RE: Cupra Ateca price announced
Discussion
The wife has the 2.0tsi 190bhp excellence version and I like it alot more than I thought I would. Petrol lump while lacking in outright oomph pulls away smartly and surprises a few people.
Inside is well equipped if a bit dull but a nice place to be. It does handle well for a suv and is a good family size being upright with easy access door and big enough boot. We have my tanker of a v90 for a true family tardis!
I would consider one of these assuming they will be knocking on 30k once they have been out for a bit and discounts kicked in. Plus a remap will see what 360bhp plus a load more torque so a decent amount of shove in a smallish suv!
Inside is well equipped if a bit dull but a nice place to be. It does handle well for a suv and is a good family size being upright with easy access door and big enough boot. We have my tanker of a v90 for a true family tardis!
I would consider one of these assuming they will be knocking on 30k once they have been out for a bit and discounts kicked in. Plus a remap will see what 360bhp plus a load more torque so a decent amount of shove in a smallish suv!
spookly said:
Eh? How? I just gave back a Golf R estate I'd had on a 2 year lease. I never got more than 32mpg on a run, and averged more like 22mpg over 2 years.
It's all to do with driving style. My R estate is averaging over 35mpg long term (indicated). High 30s is normal on a run.Amateurish said:
It's all to do with driving style. My R estate is averaging over 35mpg long term (indicated). High 30s is normal on a run.
If you're going to drive a Golf-R with a sufficiently light right foot to get 35mpg out of it long term, one does somewhat wonder why you didn't just get the 1.0 TSI instead...herebebeasties said:
Amateurish said:
It's all to do with driving style. My R estate is averaging over 35mpg long term (indicated). High 30s is normal on a run.
If you're going to drive a Golf-R with a sufficiently light right foot to get 35mpg out of it long term, one does somewhat wonder why you didn't just get the 1.0 TSI instead...It's surprisingly frugal at a constant speed on a motorway (>40mpg is easily achievable without really trying). My commute involves 40 miles each way on the M1, and this balanced out the economy against the B road blasts quite nicely.
If it makes a difference, mine was the mk7.5 with the 7-speed box. It has a much taller top gear than the 6-speed and this seemed to make the difference while cruising.
herebebeasties said:
Amateurish said:
It's all to do with driving style. My R estate is averaging over 35mpg long term (indicated). High 30s is normal on a run.
If you're going to drive a Golf-R with a sufficiently light right foot to get 35mpg out of it long term, one does somewhat wonder why you didn't just get the 1.0 TSI instead...legless said:
herebebeasties said:
Amateurish said:
It's all to do with driving style. My R estate is averaging over 35mpg long term (indicated). High 30s is normal on a run.
If you're going to drive a Golf-R with a sufficiently light right foot to get 35mpg out of it long term, one does somewhat wonder why you didn't just get the 1.0 TSI instead...It's surprisingly frugal at a constant speed on a motorway (>40mpg is easily achievable without really trying). My commute involves 40 miles each way on the M1, and this balanced out the economy against the B road blasts quite nicely.
If it makes a difference, mine was the mk7.5 with the 7-speed box. It has a much taller top gear than the 6-speed and this seemed to make the difference while cruising.
AJB88 said:
Stage 2 400+ will make these fun!
oh brother.....400 + really?seems now that unless you have at least 300 amps under the bonnet you cant have fun anymore (implied). where are people actually using these levels of power on the roads? what once, twice maybe every 3 months at full chat? is it worth it?
spookly said:
If you're properly giving it the beans then you'll be getting more like 10 or 15 mpg. And at a fairly steady 90mph on the motorway it wont get anywhere near 40mpg.
And that's possibly the difference. I couldn't do a steady 90mph on the motorway even if I wanted to. I travel at peak times, and setting the cruise to 70-75mph is a good balance between being able to do a steady speed and not getting baulked too often. I don't find it fun driving quickly on the motorway anyway - that's what the back roads are for
legless said:
I had a touch over 36mpg long-term on my Golf R Estate, and I used the performance.
