1.2 Golf

[BlueBolt 156]

So I get sent away for the night by work to some seminar about money saving an what I have to do extra as a result...

I get given a 1.2 Golf TSI

I laugh when I look at the paperwork and think "what a load of crap!! Total s*ite Indeed must be what it stands for!!"

How wrong was I!!

Considering its a 1.2 petrol, it did very well!!

Sitting at a reasonable cruising speed on the motorway, M20-25-1, I managed a sweet 44mpg and at an average speed of high40's... It's torquey, nippy, and to be honest, I'd actually have one!! Wouldn't know it was a 1.2 at all until you open the bonnet and ask where the engine is....

 

I guess this falls in line with the 1.0 engine in the focus and things like that??

[BERTMAN 40 1 Cars]

Its the way of the future for the moment; small capacity forced induction engines.

[24seven 104]

Its the way of the future for the moment; small capacity forced induction engines.

 

That it is. Ironically, despite all this downsizing all the extra plumbing and ancillaries on Ford's 1 litre ecoboost engine actually mean it comes in at 7kg heavier than the naturally aspirated 1.6. It is more fuel efficient though. It won't be that long before you see 1000cc 3 cylinder turbo engines with variable timing/intake length/compression ratios and steam driven turbo's powering cars as big as a 3 series or 5 series.

[MiniGibbo 142]

i always get given a 1600 diesel caddy when my transporter is in the garage (my age and there insurance ) and have to admit theyre pretty awesome..!

[GLPoomobile 958]

It won't be that long before you see 1000cc 3 cylinder turbo engines with variable timing/intake length/compression ratios and steam driven turbo's powering cars as big as a 3 series or 5 series.

 

I forget what model it was, but there was a Skoda saloon in EVO a month or two back with something like a 1.2 turbo in it. It was about 3 series size.

[24seven 104]

I forget what model it was, but there was a Skoda saloon in EVO a month or two back with something like a 1.2 turbo in it. It was about 3 series size.

 

Rapid or Octavia?

[Anthony 1,003]

It is more fuel efficient though.

Is it in the real world though?

 

Seemingly the economy claims of many modern engines bare little relation to what is achieveable in the real world thanks to the way that the tests are conducted and engines sometimes tweeked to do better than they should on the tests. There's often clear evidence of this when you compare the same car on the European and American tests, the later usually being noticeably lower but far more representative of what you're likely to achieve.

 

Typically small turbocharged engines are especially bad for this disparity between claimed and actual results, as for much of the test they'll be off-boost and hence economical, whereas in the real world you're pretty much reliant on the turbo to drag the lardy car around, which in turn significantly impacts fuel economy.

[24seven 104]

You have to look deeper inside what's actually going on in the engine and understand where the losses are to see why smaller engines are fundamentally more efficient. Losses through friction at the piston rings & skirt, sliding components in the valvetrain, inertial forces of the piston and conrods and then there's lost energy in the heat of the exhaust gasses. Smaller engines have smaller, lighter pistons & valves, smaller surface areas where certain friction losses are found, shorter strokes which allows for longer conrods and reduced side forces at the piston.

 

Yes, you are relying on a turbo to produce enough power to lug a heavy car around, but why is that a bad thing? In simple terms, you get X amount of energy out of burning Y mass of fuel mixed with Z mass of air. Your 2000cc engine traps Z air, Y fuel, burns it, releasing X energy. If your 1000cc engine uses a turbo to draw in the same Z mass of air, you can burn Y mass of fuel and release X amount of energy. The fact is the 1000cc engine won't then waste as much of the X energy produced through the losses I mentioned above, and the amount of energy used to drive the turbo is less than the energy you save... if that makes sense.

 

You're right that the tests and "book" MPG/emissions figures quoted by manufacturers for cars that have been put through these tests are not really representative of what actually goes on, but a lot of the technology that manufacturers are using to obtain these willy waving figures is real and does work.

[Gman 29]

44mpg is pretty poor really. The 2.0 tdi engines will give you 50mpg at 85mph on the motorway, and they're getting on for a 10 year old design.

[muddatrucker 125]

44mpg is pretty poor really. The 2.0 tdi engines will give you 50mpg at 85mph on the motorway, and they're getting on for a 10 year old design.

Yeah, my dad has a 1.6 Golf Bluemotion, if you really had the patience you could get insane MPG.

[GLPoomobile 958]

44mpg is pretty poor really. The 2.0 tdi engines will give you 50mpg at 85mph on the motorway, and they're getting on for a 10 year old design.

 

Without knowing the facts, it's not a comparisson you can make. You don't know exactly how he was driving that 1.2 to get 44mpg. There's also a very big difference between when and where you make such a comparisson, as simply compring two vehicles cruising at motorway speed can vary significantly.

 

I've made enough trips up and down between Edinburgh and Exeter, and Edinburgh and London, and I'm obsessed enough with consumption, to know that road surface, weather (wind being a huge factor), and inclination can have a bloody massive effect to consumption. I could (theoretically) make the same journey commuting from Edinburgh to Glasgow and back along the motorway in a Golf 2.0 TDI and see 50mpg average, but someone making a similar commute down south - lets say along the M4 - in the same car might see a different figure.

