2009 Jetta TDI Fuel Economy

[Cudakid]

have a few tanks for you guys.
09 JSW 6 spd.
first tank filled by dealer = 31.33 mpg 90 % city / 10 % hwy - AC on & Driving it like I stole it.
Recent Labor day weekend trip from VA to Western PA - 800 miles total. Cargo area filled.
To destination = 40.228 MPG 2% city / 98 % hwy - AC on & varying load, speed and rpm's
Return trip = 39.542 MPG 2% city / 98 % hwy - AC on, varying load, speed and rpm's & a whole lot of coasting downhill.
I'm sure these numbers will improve as the car breaks in and as my experience gets better with the car. I sure hope it's the 20% increase like some people claim being it's the main reason we bought the car.
oh btw , our MFD was only off by .5 - .8 mpg.

This is about exactly what I am getting. Went to northern Indiana this weekend and with 4 in the car and loaded at 75mph it ran about 38-39mpg on the MFD which is probably closer to 36-37 mpg. I guess time will tell the whole story.

I still have to almost call BS though on some saying their mfd average reading over 50 mpg. On another trip over the weekend I drove a trip of about 100 miles by myself wo/ac and 95% hwy at 60 mph mostly level terrain and it ran about 44mpg on the mfd. I want to see someone post pictures of the avg mpg on the mfd in the 50's on one of these cars running 60mph or faster.

 

[I'm WNY PAT]

I don't know what the heck you guys getting 38MPG on the highway are doing.... I'm in the high 30's in 90% city driving..... is is even possible to do that poorly with a 98% highway tank? I may call BS on that!

 

[itodd]

Newbie here.
I bought an '09 Jetta TDI (auto) last Thursday (black). The wife and I drove conservatively (~70mph) from Lebanon, NH to Cape Cod. 43.9 on the way down and 42.5 on the way back. We drove about 580 miles on the dealer's tank of gas. This is through the MFD.

vvv I'll be sure to calculate once I fill up again.

 

[Lightflyer1]

Youu guys have to stop using the MFD for stats. MPG of whole tanks is the numbers we need, preferably several tanks worth. MFD reports and 5 gallon fillups don't really mean anything here.

 

[MrSprdSheet]

Youu guys have to stop using the MFD for stats. MPG of whole tanks is the numbers we need, preferably several tanks worth. MFD reports and 5 gallon fillups don't really mean anything here.

Yes, and as this firms up, please state whether the MFLD variance is overstating, or understating, actual mpg's observed. I'm surprised to see at least two folks stating ".1", or "1/10", variances as "accurate". That's not accurate. FWIW, w/DSG my MFLD is 8.4% overstating actual mpgs, but its early yet.

 

[Tork]

How are you folks deriving at the MFD being off? Are you calculating it against how much fuel you are putting in the vehicle based on the gas/diesel pump reading? Has it ever occurred to those of you that the pump is off? It's pretty common for the pumps to be off to the benefit of the filling station. Unless you are physically measuring the fuel you put in your tank, you cannot claim the MFD is off!

 

[wesk1954]

How are you folks deriving at the MFD being off? Are you calculating it against how much fuel you are putting in the vehicle based on the gas/diesel pump reading? Has it ever occurred to those of you that the pump is off? It's pretty common for the pumps to be off to the benefit of the filling station. Unless you are physically measuring the fuel you put in your tank, you cannot claim the MFD is off!

I seriously question the validity of your comments, and that because the pumps (at least in OHio) are inspected and stickered by a government official. They really DO test the accuracy of the pumps. Not to say that a station owner couldn't tinker with them I suppose, but most station managers know practically nothing about the pumps or their operation, so I would again question as to whether they would even have the knowledge to tamper.

If what you say IS in fact true, it would be worth measuring a gallon to see if it's up to snuff.

Wes

 

[Tork]

I seriously question the validity of your comments, and that because the pumps (at least in OHio) are inspected and stickered by a government official. They really DO test the accuracy of the pumps. Not to say that a station owner couldn't tinker with them I suppose, but most station managers know practically nothing about the pumps or their operation, so I would again question as to whether they would even have the knowledge to tamper.