It's surprisingly frugal at a constant speed on a motorway (>40mpg is easily achievable without really trying). My commute involves 40 miles each way on the M1, and this balanced out the economy against the B road blasts quite nicely.
If it makes a difference, mine was the mk7.5 with the 7-speed box. It has a much taller top gear than the 6-speed and this seemed to make the difference while cruising.
Ah,yes - I'd forgotten about the 7-speed box on the later ones - that definitely makes all the difference. The same engine with the 6-speed box in my Superb 280 won't really get more than 35mpg ever, even if you're being a total saint. The gearing in top is just too short.It's surprisingly frugal at a constant speed on a motorway (>40mpg is easily achievable without really trying). My commute involves 40 miles each way on the M1, and this balanced out the economy against the B road blasts quite nicely.
If it makes a difference, mine was the mk7.5 with the 7-speed box. It has a much taller top gear than the 6-speed and this seemed to make the difference while cruising.
ToothbrushMan said:
oh brother.....400 + really?
seems now that unless you have at least 300 amps under the bonnet you cant have fun anymore (implied). where are people actually using these levels of power on the roads? what once, twice maybe every 3 months at full chat? is it worth it?
Daily in my case, you just need the right roads at the right times.seems now that unless you have at least 300 amps under the bonnet you cant have fun anymore (implied). where are people actually using these levels of power on the roads? what once, twice maybe every 3 months at full chat? is it worth it?
I'm in agreement with others and have mentioned it before, I picked the Cupra because I can and do drive it hard most of the time I'm in it, for the people who get rare opportunities... They may as well have picked the 1.8 FR and saved themselves a lot of money in the process.
I'm currently 11k miles into mine at a long term average of just under 23mpg, also managed 2 pairs of front tyres in that short period.
I think the problem with newer cars compared to older ones is that you actually do need to drive them hard (fast) to have any 'fun' because they're so good in all other areas they feel a bit muted.
spookly said:
Eh? How? I just gave back a Golf R estate I'd had on a 2 year lease. I never got more than 32mpg on a run, and averged more like 22mpg over 2 years.
Agreed, my ST 300 4Drive has never seen more than 31, way less economical than my old M135i was and that got driven harderspookly said:
Eh? How? I just gave back a Golf R estate I'd had on a 2 year lease. I never got more than 32mpg on a run, and averged more like 22mpg over 2 years.
Agreed, my ST 300 4Drive has never seen more than 31, way less economical than my old M135i was and that got driven harderCan't see this being a particularly great car, my ST300 is quick, comfortable, refined, handles well, well built and without doubt the dullest car I have ever owned
Edited by Andy665 on Sunday 14th October 11:17
FredClogs said:
Like all these Suvs they're not more practical as family cars than a big estate or a people carrier
Because this car is smaller than a big estate or people carrier.FredClogs said:
getting 5 people in that with a dog won't be anymore practical than it would in a Focus. Big on outside small on inside.
More space in the boot. More airiness in the cabin. No bigger on the outside than the Focus to which you compare, bigger on the inside. Sorry to burst your bubble.FredClogs said:
And as a drivers car it'll be massively compromised by the laws of physics.
This trope comes out time and time again. You say that like a Focus is a paragon of driving dynamics. To say that it is "massively compromised" is just ridiculous hyperbole. These cars will be bought be people who want a smallish practical family car, and then want the version with a bit more zip. It won't be purchased by anyone seeking the last word in driving enjoyment, and it's very unlikely they'll pretend otherwise.FredClogs said:
Silly, pointless, ineffective, a poor solution to an unneeded question.
I think you're too blinkered to understand the question to which this is an answer.spookly said:
herebebeasties said:
Amateurish said:
It's all to do with driving style. My R estate is averaging over 35mpg long term (indicated). High 30s is normal on a run.
If you're going to drive a Golf-R with a sufficiently light right foot to get 35mpg out of it long term, one does somewhat wonder why you didn't just get the 1.0 TSI instead...pardonmyenglish said:
According to spritmonitor, average mileage for the golf R is 28 mpg (10,0l/100km). Ok it's mainly from german owners but I found it to be quite accurate.
Honestjohn has it at 33.5mpg...https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volkswagen/go...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff