RE: PH Fleet update: Golf GTI Edition 35

[bakerstreet]

Riggers said:

We have been mostly running it on 95, with the occasional tank of super. I'll put a couple of tanks of Super in over the next couple of weeks to see if it makes a significant difference.

Given that 98/99 RON is about 5 per cent dearer than 95 RON, it would need to be a marked difference... we shall see...

I think'd we also be interested in the pump to pump figure rather than what the computer reads or the manufacturer's claimed figures.

[The Ferret]

Hub said:

I find that round town trips or short journeys really crucify the mpg figures on the MK5 GTI, but on longer trips low-mid 30s is easily attainable.

It's just as bad with diesel on short trips. On longer trips the computer will read anything up to 55mpg, but take it on a 2 mile round trip to the shops and it will barely make 20mpg.

The problem is with the roads being as congested as they are an awful lot of time that should be spent cruising at 70mph is actually spent stopping and starting in traffic jams, where the diesel seems no more economical that its equivalent petrol.

[pSyCoSiS]

Another example of newer diesel engines (specifically VAG) not mounting up to the claimed MPG figures.

Whereas, my car (E39 530d) is now averaging me 52.3 mpg!

[Riggers]

bakerstreet said:

Riggers said:

We have been mostly running it on 95, with the occasional tank of super. I'll put a couple of tanks of Super in over the next couple of weeks to see if it makes a significant difference.

Given that 98/99 RON is about 5 per cent dearer than 95 RON, it would need to be a marked difference... we shall see...

I think'd we also be interested in the pump to pump figure rather than what the computer reads or the manufacturer's claimed figures.

In which case how about this: one tank of 95, brim-to-near-as-dammit-empty, followed by a tank of super-unleaded?

[Johnboy Mac]

pSyCoSiS said:

Whereas, my car (E39 530d) is now averaging me 52.3 mpg!

I'm really impressed. What sort of driving conditions return that sort of figure?

[Hub]

Motorrad said:

Riggers said:

We have been mostly running it on 95, with the occasional tank of super. I'll put a couple of tanks of Super in over the next couple of weeks to see if it makes a significant difference.

Given that 98/99 RON is about 5 per cent dearer than 95 RON, it would need to be a marked difference... we shall see...

The FSi engine I had in my MK5GTi was about 10% worse on 95 ron than 99 in terms of fuel consumption (going on fuel receipts/mileage on a fairly consistent run). As far as I'm aware to run in the most efficient 'fuel stratified injection' mode it needs higher octane fuel.

I have no idea what the premium for that is these days in the UK but possibly worth it.

Tesco Momentum 99 is quite reasonably priced compared to the BP or Shell equivalent. The Golfs are recommended to be run on the premium stuff too.

I haven't had mine long but that is all I've used so far. Stated better economy and more responsive so why not?

[BlackPorker]

Colonial said:

I'm getting better fuel economy out if my R.

Aye.

I get around 28mpg out of my R. Up to 32-35mpg on the motorway and down to 20mpg if I'm hooning around.

It has got 30,000 miles on the clock so the engine's nice and loose!

I only use Tesco 99 or V-Power.

[Motorrad]

Riggers said:

In which case how about this: one tank of 95, brim-to-near-as-dammit-empty, followed by a tank of super-unleaded?

A couple of weeks run on each would be better surely? I'm not sure how quickly the golf would advance it's ignition timing and a single tank of each would hardly be a fair test.
Plus I'm sure haymarket can afford it...........

[mikey k]

BlackPorker said:

Aye.

I get around 28mpg out of my R. Up to 32-35mpg on the motorway and down to 20mpg if I'm hooning around.

It has got 30,000 miles on the clock so the engine's nice and loose!

I only use Tesco 99 or V-Power.

Thanks useful for me as I'm just looking to buy a Golf R
Anything you dislike about it?

[johnpeat]

The long-standing 'rule' that (new or nearly new) diesels aren't worth bothering with unless you top 12000 miles a year (by a decent margin) still appears to hold true then?

On the comment about servicing - I'm pretty sure diesels need more work than petrols over their life, if not in routine servicing then in likely wear-and-tear (esp if you keep the car beyond 50K where things like pump failures/DPFs/anti-pollution stuff can start to crop-up).

It's not really a fair comparison tho is it? Some people may have bought GTDs thinking "it's a GTi with a diesel engine" but it's not and never has been.

Hell it's arguable that VW haven't made a proper GTi since the Mk2 anyway

[Uncle Fester]

We often see claims about how a mapped diesel delivers better economy AND power. It would be nice to see this car run for a while to set a baseline. Then map it and see how those claims stand up.

With that engine being fitted in so many VAG models it would be the perfect candidate.

[y2blade]

Uncle Fester said:

We often see claims about how a mapped diesel delivers better economy AND power. It would be nice to see this car run for a while to set a baseline. Then map it and see how those claims stand up.

With that engine being fitted in so many VAG models it would be the perfect candidate.

You'd need someone unbiased to test it then.
It is easy to get low figures out of a diesel by thrashing it everywhere.

[Riggers]

Motorrad said:

Riggers said:

In which case how about this: one tank of 95, brim-to-near-as-dammit-empty, followed by a tank of super-unleaded?

A couple of weeks run on each would be better surely? I'm not sure how quickly the golf would advance it's ignition timing and a single tank of each would hardly be a fair test.
Plus I'm sure haymarket can afford it...........

Agreed. Depends whether Editor Dan will sign off the expense form... Dan?

[20TSI]

Strange...

I ran a MK5 GTi for 5 years/60k and easily got 40MPG average on my route to work, I once got an amazing 47MPG average on run from the North East to Oldham (to trade it in for my current 2.0Tsi Scirocco so it was running on fumes!) I also only ran it on normal Unleaded I found SUL made little difference.

The Rocco has the devoplment of the MK5 GTi engine the Tsi, it is DSG rather than manual but again mangage an average of 40mpg+ most days to and from work (38mile round trip)

One of the reasons I love the modern 2.0 Turbo VAG lump is the fact you CAN get very good economy when you want it and you can go quiet quick when you want too !! power from 1600RPM to 6000RPM.

I tried a 170HP Diesel Rocco but it was all about that single slug of tourqe low down say 1800-3800 RPM the 2.0Tsi was far better to drive ...

Tal

Do you drive in Diving boots ?

[Uncle Fester]

y2blade said:

Uncle Fester said:

We often see claims about how a mapped diesel delivers better economy AND power. It would be nice to see this car run for a while to set a baseline. Then map it and see how those claims stand up.

With that engine being fitted in so many VAG models it would be the perfect candidate.

You'd need someone unbiased to test it then.
It is easy to get low figures out of a diesel by thrashing it everywhere.

That’s what makes this car the ideal test bed. It will be driven by a variety of drivers, all who are experienced at testing and reporting their opinions.

It will also be a long term test. It won’t get thrashed everywhere, but will provide an idea of what the differences are between best worst and average.

All the fuel and costs will be logged. They’re not some random post on a forum that might be connected to the tuning company. Even owners tend to be biased because nobody likes to admit they bought the wrong thing.

The drivers will probably use the car with similar verve to the average PHer, whilst other tests may not reflect this.

Obviously the PH team hate more power, but in the interests of satisfying the readership perhaps they could justify it to the management.

[y2blade]

Uncle Fester said:

y2blade said:

Uncle Fester said:

We often see claims about how a mapped diesel delivers better economy AND power. It would be nice to see this car run for a while to set a baseline. Then map it and see how those claims stand up.

With that engine being fitted in so many VAG models it would be the perfect candidate.

You'd need someone unbiased to test it then.
It is easy to get low figures out of a diesel by thrashing it everywhere.

That’s what makes this car the ideal test bed. It will be driven by a variety of drivers, all who are experienced at testing and reporting their opinions.

It will also be a long term test. It won’t get thrashed everywhere, but will provide an idea of what the differences are between best worst and average.

All the fuel and costs will be logged. They’re not some random post on a forum that might be connected to the tuning company. Even owners tend to be biased because nobody likes to admit they bought the wrong thing.

The drivers will probably use the car with similar verve to the average PHer, whilst other tests may not reflect this.

Obviously the PH team hate more power, but in the interests of satisfying the readership perhaps they could justify it to the management.

I'll follow with interest then

[BlackPorker]

mikey k said:

Thanks useful for me as I'm just looking to buy a Golf R
Anything you dislike about it?

Not really... amazing all-round car. 4WD useful in the winter.

[emicen]

Johnboy Mac said:

pSyCoSiS said:

Whereas, my car (E39 530d) is now averaging me 52.3 mpg!

I'm really impressed. What sort of driving conditions return that sort of figure?

My dads old E39 530d used to reliably return 48ish on the M8 commute. Glasgow-Edinburgh-Glasgow including his "antics" [Friday night heading home is officially drive it like you stole it night!]

That was a manual 5sp car, so the earlier 184hp unit.

[pSyCoSiS]

Johnboy Mac said:

I'm really impressed. What sort of driving conditions return that sort of figure?

A mixture of M1, M25, M4 and town driving with a few roundabouts... Speeds between 50 and 70mph.

Ok, admittedly, I'm not hammering it, but come on: 50+ mpg for a big, heavy 3.0 litre straight six with over 220k miles on the clock is good in anyone's book!

[Ved]

High 20s when you're actually trying?! There is something up with that car as my R32 get's 33 when I'm in frugal mode and 28 on AVERAGE. If you can't get good MPG from the peoples car then it's gradually becoming a wee bit pointless. Our old MK4 Anniversary gets over 40 on long runs and that's only 20bhp behind the 35th. Progress, it is not.

I'll add that mine is ran on Tesco 95.

Edited by Ved on Monday 26th March 16:22