If what you say IS in fact true, it would be worth measuring a gallon to see if it's up to snuff.

Wes

It is true. Go to your state website to see what the tolerence is set forth by the state "weight and measures" department. You can also see how often the state requires pumps to be checked - sometimes once every 3-5 years in some states - and if they use an outside source to do so.

Check out this link regarding the fuel pump "glitch": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24296879/

 

[Lightflyer1]

(from msn from above)
A pump that seems to hesitate a second when the lever is squeezed. Anywhere from 2 to 6 cents tick off before the rush of gasoline starts.

But even if your gas pump works, it can still be off as much as $5 for every fillup. Tests by local regulators allow a pump to charge as much as 6 cents more than the gas delivered in a five-gallon test, but there can be wild fluctuations. Federal regulators said they had heard of swings of as much as 30 to 40 cents per gallon.
(end quotes)



3 to 6 cents a fillup is nothing. The other case mentioned had only been "heard of", not the norm or all that frequent. I'll trust the pump before the MFD. True maybe, widespead problem... no. That is why we rely on multiple tanks to reduce the error.

 

[puretdi]

How much of that trip was actually at 60 mph? Was it 70%? Because that 30% that wasn't can rip those numbers to shreds. No one will ever get more than 50 mpg on a TANK of gas unless it's 90% or more highway imho.

I have calculated three tanks so far on my 09,,, 46, 42.5 and 44. All of these are "mostly" highway.. probably 75%, some in mountainous terrain at high speeds (75) with a/c on (that's the 42.5 tank) and the 46 was in FLAT geography at 65 with a/c.

My mileage drops when I drive into West Virginia based purely on two factors, the speed increases to 70, which generally means 75, and the MOUNTAINS are continuous. If I ran WV hard, I would probably drop to around 40 mpg.

So there's MANY factors that come into play, and I think your car WOULD deliver 50 mpg given the right conditions. I'm confident I could get 50 on my new Jetta if I would drive 55 mph on flat terrain with no a/c.. in fact I think it would be closer to 55, especially after another 10K miles to break in the engine.

On the tank I'm currently running I'm showing 46 mpg... and it has been a mixture of 65mph or less highway, with about 30% city, but I've been very gentle on the accelerator.

I've found the digital read out varies as much as 1 mpg in the 3-4 tanks that I've checked so far.

Wes

Although my calculations on refills have been quite low 36mpg (pen & paper) bu only on 6 or 7 gallon refills. I agree with you, I took my first trip this weekend which was ~45 miles and I managed to get 48 mpg on the way to my sister's house and reached as much as 54 mpg on the way back home. This is with 95% highway, the funny part is that I had the A/C on on the way back and on the way to my sister's I didn't. I have noticed the following:

High MPG on MFD:
* Better MPG on long distances
* Best MPG occurs between 55mph and 60mph RPM at or under 2000. This is how i managed to get 54 mpg.
* Smooth take-offs, without really hammering it

Low MPG on MFD:
* Driving over shorter distances
* Traffic Conditions, lights, stops, etc...
* Taking off Hard

My drive to work is about 30 miles and I only manage to get around 43 mpg on the MFD with about 85% highway (some traffic). City driving depends on how hard I drive the car and it is closer to the 30 mpg range.

I know that pen and paper calculations are better over several tanks of refills, but I am a little more at ease in seeing the mpg I got over the weekend, because I was very dissapointed in how city driving (especially stops and traffic) had a negative effect on the MFD. The only thing I am questioning now is, whetther I would have been better off getting the DSG instead of the manual, since I think the DSG might shift gears more efficiently than ME! This is probably the only thing I am regretting right now.

 

[Tork]

(from msn from above)
A pump that seems to hesitate a second when the lever is squeezed. Anywhere from 2 to 6 cents tick off before the rush of gasoline starts.

