RE: VW Passat Estate R-Line Edition | Driven
Discussion
Jon_S_Rally said:
I don't half get bored of people slating four-cylinder engines on this forum. Yes, there are some lovely six and eight-pot engines out there, but there are also some great four-bangers and some genuinely s
t bigger lumps. Given that this is supposed to be a forum for car enthusiasts, you'd think people would be a bit more open minded 
Yes there are some good four cylinder engines, but they are the exception and not the norm and you'd be really stretching to call this engine anything more than workmanlike. For north of £40k it seems poor value to get the same powerplant as a £20k car but with the boost turned up to 11, and while powertrain refinement simply isn't even on the radar of the majority of buyers this is supposed to be a forum for car enthusiasts, you'd think people would consider it quite important.t bigger lumps. Given that this is supposed to be a forum for car enthusiasts, you'd think people would be a bit more open minded You did get me thinking about genuinely s
t 6, 8, and even 12 cylinder engines. If you take US domestic cars out of the equation they really are the exception rather than the norm aren't they? Even the really rubbish ones (I'm looking at you BMC C-Series) are nicer than most contemporary fours.stickleback123 said:
Elmariachi said:
I do like these but 38.8 mpg on a long run? Is that something to be proud of?
No matter it has 270bhp, it's still a brand new four pot with presumably the more efficient DSG option and I'd expect better than that.
On the surface I'd say that is pretty poor, yes. My 2003 XJ8 4.2 with 300bhp quotes 34.9mpg extra urban use and will quite easily do that if you drive for economy, and that's with a 6 speed slusher and a far nicer engine to use than a four pot.No matter it has 270bhp, it's still a brand new four pot with presumably the more efficient DSG option and I'd expect better than that.
Edited by Elmariachi on Tuesday 12th November 06:52
I'm sure that the farting VAG will do better than 17.8mpg in town though, and the emissions will meet far higher standards....
Otherwise it's a drab car made slightly less drab by not being underpowered. I'm sure it's fine, but would be better on 17" wheels, baloon tyres, and suspension setup by a company that can actually make a car ride properly.
Hitch said:
I've done 60k in a Passat R Line Estate over the past three years and whilst it is a wonderful mile muncher I've not once enjoyed a spirited drive in it. It's just not that kind of car. Unless this has significant suspension mods to compliment the added fizz I just can't see what market it is aimed at.
I felt exactly the same about my CC which I got as a temporary company car when starting a new job in 2016. I put about 12,000 miles on it in 6 months, and found it very comfy, nicely finished and completely painless live with. It also never put a foot wrong. Yet I felt absolutely no emotion at all when it went back. I wasn't glad to be shot of it, and I wasn't sad that it went. Just felt nothing at all.stickleback123 said:
SidewaysSi said:
I think you need to see the post above. All these comparisons with older/larger cars are merely showing how inefficient this car is.
In a world where eco is all the rage, the reality is it is hardly any more fuel efficient than some of the old dinosaurs a few of us drive.
And my God would that Passat bore me to death.
Thank you. I'm not sure if the previous poster was being wilfully obtuse or not.In a world where eco is all the rage, the reality is it is hardly any more fuel efficient than some of the old dinosaurs a few of us drive.
And my God would that Passat bore me to death.
35mpg and 280-300bhp in a 1650KG car is something that we used to get with a lovely V8 or 6 cylinder engine. Getting the same from a miserable four pot seems a poor trade to me.
Im sorry but I fail to see how any older petrol 6 or 8 cylinder car of a similar weight gets anywhere near 35mpg especially N/A. E39 540i for example- 1700kg. You will be lucky to get over 20 mpg combined. Even a new 540i you are talking easily in the 20s for average mpg.
The EA888 obviously isnt as nice as a good 6 or V8 of similar power but it is alot more economical. I think the MK7 Golf R you can get just over 40mpg taking it easy on a motorway, so 38mpg in something a fair bit heavier seems decent enough and not particularly surprising. It probably one of the more economical new 2.0l petrol turbos.
Baked_bean said:
I am currently driving an Arteon 272ps R line which is essentially the same car underneath and just in a little black dress.
As a way of getting about it’s a great thing, sharp enough to drive and comfortable to boot. The car is full of gadgets and just makes driving easy.
It is still is far from being a petrol heads choice though!
That's the bit that keeps talking to me - they just aren't particularly 'special'.As a way of getting about it’s a great thing, sharp enough to drive and comfortable to boot. The car is full of gadgets and just makes driving easy.
It is still is far from being a petrol heads choice though!
I drive a 2016 Subaru STI which in comparison, feels special. Nothin VAG that I've come across under 30k with a similar 4-pot does the trick.
