66TDI Highway RPM (Possibly other models)

[brad]

Who cares Brad how bad is the Sydney traffic and what the Tourism SA says.

Running the car for 7km everyday is severe. For the late model TDI with the DPF it's even more severe and it doesn't matter how many minutes it takes.

You trying to prove your point and I'm looking at it from the DPF point of view (always do).

I think you just don't like people pointing out when you are mistaken.... and then you goad them by telling them they are getting ahead of themselves.

difinity - that sounds so low. No wonder my Octy chews through fuel at a true 110kmh - It's on 2350rpm (1.8tsi M6).

To the OP: Go & drive the cars that interest you & buy the one that gives you the most driving pleasure. You'll still be in front with fuel costs.

[Transporter]

I think you just don't like people pointing out when you are mistaken.... and then you goad them by telling them they are getting ahead of themselves.

difinity - that sounds so low. No wonder my Octy chews through fuel at a true 110kmh - It's on 2350rpm (1.8tsi M6).

To the OP: Go & drive the cars that interest you & buy the one that gives you the most driving pleasure. You'll still be in front with fuel costs.

Ok Brad, you win. I will no argue with you.

I don't have time for this.

[trive2]

@Alex, thanks for the quick and detailed responses! And I'm actually hoping 4.0L/100km is achievable for a highway run.

@Bigfoot, awesome! Don't know why that didn't come up in any searches I tried.

@Nomad, most cars in the class are similarly wind resistant, and tyres are a variable I can deal with. I would prefer the 3-cylinder but at least the 1.6 four is probably more reliable. And I picked up a Polo brochure but no ratios

@Brad, the difference is that my Mazda cost $2300. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges, but it needs to be an appreciable difference to justify.

@Hillbilly, almost all my trips are longer than half an hour, only short trips around during the day are shorter, but the car tends to stay warm for that time anyway.

@Jon, that's exactly the sort of consumption I was after, great post! As I do 90% highway, I tend to get on the low side of consumption compared to everyone else so it's hard to compare. I'm surprised the 77TSI does so well!

@Difinity, thanks! It seems the 1.4 twin charged motor isn't far behind the 1.2 turbo. Shame it's DSG only, I can't get my head around that moronic gearbox...



Stunned by the response! Great community here. Anyone else with RPM figures at 100km/h?

[brad]

@Brad, the difference is that my Mazda cost $2300. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges, but it needs to be an appreciable difference to justify.

If your going from an old dunger to a new car to save fuel then the economics won't add up as you also have to look at depreciation, etc. Unless the Mazda is due for some major repairs then the mazda will win everytime. The next logical step would be a vehicle that has already taken a depreciation hit (say a 9N Polo or a MkV Golf tdi or GTI).

Even if you can get down to averaging 4L/100 it will only save you $1000 of fuel a year if you are doing 25,000km/p.a (100km per day commute plus some additional driving). Keep in mind you'll either need to pay diesel or 98Ron fuel prices so that will knock the $1k saving on the head a bit.

So don't buy a polo just for the conomy aspects - buy the one you enjoy driving.

Here's some exerts from my mates posts at another forum. He likes to motor along a bit. His car is a 77tsi DSG & with whatever pack has 15" alloys & has changed the steering weight with VCDS, added Koni Yellows & had a decent wheel alignment. He tends to get a bit excited about his cars/driving. He had a Gen4 Liberty wagon 2.5 Auto with Bilsteins before the Polo (and an Evora & an Elise)

Sydney to Bega via Canberra, mostly sitting on an indicated 125km/h, overtaking wherever whenever possible (which is remarkably often, if I'm remembering clearly it's got more overtaking stonk than the 2.5i-B did...which is ridiculous).

Averaged 6.4l/100km for that bit, could have been better but I was *never* driving for economy.

Today, the long climb from Bega to Lake Crackenback via the astonishingly smooth, picturesque & sweeping Snowy River Way (towards Bombala & then through Dalgety). Averaged 7.4l/100km but sitting on between 130-140km/h for 40 mins with the a/c on will do that for you.