But even if your gas pump works, it can still be off as much as $5 for every fillup. Tests by local regulators allow a pump to charge as much as 6 cents more than the gas delivered in a five-gallon test, but there can be wild fluctuations. Federal regulators said they had heard of swings of as much as 30 to 40 cents per gallon.
(end quotes)



3 to 6 cents a fillup is nothing. The other case mentioned had only been "heard of", not the norm or all that frequent. I'll trust the pump before the MFD. True maybe, widespead problem... no. That is why we rely on multiple tanks to reduce the error.

One or multiple tanks, the only true way to establish whether or not the MFD is off its mark is to physically measure the fuel content before filling an empty tank.

You are also overlooking that you may or may not be filling the tank to the same level everytime. Some pumps shut off well before the fuel reaches the end of filler tube in the vehicle, while others won't shut off until they are at their absolute limit. Also, when you fuel your vehicle, if the pavement is not even, the tank may fill leaving voids/pockets of air. And, when you calculate your mileage, you could be misled.

My point is, it might not be only the MFD. It could be a pump or even your method of deriving "real world" economy.

 

[MrSprdSheet]

I can attest the DSG seems tuned to do exactly what you're learning and that is to stay just above lugging ~1000 all the time. Mine is grabbing 6th before 40mph and gets out of first w/in 2 seconds, no matter how soft the start. Look at it this way, both cars have 6 gears and a 4,500 red line. The torque peak is on the low end between 1,750-2,500RPM, not ~3,500 like a gas car. Translation: Lots of shifting to keep it low.

As to hypermiling the DSG, I'll say the manual states its ok to go from 'N' to 'D' on the fly (with revs down) and I've started doing that and by 'accident' going back into 'N', (also, with the revs down). 'S' (sport) mode drags less, but still drags much closer to 'D' than freewheeling. With limited freewheeling, I scored 47mpg on the MFLD into Boston during rush hour this morning. Steady crawl. Its 8% high, etc, etc, but I think there's hope the DSG's will hypermile within a couple mpg's of the manuals. Whether successive on the fly 'D' to 'N' shifts eventually break something is where I'm taking a chance. It doesn't seem too eventful to do it and the manual only goes out of its way to tell DSG owners not to turn the car off, as that will hurt the transmission.

On the way home it was back down to 32.?

 

[Thunderstruck]

Unfortunately you can't skip gears and go from 2nd to 6th as I did in a test of a manual trans Jetta last week.

 

[Lightflyer1]

Well there is accurate and then there is close enough. Even in a labratory there are conditions you can't control. Even the temp and pressure changes every day affecting in miniscule amounts how much fuel you get.

Most of us fill our tanks to the lip everytime, not where the pump cuts off. Some go so far as to bump and jostle the car some to release trapped air and foam.

Very little evidence in yet, but the 2009 seems to have a more calibrated speedo and MFD display than the 2006.

 

[jvance]

Yes, and as this firms up, please state whether the MFLD variance is overstating, or understating, actual mpg's observed. I'm surprised to see at least two folks stating ".1", or "1/10", variances as "accurate". That's not accurate. FWIW, w/DSG my MFLD is 8.4% overstating actual mpgs, but its early yet.

The people who have been claiming ".1" or "1/10" meant a tenth of an mpg, not 10% variance. As in the tank fill showed 43.5mpg while the MFD showed 43.6.

 

[ScottfromIowa]

2009 Jetta TDI Impressions after tank #1

I picked up my '09 Jetta TDI last week. I had previously owned a 2006 Jetta TDI and unfortunately...at the time had to seel because of a job change. Paid sticker in Iowa, but was still under $24k ($23,714). My car is a six speed manual. Subjective feeling is that the 2009 engine is superior in every way. More power, less vibration, quieter at idle and at speed. Acceleration feels stronger than '06 (as it should with more power and torque). I like the leather steering wheel and shifter (my '06 were rubber). I like the trip computer and radio/computer controls on the wheel. The '06 stereo was excellent...The '09 sounds fantastic. Like the auxillery imput (i-pod). TDI insert at base of wheel is a nice touch. Otherwise feels (seats/controls) etc. much like my '06.

I had two highway trips of 218 and 308 miles during my first tank. I reset computer for each. I varied speed, but was between 65 and 75. First trip was 40.1 mpg on computer. Second trip was 39.8 on computer. My initial break-in highway mileage (driving fast, but NOT running up on people and braking and resetting cruise to fly back up to speed was a basic 40mpg. I am happy with that and believe this will improve. Of course if I would have driven 60-65 all the time it would have been over 40. I will give more results. I LOVE THE CAR. THE ENGINE IS SUPERIOR TO '06 TDI.

ScottfromIowa

 

[40X40]

How are you folks deriving at the MFD being off? Are you calculating it against how much fuel you are putting in the vehicle based on the gas/diesel pump reading? Has it ever occurred to those of you that the pump is off? It's pretty common for the pumps to be off to the benefit of the filling station. Unless you are physically measuring the fuel you put in your tank, you cannot claim the MFD is off!

What a wonderful first post. If you think you are being cheated at the fuel pump, contact you local version of the Dept. of Weights and Measures.

Bill

 

[david_594]

What a wonderful first post. If you think you are being cheated at the fuel pump, contact you local version of the Dept. of Weights and Measures.

Bill

I agree with bill on this one. And the argument over how valid a fuel pump is has come up in the past. If one station gives you significantly lower MPG's per tank than another based on the "paper method" of calculations versus similiar trip computers readouts them maybe you do have cause for concern. Otherwise its just a tinfoil hat argument that every gas station is out to get you.

For the sake of this thread though, we will assume pumps are accurate(enough) and not argue the merits of their readouts. Or the thread will just end up locked.

 

[wesk1954]

This is about exactly what I am getting. Went to northern Indiana this weekend and with 4 in the car and loaded at 75mph it ran about 38-39mpg on the MFD which is probably closer to 36-37 mpg. I guess time will tell the whole story.

I still have to almost call BS though on some saying their mfd average reading over 50 mpg. On another trip over the weekend I drove a trip of about 100 miles by myself wo/ac and 95% hwy at 60 mph mostly level terrain and it ran about 44mpg on the mfd. I want to see someone post pictures of the avg mpg on the mfd in the 50's on one of these cars running 60mph or faster.

I haven't seen ANY posts from an 09 TDI owner that claims mpg in the 50's... I think you're confusing posts with the older models. I'm into my fifth tank of fuel on my 09, and have averaged from 42.5 (lowest tank) to 46 mpg (best tank) and the other two 43.5 and 44.5. That's a mixture of driving, about 75 highway at 65mph or greater, with and without a/c. And those ARE pen and paper calc's. My MFD seems to average about .5 off.

Wes

 

[wesk1954]

The only thing I am questioning now is, whetther I would have been better off getting the DSG instead of the manual, since I think the DSG might shift gears more efficiently than ME! This is probably the only thing I am regretting right now.

I have the DSG, and I can tell you it keeps your RPM'S very low... it will put you in sixth gear below 40 mph. It tends to shift at 2,000 rpm's or less unless you really have your foot in it. First gear shifts within a second or two of take off... it would be almost impossible to shift as quickly as it does driving a manual. In fact, in manual mode, I've tried to duplicate the DSG shifting, and I find my RPM's run WAY WAY higher... I just can't be as quick as the auto especially at lower speeds.

My guess is that long term we'll see the mileage is actually the same or better than the manual tranny's... or at least that's my hope as I accepted DSG with that premise (would have loved to had a stick).

Wes

 

[Tork]

I agree with bill on this one. And the argument over how valid a fuel pump is has come up in the past. If one station gives you significantly lower MPG's per tank than another based on the "paper method" of calculations versus similiar trip computers readouts them maybe you do have cause for concern. Otherwise its just a tinfoil hat argument that every gas station is out to get you.

For the sake of this thread though, we will assume pumps are accurate(enough) and not argue the merits of their readouts. Or the thread will just end up locked.

Guys- you're glossing over what I have written and are missing the point! I'm not claiming that the pumps are the perp here. I'm saying that everyone is so quick to point out that the MFD is the problem when it could be a series of other things, so don't be so quick to point the finger without a scientific approach to measuring your mileage.

