoults
fuel economy is based on power/wr=fuel economy
so if the power gose up the fuel economy fallow thats based on same chassy/Wr
thats the same for a good tuning of course if done properly the power gain is allways there if not then there is allot to discover!!!

dr61 said:

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 engines

Click to expand...

From the EPA said:

"

....................actual......old label..........diff%....newrating...diff%..
.................................................EthCorrected

Conventional
Gasoline...........23.8..........24.1.........-1.4..........21.7.........+9.1....-0.4

High MPG
Gasoline...........35.1..........35.8.........-1.7..........31.6.......+11.2.....+1.7

Hybrid
Gasoline...........43.2..........47.1.........-8.2..........40.1........+6.3......-3.2

Diesel..............41.8..........40.1........+4.3 ..........35.3.......+18.3.....+25.8





As can be seen above, 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.

Click to expand...

So lower mpg below 32 mpgUS conventional gasoline powered vehicles fall short of their rating by 1.4 % .

Conventional gasoline powered vehicles with ratings above 32 mpgUS fall short of their rating by 1.7 % .

Hybrid gasoline powered vehicles fall short of their rating by 8.2 % .




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

EPA said:

"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."

Click to expand...

EPA said:

Under the new regime 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-(18.3)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."

Click to expand...

Under the new regime "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-(18.3) " When the ethonal error Diesel is figured in the rating is 25.8 % low below actual .

Hybrids exceed their rating by the least 6.3 % , with the ethonal error figured in the rating is 3.2 % high above actual .

High mpg gasoline exceed their rating by 11.2 % , with the ethonal error figured in the rating is 1.7 % low below actual .

Conventional gasoline exceed their rating by 9.1 % , with the ethonal error the rating is 0.4 % high above actual .

None of the other tested groups come close to the error of Diesel ratings !!!!!! Diesel engines can't use ethonal , they don't use ethonal . So when you figure in the 9.5 % error for ethonal you get ............with the Ethonal corrections there is no error in the other two classes with error getting even larger on the Diesel rating to 25.8 % low below actual .





........................................Error % off of rating above or below real world
Conventional gasoline.................-0.4 % off of real world high

Hybrid Gasoline...........................-3.2 % off of real world high

High mpg gasoline.......................+1.7 % off of real world low

Diesel........................................+25.8 % off of real world low



It is actually 25.8% low below real world on diesels , 3.2 % high above real world on hybrids , 1.7 % low on high mpg gasoline below real world all as stated by the EPA

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

On page 8-16 of 179 the example they give for diesels

real world MPG 2009 tdi 6-speed

If anyone has a 2009 TDI 6-speed manual could you please
let us know your real world MPG.

I believe that 50 MPG on the highway is possible.

Alfon

alfon said:

If anyone has a 2009 TDI 6-speed manual could you please
let us know your real world MPG.

I believe that 50 MPG on the highway is possible.

Click to expand...

"Real world" mpg is going to require taking the average of several tanks of fuel. Since the '09 TDIs were only released by the dealerships to private owners last weekend, it will take a few weeks before we start to get reliable data.

Any down side of the '09 from older TDI's?

I was undecided if I was going for a new or used TDI Jetta, but.....

after driving the '09 TDI Jetta I'm pretty sold on new, plus the new warranty is excellent? I kinda of answered my own question today.

However is there any down side of the '09 from older TDI's?

What is the GUESS (educated).......will the '09 get less MPG than a older TDI (1.9 or 2.0) from say 1999-2004 and 2005-2006?

AND WHY WILL THE NEW '09 GET LESS MPG? (if that is the case)

The new and used prices are not a big deal, but '09 availability is an issue. I am willing to wait. Still I would like to know if I am giving anything up.

Reading the web and the YouTube video Auburn Washington (south of Seattle) to SanFran I think they got +50mpg. How much better can it get.

Of course the new TDI is saving the planet.

THE OTHER QUESTION, DO YOU THING THE NEW DESIGN (Exhaust components) WILL BE MORE A MAINTENCE BURDEN OR EXPENSE OVER THE OLDER TDI'S? What is there to burn out or wear out in the Re-gen system. I guess they can get blocked and need total replacement.

I would hope they will get at least 50 mpg. I do better than that with my TDI. Of course different drivers may get less.