God the little Polo is good in those conditions. 2,700rpm, quiet, super-torquey, Koni dampers are perfect at that speed, sits solidly on the road. Not a sports car by any means but so, so capable. Arrived refreshed & relaxed.

went to Bathurst last Wednesday for work, then we drove in peak-hour Thurs-Fri & the little thing averaged 5.7l/100km.

Coming back from Gledswood on Sat, spinning down the freeway at 125km/h & then having fun through the RNP...5.3l/100km.

This 1.2TSI motor is unbelievable.

New commuting economy record - wasn't trying hard at all, in fact, got into a bit of a "race" with someone

5.4l/100km, 45km from Heathcote to Mascot, light traffic.

And the little engine/transmission is a bloody gem! Never, ever lacking in power or torque, I was able to effortlessly dispatch anything in my path. Even motorbikes with larger capacity motors! Baulked on a steep uphill overtaking-lane at 70km/h? Never mind - whoosh, back up to 110km/h without exceeding 4k, surfing a wave or torque made very accessible by the 7 speeds available.

Ended the trip averaging 6.1l/100km & fresh as could be

[Mountainman]

Trive2 - I see no-one has been able to answer your question about revs @ 100 accurately. My Mk7 Golf TSI 90 manual indicates 2150rpm at an indicated 100 and with the same gearbox and wheels/tyres I imagine the Polo TSI77 might do the same.

What does stun me is just how poor some of the fuel consumption figures are that are being quoted by others here for the Polo. The Mk7 Golf TSI has a new engine which shares only bore centres with the Polo TSI & Mk6 Golf TSI engines and is a huge improvement on the Mk6 Golf engine as far as consumption goes. To give you an idea here are some of the real world results I have regularly achieved over the last 10 months and 33,000km:

Mt Tambourine to Brisbane city centre sitting on 115 indicated on the motorway will always come in under 5L/100km.

Toowoomba to Brisbane city centre sitting on the speed limits where I can but lots of 60/80 roadworks regularly gives 4.3L/100km. The return trip will go up to 5 because of the climb up the Toowoomba range.

A run from Toowoomba down the New England H'way and filling at Richmond (NSW) gave 4.6L/100km. The return trip from Blackheath in the Blue Mts via the Pacific H'way coast road gave 4.5L/100km.

These are the MFD figures but when filling and accurately working it out the real figures are 0.1 to 0.2 higher. It is not difficult to get 1000km out of the nominal 50L tank. It does hold more as I & others have found. It will take 50L just after the warning light comes on and I saw that someone claims to have put 56L in theirs & it was still running. I have done trips out west sitting around 100-110 indicated where the combined used & range figures come to more than 1200km. I have also just returned from NZ where I hired a new Corolla and a new Yaris. My Golf would be at least 20% better than the Corolla and 10% better than the Yaris for fuel consumption and 100% better as a car.

One last thing. My uncle who lives in Bundaberg has a Polo TDI DSG. It appears he gets almost identical figures to my petrol Golf on the h'way but about 15% better around town.

[Difinity]

The Fabia vRS (with DSG) is a great little car! Mileage kinda depends on how hard you polish that right pedal too, and I've got 31,000 K's in 12 months too...



difinity - that sounds so low. No wonder my Octy chews through fuel at a true 110kmh - It's on 2350rpm (1.8tsi M6).



Difinity

[JonP01]

A run from Toowoomba down the New England H'way and filling at Richmond (NSW) gave 4.6L/100km. The return trip from Blackheath in the Blue Mts via the Pacific H'way coast road gave 4.5L/100km.

That is incredibly impressive fuel economy. The new 90TSI engine must surely be more fuel efficient than the 77TSI per kw of power produced. I am very fuel economy conscious when I drive and about the only way I could better my regular 4.5 / 4.6 figures would be by driving on perfectly continuous flat terrain (when I can get into the high 3's if the speed limit is 100 or lower - 100 seems to give the very best figures). So for a heavier petrol car to equal these figures is truly excellent. I guess the 4 valve 90TSI design might have something to do with it over the 2 valve 77TSI but there must be other improvements as well.

I actually wanted buy the Golf 90TSI but with such a limited budget I had to decide whether I wanted the base Golf or the Comfortline Polo. Given I only ever have to cart myself around, along with the cruise control in the Polo (which was not available on the base model Golf back in 2012) and my dinky sized garage (can barely fit a Golf), I really had to go for the Polo. If I was buying again today I wouldn't hesitate to get the base Golf because it has all the features that I care about and I think I would appreciate the higher levels of refinement in the larger package.

It is amazing how far cars have come in terms of fuel economy. I learned to drive in the family's 1.6 litre GH Sigma. My father bought the 1.6 litre because it had better economy on paper and he did not want the hassle of the camshaft chains which were quite notorious in those old Mitsubishi engines. The engine was certainly bullet proof (never missed a beat or needed any repairs whatsoever in the 140,000 kms before trade in time) but the fuel economy was only slightly better than the 2.0 litre model. I remember I'd get around 32 miles per gallon (around 8.8 litres / 100 km) on a country trip and I thought that was fantastic back in the early 80s (and it was for a medium family car). But these days we have cars weighing exactly the same as that old Sigma that are not only using precisely half the fuel but a worlds ahead in performance as well.

I can't wait to see what sort of economy we start to get when / if VW give us the sort of hybrid technology we are seeing in the new Formula 1 era. Pity we pay 5 times as much for fuel these days as we did back in the mid 80s

[Mountainman]

That is incredibly impressive fuel economy. The new 90TSI engine must surely be more fuel efficient than the 77TSI per kw of power produced. I am very fuel economy conscious when I drive and about the only way I could better my regular 4.5 / 4.6 figures would be by driving on perfectly continuous flat terrain (when I can get into the high 3's if the speed limit is 100 or lower - 100 seems to give the very best figures). So for a heavier petrol car to equal these figures is truly excellent. I guess the 4 valve 90TSI design might have something to do with it over the 2 valve 77TSI but there must be other improvements as well.

I have got to know the Golf so well now I can predict to a 0.1L/100km what I will get on a trip. I regularly do a return trip from Toowoomba to Goondiwindi - 225km each way where there is an altitude drop from 700m down to 220m. The trip involves mostly 100 limit with 95km being 110 limit. If I cruise with the speedo indicating 105 & 115 in those limits to allow for the 5% inaccuracy I will get 4.7L/100km going out (downhill) and 5.1L/100km on the return (uphill). And downhill can really help sometimes. When I left Blackheath at around 1000m in Jan and headed down towards Sydney even after a cold start the 55km to the motorway gave an average of 2.8L/100km. I travelled across Pennant Hills Road, onto the M1 freeway and by the time I crossed the Hunter R north of Newcastle the average had only risen to 4.1L/100km.

As far as choosing between the Golf and the Polo - I had intended to get the Polo Comfortline TSI 77 manual but after driving it and the new base Golf the choice was easy. I ended up with a white base Golf manual with the 16" alloys off the Comfortline for only $2450 more than the Polo was going to cost me. There are people here who are happy enough to pay much more than that just to get leather. The ride, handling, steering, silence, interior & boot room, much nicer interior with better console display, auto hill hold combined with electric park brake, touch-screen with all the choices it allows are only some of the reasons. The Golf felt even more torque & sprightly, and the whole ambience of the car just sells itself. In isolation, the Polo is remarkable, but then when you check out the Golf.....

[JonP01]

As far as choosing between the Golf and the Polo - I had intended to get the Polo Comfortline TSI 77 manual but after driving it and the new base Golf the choice was easy. I ended up with a white base Golf manual with the 16" alloys off the Comfortline for only $2450 more than the Polo was going to cost me. There are people here who are happy enough to pay much more than that just to get leather. The ride, handling, steering, silence, interior & boot room, much nicer interior with better console display, auto hill hold combined with electric park brake, touch-screen with all the choices it allows are only some of the reasons. The Golf felt even more torque & sprightly, and the whole ambience of the car just sells itself. In isolation, the Polo is remarkable, but then when you check out the Golf.....