 

[Rod Bearing]

There may be miniscule differences between stations. My common practice is to fill my car at 1/4 tank. I can't tell you if I have the exact same amount in the tank every time I stop to fill it, but I usually take about 12.2 to 12.6 gal to fill it every time. I'd say I'm getting close to the same amount of fuel no matter where I stop and I can also tell you that the differences tank to tank are most likely in how much I have in my tank, and when the nozzle clicks off (I stop there) and not in a conspiracy in pump calibration. I rarely use the same station to fill.

My avg MPG is always within 1/2 mpg or so.

I only check my MPG for fun. No way to be sure of accuracy given variables out of my control.

I calculate ¢ per mile for accurate numbers on what my car is really costing me to operate.

 

[Squid6290]

what type of transmissions does it have? what equipment came on it? how close to MSRP did you pay? Did you avoid paying sales tax since you will pay the tax in your home state to register it?

I have the DSG, pano roof, gorilla mats, iPod dock, and the premium sound with Sirius. I paid MSRP (incl the $650 destination charge). I also paid the sales tax because I'm a Florida resident, stationed outside of FL. The dealership had a "market demand" charge added to the sticker of $1995.00, which I did not pay. The said that haven't kept a TDI on the lot for more than 24 hours since being allowed to sell the demo.

BTW...my overall mpg has increased since driving out of Florida. Yesterday's fill up here in CT got me 40.3 mpg (475mi/11.8gal).

I expect the next tank to be lower now that I've turned the car over to my lead-foot wife. We'll see.

 

[Squid6290]

I haven't seen ANY posts from an 09 TDI owner that claims mpg in the 50's... I think you're confusing posts with the older models. I'm into my fifth tank of fuel on my 09, and have averaged from 42.5 (lowest tank) to 46 mpg (best tank) and the other two 43.5 and 44.5. That's a mixture of driving, about 75 highway at 65mph or greater, with and without a/c. And those ARE pen and paper calc's. My MFD seems to average about .5 off.

Wes

I posted a claim of getting 50 on the hwy without A/C, but that was on I-95 through North Carolina using the MFD...however, I only got 38.9 mpg on that tank overall (by pen/paper).

Yesterday's fill up of mixed driving through New England got me 40.3 mpg based on 475 miles on 11.8 gallons.

And I'm not hypermiling...just driving gently, with on occasional heavy foot.

 

[thebigarniedog]

Okay, feeling like a clueless wonder here but after the first ten days of driving when I went to fill up the tank for the first time we had an average of 23.9 mpg. Do not sneer, all of you with open road, but here in congested Connecticut I have to travel an average of 14.2 mph. This is AWFUL!
I might as well have got the Hypothetical Prius we were on a wait list for 3 months for before giving up or a gas Jetta sportwagen with the gorgeous sunroof and a comfy back area for the pooch. I have been telling myself that a daily five miles each way commute on the highway with much traffic and much intervening local driving (traffic also) and the occasional 12 mile trip to church (windy back roads, average speeds of 40 mpg) and 12 mile highway to grocery,etc -) are more what a Prius is best at getting good mileage on. Also that diesels have break in periods. ALso that car computers are unreliable, etc. But about 311 miles on 3/4 of a tank (we had a long road trip heavily loaded in the other car for a few days, not wanting to overload the new TDI, hence low mileage).
I LOVE driving this car during the brief minutes when the traffic moves. We got it because I plan to travel several hundred miles on highway on most weekends in future. The fantastic handling and performance relative to others we have driven (especially our SUV and the Prius we test drove) have probably already saved my life from two wacked out tired truckers on I95 veering into my lane, and helped a teenaged driver in the family avoid trouble on entrance ramps and turning too fast on winding country roads several times. So I am trying to tell myself things will improve mileage wise.
But this is way worse than the EPA stats. Could this be a sign of engine trouble? No lights or anything. Please don't write insultingly that I picked the wrong car. In an ideal world, many of us would have different cars. But sometimes one buys the set of four wheels that move well that one can afford that is actually available as opposed to hypothetical. My basic feeling is if I am getting 23.9 why did I pay 5K premium over the gas Jetta? And how much worse will this mileage be in the winter!!! (I remember my Mercedes diesel wagon gulping fuel all winter)
We did homework, have owned diesel before (Mercedes) but when we ran the numbers on whether it made economic sense to buy (as opposed to just "Cute car, fun to drive") we used the EPA figures and decided OK. But with 23.9? Horrendous. Love car, hate mileage and not independently wealthy enough to justify a sports car wannabe/midlife crisis car that isn't economical enough.

VERY DISAPPOINTED

First, you need to separate the hype from the reality.

First, the hype: There are always going to be people who claim they get some BS mileage and some BS range on a tank. These people belong to the Posers' Club and get off by running their mouth about how great they and their car are and running people who live in the real world down. Best advice, ignore them.

Now the real world: the EPA rates your car 30/31 City and 40/41 Highway. Our Tdi's have a known breakin period where the mileage increases after around the 10,000 mile mark. This has been documented. Your mileage will improve. How much, you can bank on somewhere in the EPA range. I might of missed it in your posting, but do you have an automatic or a manual tranny? The sweet spot for a manual tranny tdi (at least my A4) for the best mileage is around 40 mph but even at lower speeds has a good return. So give it time and avoid the "hype". Btw, the Prius is a clown cart so be glad you didn't buy that POS (Toyota has had a hard time keeping the required makeup kit in stock for the Prius).

 

[Suns_PSD]

ALso.. it's not economical. I look at the car as a tool, not an amusement park ride. I drive ~800m a week and it's all economy for me. MY 275hp Honda is getting 32-33mpg and I'll run it till the wheels fall off because I'm not made of money and getting a car, from my perspective, is a loss. Insurance, plates and car payment are all costs. I want 50mpg minimum at regular fuel costs. Diesel's 10-20% more than regular in CA and getting 44mpg on diesel costs the same as getting 40mpg on regular gasoline here as of yesterday.

Tim

Maybe you meant 75 hp Honda.

I just got rid of my Jetta and bought a 3 door Saturn Astra w/ a 5 speed and I love it but, it's suppossed to have 138 hp but my chipped Jetta would have killed it in any measure of acceleration. The Jetta also consistently got 10 mpg better mpg.

My point is that there are no cars that have the power and luxury of a Jetta tdi and can approach the fuel economy. Maybe you are comparing the Jetta to a Yaris but that's just not a reasonable comparison. The Jetta is more akin to a premium fuel only BMW that gets 25 mpg.

So when you say "it's not economical" in regards to the tdi's fuel economy, that's just ludicrous.

 

[seespotrun]

Just went on my normal commmute to work:
-30 miles (mostly interstate)
-average speed was 64 mph
-up and down through the mountains of NE TN
-mpg was 50.2!

I have 1800 miles on the car and I can't wait to see what this thing can do when I have it broken in at 10-15k.

 

[twilkens]

Suns,
I've got an Acura CL Type S, rated at 275HP. In it from the pump I'm averaging 30-32.5 mpg... on regular gasoline that's 15-20% cheaper than Diesel. To counter balance the extra cost of diesel I'd have to get 37mpg. True the Jetta can do this.. but who needs all this power. I travel 180m a day and I move about 60-70mph. A Prius gets about 45mpg.. and that's the fair comparison. It's cheaper than the Jetta, likely more reliable in terms of all systems on the car. My co-worker in the cubicle next to me has a jetta diesel.. and he's informed me of his issues.. reliable engine but watch out for electrical issues.

Simply put.. unless the diesel gets 55-60mpg it's not as economical as a Prius, new Honda Hybrid or possibly the new Acura TSX Diesel to come (have to wait and see). Most posts indicate people getting 45mpg in the Jetta.. while that's great it's not good enough for me.