 

I've learned that making comparissons about MPG is almost as pointless as comparing insurance premiums. Almost.

[kyepan 291]

I still think if we want to see any serious improvements in fuel economy, the aero cross section and weight of cars has to fall considerably. You can do all you want with lightly pressurized forced induction and direct injection. What it comes down to is a mass has to be propelled through the air, reduce the mass and reduce the air resistance and you've got economy in droves.

 

Check out gordon murray's new project car, the t25, it's a tubular chassis with bonded composite tub sections and a triangular seating position, 600cc turbocharged engine, akined to a smart car but built with a bit more dynamic stability in mind.

[BlueBolt 156]

Trip back was taken easily as the weather was pants and the traffic was just as bad, average speed was about 40 but most of my time was spent around the 60 mark... Think it was about 50mgp on the return trip. I think this is incredible for a petrol engine!! Especially in a golf!! Even more so with a 1.2 engine!!

Highly impressed!! And when you drop it a couple of gears and floor it then it performed well, much like I'd expect a 1600 or more to perform!!

[welshpug 1,657]

I don't see figures like that particularly impressive when a cronky old 2 valve per cylinder non direct injection non vvt 1.9 can do 40 mpg.

[mw2655 0]

larger engines are being taxed out of existence....

[kyepan 291]

a friend with an audi a2 could go to scotland and back on 30 quid of diesel or something stupid like that, really silly MPG.

 

I still like the idea of a 205 base model with a 1.9TD from a 306 with mods, a chap at ace reeled off the things you need to do to make them go.. said this before, paul said Jimi STDT had one that got 80mpg... and saw off most derv repmobiles..

 

I wonder - eco mod time.. feck all this go faster malarkey..

 

Light weight seats, Carbon kevlar panels for front wings, bonnet bumpers, boot, and rear quarters, light wheels, small brakes, tuned rebuilt 1.9td with some headwork to help low lift economy ala david vizard, economy rubber band tyres at 50psi, decent ceramic wheel bearings, fancy gear box oil, and some super intercooling to keep the inlet charge ambient..

 

It might cost you 5k in bits, but would probably weigh 700kgs, be like s*it of a shovel and... if you could get 100mpgs out of it... would save you a fortune in fuel..

 

Think like singer do for porkas... but with derv pugs.

[Anthony 1,003]

a friend with an audi a2 could go to scotland and back on 30 quid of diesel or something stupid like that, really silly MPG.

Many years ago possibly, but absolutely no chance now assuming that he's from the vicinity of London.

 

London to Edinburgh is 380 miles, and assuming £1.50 a litre for diesel, £30 buys you 20 litres.

 

To do the journey just one way, let alone the return you claim, would be 86 mpg and that's very unlikely even with the admittedly impressive frugality of an Audi A2 TDi. 60-70mpg I could well believe though.

[kyepan 291]

actually it was £20 of diesel, and the harder he concentrated on the fuel gauge, the slower it went down, and he also said the could reduce the fuel economy by driving backwards.

 

I wonder if the 205 is more aerodynamic going backwards... fish are shaped with the big end at the front, and the small end at the back, and they are very low drag..

 

I have nothing serious to add to this thread, but i may go off and look at my photobucket account.

 

edit.. actually i do.

 

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/22706

Edited November 2, 2012 by kyepan

[24seven 104]

Check out gordon murray's new project car, the t25, it's a tubular chassis with bonded composite tub sections and a triangular seating position, 600cc turbocharged engine, akined to a smart car but built with a bit more dynamic stability in mind.

 

Great! Now let's mass produce it cost-effectively.

[24seven 104]

I don't see figures like that particularly impressive when a cronky old 2 valve per cylinder non direct injection non vvt 1.9 can do 40 mpg.

 

40 mpg at best in a car that's 400kg lighter...

[welshpug 1,657]

and a design that's 30 years older...

[dcc 855]

I might have bought a 205 base model with a 306 d turbo fitted...

 

Its completely standard engine wise

 

I will report back with MPG figures IF I can get it through an MOT... ha

 

Previous owner has claimed to get 550+ miles from 40 litres of diseasle

[BlueBolt 156]

The point I was making with the thread was the overall performance of he car...

It drove well, pulled well when I put my foot down, didn't feel like a slug which I was expecting from a car the size and weight of a golf, and the fuel economy from such a small engine tugging around a lump like the golf I thought was highly impressive!!

My 04 Leon TDi150 will do 65mpg on a good run taken at 70 without traffic and not in a rush at all... But the Leon costs loads more on tax (130pa for the Leon) and probably insurance (£900 for me and the mrs fully comp both with points and a few non fault accidents and my bird is only just 22 and its considered a sports durv) than this tiny engined golf.... I'm not saying it out performs the Leon in smiles per mile, but that's what I drive my 205 every day for!!

 

As a driving experience and personal review, I rate it quite highly!! When I saw what I had and saw the engine size etc I was dreading having to do a 350 mile round trip... When I got back I was actually smiling!!

[24seven 104]

and a design that's 30 years older...

 

Of course. 30 years back again though 40mpg was unthinkable though. It's all relative.