2009 MPG with DSG after 900 miles.maybe EPA was right !

I've had my new 2009 TDI sedan for a week and put 900 miles on it.. The fill ups were 38 mpg and 36 mpg. This is with 80-90 % highway driving at speeds avg. 75 mph. I had a 2001 Jetta TDI and over same roads at the the same speeds with the same fuel.. I was getting 44mpg.. So my preliminary est. is that the new 2009 will get less than the old one. Good luck getting 50mpg!! The 2009 has much more power and is much quieter inside and out,but the MPG is probally going to be what the EPA said !! 40 highway..
As soon as you give the 09 any throttle the MFD shows 10-15 mpg.. Or you can be cruising very carefully and it's showing 45-55 mpg, but if even touch the peddle it drops to 30mpg!! I guess time will tell, but I think as usual you can't get that much more power and get better mileage too!!
Maybe you can't tell but I love the car, just not the mileage...
No, I don't work for the EPA !! Hah ha !

vonhess2 said:

I've had my new 2009 TDI sedan for a week and put 900 miles on it.. The fill ups were 38 mpg and 36 mpg. This is with 80-90 % highway driving at speeds avg. 75 mph. I had a 2001 Jetta TDI and over same roads at the the same speeds with the same fuel.. I was getting 44mpg.. So my preliminary est. is that the new 2009 will get less than the old one. Good luck getting 50mpg!! The 2009 has much more power and is much quieter inside and out,but the MPG is probally going to be what the EPA said !! 40 highway..
As soon as you give the 09 any throttle the MFD shows 10-15 mpg.. Or you can be cruising very carefully and it's showing 45-55 mpg, but if even touch the peddle it drops to 30mpg!! I guess time will tell, but I think as usual you can't get that much more power and get better mileage too!!
Maybe you can't tell but I love the car, just not the mileage...
No, I don't work for the EPA !! Hah ha !

Click to expand...

What did the MFD say your average was for each tank? The reason why I keep asking this is because we have reports of MFD mileage going back months from driving the demo, and if the MFD is accurate then we can take those into account.

So you're getting 37mpg out of an unbroken in CR engine, and you're putting your foot in it. Come on - admit it - you're flooring it and loving it. You got 44 mpg out of a broken in ALH on the same roads. This actually seems about right.

I just picked up my 2009 Jetta TDI today - 6 speed manual. It had 12 miles on it coming off the lot... it now has about 115 miles. First impressions are good. I reset the MPG indicator when I pulled off the lot and did some cruising, had my foot in it a little too... currently reads 43.2. My 2000 would regularly get 48-50... and I imagine this will be about the same once it is broken in and I get used to driving it. There certainly is much more power to be found in this engine and it is noticably quieter on the highway than my old one. It also has a functional back seat, which was a big issue for me on the 2000 and ultimately the reason I sold it awhile back. The extra gear is really nice, and if you do country roads a lot, like I do, cruising at 55-60 in 6th really shows some great numbers on the computer.... 53MPG-57MPG generally for me... 85 degrees outside and the AC on. We'll see how that holds up over time. Anyway, nice car, incredible leg room up front if no one sitting in the back.... great sound system, solid VW ride at highway speeds and 45+MPG to boot... AND a back seat the kids can fit in with a little leg room... what's not to like?

As for all the worries about the MPG on the display.... I have a 2007 GMC Sierra that has a DIC (yes - driver information center)... so I have a measure to compare (no pun intended). Anyway, the GMC resularly drops to 2 or 3 MPG under acceleration but I still average about 17 or 18 on a tank. I wouldn't worry about what the computer shows second by second... unless you're getting sub 40 after the first few tanks. As others have said, mileage will improve during the first 10,000 miles or so.... and you get better at driving the thing too.

MFD seems pretty close

The MFD was within 1/10 of what I calculated both times..
Drove it about another 120 miles today at a slower pace and MFD is
creaping up to almost 40 avg... I'll keep posting my mpg for the next couple months..

As many have stated, the initial mpg will be disappointingly low. It seems to take 5-10K miles before the motors loosen up and the mpg goes up to what you'd expect.

My 2K6 NB TDI 5-speed manual started with 34-36 mpg, but after 8K miles I was getting 40+ and now at 37K I'm getting around 46 mpg average.

I'm beating the crap out of my jsw while I break the engine in and am getting somewhere around 28mpg. Considering that I am racing from light to light that is pretty damn good. My 2005 passat gasser would have got around 10mpg runing like I am. Its got a bunch more power than the older models so is never going to get quite the mpg, i'm ok with it.

35 MPG City for me

I just picked up a 2009 6 Speed Manual, filled the tank yesterday, 220 miles 6.284 gallons = 35 mpg.

Was mostly back roads, some city, with lots of throttle. I never kept the car in 5/6th gear to vary the rpms, so I'm sure it will do a lot better.


My MFD display seems to be accurate to with in .1 mpg.

RPM at 80 mph in 6th year is 2500/2600 rpm.

thats some high RPM i was hoping with the 6th gear it woudl be like a double overdrive and put the RPMS to around 1700 or so.....o well.

Every new generation of VW Jetta Diesel has used more fuel than the previous one.

Why would this new version be expected to reverse that trend? Isn't it heavier, and more powerful than the previous generation?

It's not like the old models were inefficient or had some fuel-wasting flaw that could be solved with the new engine.

Mike, Common-Rail offers MANY advantages in terms of performance and efficiency over earlier technologies. Even with the -necessary- restriction of the exhaust aftertreatment, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised...

DPM said:

Mike, Common-Rail offers MANY advantages in terms of performance and efficiency over earlier technologies. Even with the -necessary- restriction of the exhaust aftertreatment, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised...

Click to expand...

I'm sure the driving experience will be superior to previous models. I wouldn't argue that at all. It's probably a very nice car.

Making the car larger, more powerful, more comfortable, more refined and only using a little bit more fuel is a great achievement for VW. If they tried the same thing a few years ago with older technology, then perhaps it would have used a lot more fuel, instead of just a little more.

Initial reports are suggesting that the new Jetta DOES use more fuel than the previous generation, and I'm saying that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I'm sure it's a very nice car though, and perhaps worth it if fuel consumption isn't your main concern.

Fuel frugality fanatics will be dissapointed if they were hoping for 50 MPG (US)... That might be achievable under certain circumstances, but doesn't look like that will be the average.

Antsrcool said:

thats some high RPM i was hoping with the 6th gear it woudl be like a double overdrive and put the RPMS to around 1700 or so.....o well.

Click to expand...

at 80mph?

vonhess2 said:

I've had my new 2009 TDI sedan for a week and put 900 miles on it.. The fill ups were 38 mpg and 36 mpg. This is with 80-90 % highway driving at speeds avg. 75 mph. I had a 2001 Jetta TDI and over same roads at the the same speeds with the same fuel.. I was getting 44mpg.. So my preliminary est. is that the new 2009 will get less than the old one. Good luck getting 50mpg!! The 2009 has much more power and is much quieter inside and out,but the MPG is probally going to be what the EPA said !! 40 highway..
As soon as you give the 09 any throttle the MFD shows 10-15 mpg.. Or you can be cruising very carefully and it's showing 45-55 mpg, but if even touch the peddle it drops to 30mpg!! I guess time will tell, but I think as usual you can't get that much more power and get better mileage too!!
Maybe you can't tell but I love the car, just not the mileage...
No, I don't work for the EPA !! Hah ha !

Click to expand...

I just filled up for the third time today and have over 2,000 miles on the clock. I've got 43.5, 46 and 44... all of these are actual calculations, although the digital is darned close to the same. (Today it was dead on, even to the 10th).....

Here's some observations I've made that will help you increase your mileage IF you can discipline yourself enough (which ain't easy)...

1. Take off EASY. This car has a VERY quick toe in on the accelerator.
2. Drive 65 mph or LESS. The difference between 65 or above seems significant based on the 30-40 mile runs I've done, resetting the average and driving different speeds.
3. It seems the a/c sucks up 2-4 mpg, depending on your speed.

I'm CONFIDENT if I could drive 60 mph with no a/c and the windows up, I could surpass 50 mpg... but I'll probably never find out as I can't imagine driving that slowly.

last week I did considerable driving in the mountains of West Virginia, ran around 75 mph and had the a/c on all the time. That was my lowest tank so far, around 42.5.

I suspect after 15-20K we'll see another point or two.

Wes