Yes, I sort of wish that I was buying a new car now, as I do now regret to some extent buying the Polo despite all the strong points in it's favour (effortless performance, relaxing to drive, excellent fuel economy, decent ride for the class, etc). But I did test drive virtually every light car on the market back in August 2012 and the Polo was vastly superior to everything else in the class. And I really couldn't hold onto my previous car much past September 2012, as my old car was horrible and driving me nuts. Back in August 2012 the base Golf was devoid of what were to me essential features and you had to get the 77TSI Golf if you only had a Polo Comfortline budget. So for me it made no sense to buy 200 extra kilograms of car with the same engine and no cruise control. As far as deals were concerned, there were none to be had back then. Take the retail price or leave it. I think today in light of all the bad VW publicity from last year, dealers are probably far more willing to actually...um...deal.

If I were buying a VW today (I'm not necessarily saying I would) I would get the Golf or a Jetta and build a garden shed to take the mower, edger and other garden tools (that would be the only way I could even fit those cars in the garage). Mind you, I am at the stage now where I am getting worrisome issues with my Polo (after only 9,000 kms and 18 months!) which are eroding my faith somewhat in the brand, especially as I have babied the car so much and have been so incredibly careful and sympathetic with it mechanically speaking. I guess when the car goes to the dealer next week I'll have a very good idea of what my longer term relationship will be (or not) with the brand.

There is a lot of competition out there, though there is no doubt in my mind that a trouble-free Golf is the best reasonably priced small car out there and a trouble-free Polo the best reasonably priced light car out there. The key is trouble-free though and I like many others am now considering changing the Polo while it still has warranty for fear of expensive repairs when it is out of warranty (I simply would not be able to afford any of the typical repairs people are getting under warranty such as turbo replacements, timing chain overhauls / tensioner upgrades, entire engine replacements, etc). The thought of having to fork out as much as the car is worth for major repairs after, say, 4 years is giving me nightmares. I am very interested in the 1.0 turbo Fiesta as a competitor to the Polo and will be interested to see how owners rate that car in terms of reliability, as the Fiesta would be one of the cars I would test drive were I trading the Polo today.

I've owned a number of new cars over the last 30 years and the worst mechanical problem I have ever had with them was a leaking clutch slave cylinder (Toyota Corona). Sadly I honestly can't see the Polo having anything like the sort of care-free mechanical reliability of all my earlier cars. It's already my worst car in terms of things not working as I expect them to and my problems are nothing compared to other people's.

[Mountainman]

You can only do what appears the best buy at the time and the market is changing all the time. At present the drive-away price of a base Golf is $22990 and the drive-away price of a Polo Comfortline TSI is $18990, a $4000 difference - and that could be enough to tip me back the other way.

Interesting to hear your concerns about the long-term trouble free service of your Polo. I am on my 12th new (or almost new) car in 42 years and all but a mk1 Golf were generally reliable Jap cars - 4 Toyotas, 1 Subaru, 3 Mazdas, 1 Honda & 1 Mitsubishi. The mk1 Golf was loved as much as any of them but suffered from Australian assembly, lack of development and poor components & poor dealer back-up - the most troublesome car I owned. This new Golf has now done 33,500km in less than 10 months and is the most perfect, best built car of them all. It has already had its 2 services (both less than $300) and there has not been one complaint I've had to make. And I'm renowned among my friends for being OCD and fussy about my cars (and other things lol). It has restored my faith in VW's and I'm starting to feel confident that I'm going to have a happy long-term ownership experience. So far it's been brilliant.

btw I calculated the other day that in these 12 vehicles I have owned in the last 42 years have done 1,490,000km.