Aussie PD Mileage

[Tdidaryl]

Just taken delivery of his 2.0L DSG Golf Comfortline. So far very dissapointed in the MPG. First tank only 38MPG (7.3L/100km) compared with over 50MPG (5.2L/100) from the MkIII.

I would be interested to hear what your getting.

2nd tank not yet done.

 

[Joshinthecity]

Daz,
Bear in mind, there will be a substantial increase in milage as the engine loosens-up. Just as there would have been with your other TDi's.
also, you've got the most in-efficient TDI on sale in australia. The 2.0 might be worth .5L over the 1.9 and I'd say the gearbox would be worth that at least. My bet is that after you've travelled , say, 5-6,000klm, you'll be averaging maybe 6-ish. With my 1.9 6-M running at about 5-ish.

Have patience, run it in well, watch the mileage get better as you go. I'll guarantee it !

Cheers,
Josh.

 

[Tdidaryl]

Josh
How are you measuring your economy? The other issue I have hear is the inacuracy of the trip computer. It says 6.0L whereas when I re-filled it I got 7.3! Quite an error.

When I test drove the 2.0L Man and DSG they both returned 5.8 on the trip computer. I guess I should have checked it manually from a full tank. I did'nt think thered be such an error in the trip computer.

I did drive the 1.9 DSG but it had no trip computer so I could'nt tell. We'll see how it goes, I will be very disapointed if it does not return an easy 6.0 though. I get an easy 5.0 from the 96 MkIII with 160,000km on the clock.

 

[lea]

hi ive got a 2.0 dsg comfortline had it just over a week and am averaging 5.5l/100k...but im no leadfoot either...

im having stalling and bad running before warming up issues tho.

 

[Tdidaryl]

Josh
Just a point on efficiency. This is usually measured as KW of power/NM Torque produced per litre of fuel used. If you compare the 1.9 to the 2.0L the 2.0L is obviously out in front. The 1.9 is essentially a bored out and stroked version of the original 1.5L diesel that came out in the very first Mk I golf (1977?)as used in the MkII (1.6L)and MkIII (1.9L). Its a great engine, certainly the most proven of any deisel VW have produced. Bullet proof as they say.

The DSG tranny is quoted as using 0.3L more than the manual combined fuel consumption. This figure is reflected in both the Australian government test as well as VW's. The main reason for the design concept of the DSG is to obtain close to manual fuel economy with the driveability of an auto. I beleive they should achieve around 5-10% over the manual. Thats what is quoted in the leterature.

Then again i've been wrong before!!!!!!

 

[erickordt]

Josh
Just a point on efficiency. This is usually measured as KW of power/NM Torque produced per litre of fuel used. If you compare the 1.9 to the 2.0L the 2.0L is obviously out in front. The 1.9 is essentially a bored out and stroked version of the original 1.5L diesel that came out in the very first Mk I golf (1977?)as used in the MkII (1.6L)and MkIII (1.9L). Its a great engine, certainly the most proven of any deisel VW have produced. Bullet proof as they say.

The DSG tranny is quoted as using 0.3L more than the manual combined fuel consumption. This figure is reflected in both the Australian government test as well as VW's. The main reason for the design concept of the DSG is to obtain close to manual fuel economy with the driveability of an auto. I beleive they should achieve around 5-10% over the manual. Thats what is quoted in the leterature.

Then again i've been wrong before!!!!!!

Efficiency in a mechanical context can correctly be defined as "The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system". Therefore, whilst various measures can be employed (e.g. kW/Nm) - fuel efficiency as such is quite valid. It ultimately measures the ratio of effective output (e.g. 100km) to a ratio of input (e.g. 5 Litres of Diesel). Therefore, L/100km is indeed another commonly used measure of efficiency. Therefore, using this measure the 1.9 Litre TDI is indeed the champion.

Whilst the 1.9 isnt the most technologically advanced engine in this company (e.g. only generates 40.5kW per Litre compared to the 2 Litres much more impressive 51.5 kW per Litre) it is fuel efficient. Additionally, the 2 Litre is really just an evolved 1.9 L again (sharing very similiar mechanicals except for the head).

In regards to the DSG. Various pieces of offical literature from Volkswagen Europe indicate that on the open road the fuel consumption figure are identical to a manual and only slightly higher than a manual in urban traffic. The combined city cycle in Australia is just a rather harsh cycle for some gearbox selections that many gearboxes automatically decide. Therefore, I would concur with your assessment - however - I would not extend it to open road driving based on this external literature. The 0.3 you quote again is a combined cycle which ignores a country cycle.

Anyhow, great to hear you have a 1996 Golf TDI as well. My 1996 Golf is still running extremely well - like new almost. Only 110,000km on the clock as well.

Eric in Australie
1996 Golf Mk III TDI
2005 Golf Mk V TDI avec DSG

 

[aussie2005tdi]

If you want fuel economy,go for the 1.9 tdi instead of the 2.0 tdi, the main differance between the two is the 1.9 has a 2 valve head and the 2.0 has a 4 valve head. The 4 valve gives better breathing at higher revs whereas the 2 valve will give better cylinder sealing with minimal valve overlap at lower revs. Therefore the cams on the two engines are set up to work more efficiently at different rev ranges. You either buy the 2.0 litre for the power and don't get too stressed about the fuel economy or buy the 1.9 for fuel economy and don,t get too stressed about the power.

 

[Tdidaryl]

YES and doesn't that power feel OH SO GOOD!
Man this thing smokes!