I've looked at the Golf-R and felt thoroughly bored by it following a test drive
I love the idea of a Skoda Superb with the same running gear, but again, it's a functional device - it doesn't appear to touch the heart strings.
VAG have more than enough knowledge - why can't they get together and make something truly special that's also affordable.
thiscocks said:
Im sorry but I fail to see how any older petrol 6 or 8 cylinder car of a similar weight gets anywhere near 35mpg especially N/A. E39 540i for example- 1700kg. You will be lucky to get over 20 mpg combined. Even a new 540i you are talking easily in the 20s for average mpg.
The EA888 obviously isnt as nice as a good 6 or V8 of similar power but it is alot more economical. I think the MK7 Golf R you can get just over 40mpg taking it easy on a motorway, so 38mpg in something a fair bit heavier seems decent enough and not particularly surprising. It probably one of the more economical new 2.0l petrol turbos.
I'm sure that with city driving the EA888 does a lot better than a V8 of course, but I'd be really interested to know how the real world mixed economy of these compares to the last generation with the six cylinder engine though (R36 was it?). I'd bet on it being little or no better - none of these turbo four pots seem to deliver on the promised economy unless you drive like Tinkerbell is pushing the throttle pedal.
stickleback123 said:
Yes there are some good four cylinder engines, but they are the exception and not the norm and you'd be really stretching to call this engine anything more than workmanlike. For north of £40k it seems poor value to get the same powerplant as a £20k car but with the boost turned up to 11, and while powertrain refinement simply isn't even on the radar of the majority of buyers this is supposed to be a forum for car enthusiasts, you'd think people would consider it quite important.
You did get me thinking about genuinely st 6, 8, and even 12 cylinder engines. If you take US domestic cars out of the equation they really are the exception rather than the norm aren't they? Even the really rubbish ones (I'm looking at you BMC C-Series) are nicer than most contemporary fours.
They are the exception, but that's simply a result of their purpose. Smaller, cheaper cars historically tended to have four-pot engines while, thanks to technology restrictions, larger, more expensive cars, tended to have bigger engines with more cylinders. Now that technology has developed and emissions regulations are tighter, big, six+ cylinder engines are not generally required or preferable. Workmanlike to you is probably "perfectly specified" in the eyes of the engineers who developed it. Having owned an EA888-powered VW, I didn't think at any point that it lacked any powertrain refinement compared to six-cylinder cars I owned. It isn't the most characterful engine out there, and I am no fan of the obsession for flat torque curves and low character, but I do find it a shame that so many people are still so dismissive of four-cylinder engines.You did get me thinking about genuinely s
t 6, 8, and even 12 cylinder engines. If you take US domestic cars out of the equation they really are the exception rather than the norm aren't they? Even the really rubbish ones (I'm looking at you BMC C-Series) are nicer than most contemporary fours.You are right that, if you remove the USDM from the equation, then bigger engines do tend to be more interesting but, again, this is probably as much down to the fact that they were often reserved for more expensive cars outside of the US. Put the USDM back in, and you are suddenly buried under pretty hopeless six and eight cylinder engines. I love a V8 as much as the next man, but it does get rather tiresome when you just see endless "four-pot = rubbish" or all this "fartbox" nonsense. As you say, with this being an enthusiast's forum, you'd think people might be a bit more open-minded than that. Like I said, while the EA888 isn't the most characterful engine out there, you'd think enthusiasts might at least be able to appreciate what a corker it is from an engineering perspective.
stickleback123 said:
The generation of NASP V6 and V8s with six and seven speed automatics manage remarkable fuel economy on an easy motorway run. I have managed a calculated (not off the OBC) entire tank at 38mpg in a 1650kg 4.2 litre XJ8, and that's not unusual for a Mercedes E430 or E500 either. I'd really be hoping for well into the 40s from a "state of the art" four cylinder. The later generation direct injected V8s with even more gears are better again.
I'm sure that with city driving the EA888 does a lot better than a V8 of course, but I'd be really interested to know how the real world mixed economy of these compares to the last generation with the six cylinder engine though (R36 was it?). I'd bet on it being little or no better - none of these turbo four pots seem to deliver on the promised economy unless you drive like Tinkerbell is pushing the throttle pedal.
Not very scientific but my Golf R used to average around 33-34mpg with a mix of short journeys and a couple of hundred miles of longer run every week. The ST220 that I owned a few years before would only manage around 27-28mpg in similar conditions. That's an improvement of over 20%, which is massive in engineering terms. The V6 was certainly more tuneful but, in every other measure, it was worse than the four-pot. Less grunt, much worse on fuel and required much more effort to make progress. It was a lovely engine given the humble origins of the car, but cars like that are dinosaurs compared to anything modern and turbocharged. Worth looking back on with fond memories, but times change. I'd have no interest in going back if it was for a daily runner.I'm sure that with city driving the EA888 does a lot better than a V8 of course, but I'd be really interested to know how the real world mixed economy of these compares to the last generation with the six cylinder engine though (R36 was it?). I'd bet on it being little or no better - none of these turbo four pots seem to deliver on the promised economy unless you drive like Tinkerbell is pushing the throttle pedal.