Lastly, buying a new car is a waste always to be put off until it's supercompelling. I've got a honda engine I can run to 250K and beyond. 500$ car insurance and cheap plates and no car payment. If I go out and buy a car I want to cut my 400-500 monthly gas bill in half to counter balance the car payment by 50%. The jetta diesel just isn't there. Nice car but in my case.. not economical.

 

[I'm WNY PAT]

Suns,
To counter balance the extra cost of diesel I'd have to get 37mpg. True the Jetta can do this.. but who needs all this power.

Simply put.. unless the diesel gets 55-60mpg it's not as economical as a Prius, new Honda Hybrid or possibly the new Acura TSX Diesel to come (have to wait and see). Most posts indicate people getting 45mpg in the Jetta.. while that's great it's not good enough for me.

Lastly, buying a new car is a waste always to be put off until it's supercompelling. I've got a honda engine I can run to 250K and beyond. 500$ car insurance and cheap plates and no car payment. If I go out and buy a car I want to cut my 400-500 monthly gas bill in half to counter balance the car payment by 50%. The jetta diesel just isn't there. Nice car but in my case.. not economical.

I'm confused by your first statement.... doesn't that kind of offset the rest... from a purely objective standpoint anyway?

In any case, the wonderful thing about being a rational being is that we can find a rational reason for anything. And sorry, as the prevoius owner of a 2003 Accord EX-L with the 2.4, if you think you're getting 250K trouble free miles out of your Acura... good luck. I replaced a clutch master cylinder, had 2 welds re-done (on the unibody), had the hood replaced because it rusted through; and had a number of other small problems... and I sold the car at 60K miles. You keep an honest accounting of what that car costs you between 75K-175K miles.. including the decrease in efficienty you'll experience MPG wise... and you'll find out I might just be right.

Now, whether the Prius is cheaper than the Jetta, and certainly whether you'd get anywhere near the mileage in a Prius on a 180 mile route (which I assume is primarily highway given the distance) would certainly be up for debate I'd imagine. There is a posting in the news section you might want to reference regarding a mileage challenge between a Prius and a Jetta too that is informative and not based on emotional opinion and / or rationalizing.

And if you really want to drive a cheap car, and truly don't care what you drive, why not get a used Olds or Chevrolet and run the wheels off of it? Why an Acura?

 

[twilkens]

Pat,
There's no contradiction. Yes the Jetta is more efficient, slightly, than my current car in terms of fuel costs. However later in my post I point out, it costs 23-28K and doesn't approach the comfort and luxury of my current car, increases the insurance, related to cost gives me a car payment which is always something to be put off. So currently I spend 500$ a month on fuel. With the jetta maybe that's 350. Unfortunately I'm out 500$ in cash a month for the car payment, my insurance is likely another 80-120$ and the plates.. well I have no idea but possibly 50-100 the first year. So.. no the Jetta isn't so compelling when I'm shelling out ~1K compared to my current 500. I want to cut my fuel cost in half or more so as to make it closer to economical in the first year. Currently there's nothing super compelling in the market.

Regarding the Acura.. it just crossed 150K miles, getting 30-32mpg on the highway. No pun intended but that's the fact. Never had a single issue in the last 75K miles. So it's a winner. I don't have to work and put extra money into the car to keep it running and that's a win for me.

Lastly, my car has a bose radio, navigation, more power than the Jetta, leather interior and an electrical system that works. This doesn't sound like an Olds or Chevrolet I know about and for that matter... it doesn't sound like a Jetta.

My point is the Jetta needs more milage to be cost effective given the cost of diesel, it's current milage per gallon of diesel and it's current cost.

The Prius is a fine car and if it gets 55-60mpg in the next revision I have to look at it closely. There are many in my office and people seem to love them just fine. I also test drove both the Jetta and the Prius. 50mpg on the Prius and the Jetta was a little under 50 in my 30m jaunt from the MFD. Close.. but man diesel is 1.15-1.2 x more expensive.

Hope this clarifies my previous statement.. and also.. that 32mpg on a car with 275hp isn't achieved with hypermiling.. just smart driving at 60-70mpg on a 14m city and 170m highway commute every day.