Edited by Jon_S_Rally on Thursday 14th November 15:19
thiscocks said:
On what planet will an XJ8 easily do 35mpg?
38mpg for the Passat is pretty decent for a 270hp petrol estate. No idea why anyone would expect better.
Limpet said:
Hitch said:
I've done 60k in a Passat R Line Estate over the past three years and whilst it is a wonderful mile muncher I've not once enjoyed a spirited drive in it. It's just not that kind of car. Unless this has significant suspension mods to compliment the added fizz I just can't see what market it is aimed at.
I felt exactly the same about my CC which I got as a temporary company car when starting a new job in 2016. I put about 12,000 miles on it in 6 months, and found it very comfy, nicely finished and completely painless live with. It also never put a foot wrong. Yet I felt absolutely no emotion at all when it went back. I wasn't glad to be shot of it, and I wasn't sad that it went. Just felt nothing at all.Saying the Passat is drab could be quite accurate, but so are most cars on the roads these days. most are at least competent, generally reliable and well made, but all most are, are boxes for getting from A to B. Ironically the more competent the car, the more boring it can be. with long journeys completed after which one can hardly remember anything about it.
In terms of drabness I don't see VW`s being much different to any other comparable model from other manufacturers, as they are all pretty well much of a muchness.
I've just got one of these 
There are only 150 coming to the UK, and that includes the diesel versions, so pretty rare. I came from a 4x4 Octavia vRS TDI, so quite different.
They are dealer allocation stock only, even though they are on the configurator, you can't order one from the factory. (The VW configurator and website in general is a ballsup, but I digress...)
Mine cost £33k all told, pretty happy with that.
Regarding the Superb, I looked at it, but to put the same spec on one would actually be more expensive!
A remap or DTUK box will take it to about 350bhp, and these engines are good for 500bhp plus with the right mods.
I love the colour, my Octavia was Meteor Grey, but Moonstone Grey is actually different, less beige than the Meteor Grey.
There are only 150 coming to the UK, and that includes the diesel versions, so pretty rare. I came from a 4x4 Octavia vRS TDI, so quite different.
They are dealer allocation stock only, even though they are on the configurator, you can't order one from the factory. (The VW configurator and website in general is a ballsup, but I digress...)
Mine cost £33k all told, pretty happy with that.
Regarding the Superb, I looked at it, but to put the same spec on one would actually be more expensive!
A remap or DTUK box will take it to about 350bhp, and these engines are good for 500bhp plus with the right mods.
I love the colour, my Octavia was Meteor Grey, but Moonstone Grey is actually different, less beige than the Meteor Grey.
skodaphile said:
epom said:
Jeez that is a lovely car. Really hope yours stays under the radar, unlike this list posted by Harry Metcalfe yesterday !!
Oh, and I also have a Ranger...
skodaphile said:
I've just got one of these
There are only 150 coming to the UK, and that includes the diesel versions, so pretty rare. I came from a 4x4 Octavia vRS TDI, so quite different.
They are dealer allocation stock only, even though they are on the configurator, you can't order one from the factory. (The VW configurator and website in general is a ballsup, but I digress...)
Mine cost £33k all told, pretty happy with that.
Regarding the Superb, I looked at it, but to put the same spec on one would actually be more expensive!
A remap or DTUK box will take it to about 350bhp, and these engines are good for 500bhp plus with the right mods.
I love the colour, my Octavia was Meteor Grey, but Moonstone Grey is actually different, less beige than the Meteor Grey.
Where did you manage to pick one up for 33k?? Is it brand new best I can get is DTD £34,899.There are only 150 coming to the UK, and that includes the diesel versions, so pretty rare. I came from a 4x4 Octavia vRS TDI, so quite different.
They are dealer allocation stock only, even though they are on the configurator, you can't order one from the factory. (The VW configurator and website in general is a ballsup, but I digress...)
Mine cost £33k all told, pretty happy with that.
Regarding the Superb, I looked at it, but to put the same spec on one would actually be more expensive!
A remap or DTUK box will take it to about 350bhp, and these engines are good for 500bhp plus with the right mods.
I love the colour, my Octavia was Meteor Grey, but Moonstone Grey is actually different, less beige than the Meteor Grey.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff