What's the Story - Golf GTE and e-Golf?

[arcadelt]

So lately I have been thinking about my wife's next car. She currently drives a 2007 Hyundai i30 because, as you may remember, this was one of the most fuel efficient cars on our roads way back then (4.7l/100km combined). She is one of those that see driving as an unfortunate necessity, therefore efficiency is high on the list of requirements: so considerations have turned to electric and hybrid cars.

Three standout cars in this category in the world come from the VAG group, being the Audi A3 e-tron, Golf GTE and e-Golf, but only the e-tron is coming to Australia, and it is the most expensive of the lot ($60K+). So I'm interested, does anyone know the story why VW Australia has made the decision to not bring the Golf variants to our shores; and if they did, why or why would you not be interested in owning one of these? Obviously, if you are a die hard performance aficionado (GTI, Golf R, etc) this question really isn't for you!

[irossiter]

You are wasting your money if you buy a car for $20-30k more than another car simply to have a hybrid. Same problem with most diesels in Australia. Why pay $5k more for the same model. Unless you are keeping the car for 10-20 years you'll never be saving any money. You will also be faced with higher servicing and parts costs and who knows what else when these hybrids come out of warranty. Buy a new European car with a small capacity 3 or 4 cylinder petrol engine and turbo. They will be just as or more efficient than any of these so called hybrids 90% of the time. Those hybrid batteries will last only a few years and be thousands to replace. The technology will make sense in about 15 years when the manufacturing costs have come down but even then petrol or diesel turbo engines will have been made even more efficient. VW do not bring these cars to Australia because they'd sell about a dozen each year as they simply don't make sense at their price point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arcadelt]

You make some interesting points, but the proposition could be looked at in a different way.

You are wasting your money if you buy a car for $20-30k more than another car simply to have a hybrid. Same problem with most diesels in Australia. Why pay $5k more for the same model. Unless you are keeping the car for 10-20 years you'll never be saving any money.

It's not necessarily about saving money, but could be about contributing to the continuing development of the technology, and feeling good about (arguably) doing good in the process. Buying a GTI or Golf-R is paying more for the same model, but no doubt they bring joy to drivers who are prepared to pay for them. My wife, however, has no interest in a quick, sharp-handling hot hatch, but it brings her joy to think that she is contributing in some way to the development of the eco-lineage of cars and the environment, and she is (somewhat) prepared to pay for that.

The technology will make sense in about 15 years when the manufacturing costs have come down...

I agree that's the idea, but how are the prices going to drop if, based on your argument, no one should buy them - its a bit of a catch-22.

VW do not bring these cars to Australia because they'd sell about a dozen each year as they simply don't make sense at their price point.

Yet they are bringing in the more expensive Audi A3 e-tron, which is why I asked the question about the GTE and e-Golf. It would be nice to be able to get into essential the same car (the GTE that is), but at a lower price point. I would have thought they would sell more that way...

Because no-one here buys them: Electric car sales still a trickle in Australia: Car News | CarsGuide.

I'd argue that's because the current crop of offerings, apart from the $100K Tesla, are butt ugly. In a VAG themed forum you could hardly say that about the three cars I have mentioned, which largely look identical to their petrol and diesel powers sisters.

Hybrids are good in stop-start traffic, but no better than an efficient petrol on the open highway. The guys that regularly drive Darwin to Alice Springs all have Diesel Golfs, because they can do it on a tank at up to 200Km/h.

True, but they are more efficient when in stop-start traffic, and should do quite as well on the open road, so the tradeoff may have some overall benefit. The e-tron and GTE are reported as being well and truly as good, if not better, than their sisters on the open road. I'm not suggesting these are meant for the Alice to Darwin market (which is an extreme example to use), but at a total system output of 150 kW and 350 Nm (110 and 250 petrol only - better than a Golf 103TSI Highline), in those two cars at least, you could do that trip at 200km/h at pretty much the same fuel economy, and then (after charging) get around your destination at no/low cost and no/low emissions.

Obviously the fully electric e-Golf is a city only proposition.

Anyway, on a sample size of two, I can see that projected lack of take-up is part of the reason why VW would be reluctant - but I still would have thought the GTE a better option from VAG for the Australian market than the A3 e-tron.

[brad]

It's not necessarily about saving money, but could be about contributing to the continuing development of the technology, and feeling good about (arguably) doing good in the process. Buying a GTI or Golf-R is paying more for the same model, but no doubt they bring joy to drivers who are prepared to pay for them. My wife, however, has no interest in a quick, sharp-handling hot hatch, but it brings her joy to think that she is contributing in some way to the development of the eco-lineage of cars and the environment, and she is (somewhat) prepared to pay for that.

I can't see that her buying one aids in the development unless they are downloading data from her car. I do understand she might get a warm fuzzy feeling by owning an e-car and transferring the pollution elsewhere.

Yet they are bringing in the more expensive Audi A3 e-tron, which is why I asked the question about the GTE and e-Golf. It would be nice to be able to get into essential the same car (the GTE that is), but at a lower price point. I would have thought they would sell more that way...

I guess if they have both a VW & Audi variant it will split the sales in half. As Audi is supposed to be the flagship mass market brand it makes sense it will be the technological flag bearer.

I'd argue that's because the current crop of offerings, apart from the $100K Tesla, are butt ugly. In a VAG themed forum you could hardly say that about the three cars I have mentioned, which largely look identical to their petrol and diesel powers sisters.

Beauty / looks are subjective.

True, but they are more efficient when in stop-start traffic, and should do quite as well on the open road, so the tradeoff may have some overall benefit. The e-tron and GTE are reported as being well and truly as good, if not better, than their sisters on the open road. I'm not suggesting these are meant for the Alice to Darwin market (which is an extreme example to use), but at a total system output of 150 kW and 350 Nm (110 and 250 petrol only - better than a Golf 103TSI Highline), in those two cars at least, you could do that trip at 200km/h at pretty much the same fuel economy, and then (after charging) get around your destination at no/low cost and no/low emissions.

I've driven Camry, Corolla & Prius hybrids & for where I commute they aren't a huge improvement over my 1.8tsi. The Camry hybrid is about 15% worse.

We did consider an Outlander PHEV to replace our Craptiva but lack of 3rd row ruled it out.

I reckon the Honda isn't a bad looking thing.

Anyway, on a sample size of two, I can see that projected lack of take-up is part of the reason why VW would be reluctant - but I still would have thought the GTE a better option from VAG for the Australian market than the A3 e-tron.

For the difference in price you can buy an awful lot of fuel - especially with the amazing efficiency of modern petrol engines.

Also, if you were truly concerned about the environment you'd keep the Hyundai a lot longer.

[arcadelt]

Also, if you were truly concerned about the environment you'd keep the Hyundai a lot longer.

Fair cop!

[arcadelt]

Also, if you were truly concerned about the environment you'd keep the Hyundai a lot longer.

Actually brad, I've been thinking about this comment overnight, and I now wonder why you think that is the case. Second hand cars cascade down through the secondhand market, so its not like they are being consumed by the first purchaser. Would you care to elaborate?

[brad]

Actually brad, I've been thinking about this comment overnight, and I now wonder why you think that is the case. Second hand cars cascade down through the secondhand market, so its not like they are being consumed by the first purchaser. Would you care to elaborate?

On a like-for-like basis (eg: buying another i30) you still have to produce the new vehicle with the associated pollution output, etc. I believe the carbon footprint associated with manufacture is around 20% +-8%?

When you turn it up a notch & introduce the materials associated with battery production it's a step worse for the environment as a whole of life cycle proposition.

Australia has been buying 1million + new vehicles every year for the past 5(??) years. The average age of the fleet has dropped from 11 years in 1997 to 10 years, despite vehicles being made of better materials & better quality which implies they are being scrapped earlier.

While used vehicles do trickle-down through the system, I believe that due to the number of new vehicles entering the market every year, the lifespan of the used vehicles is shorter than it was because people can't sell them. Our group of friends all have kids that are starting to drive. 30 years back they would have bought the kids a 2nd hand car about 5-10 years old for a few thousand. These days, they look at a 2nd hand car for around $6,000 and an entry level new car for around $12k and stump up the cash for the new car (for multiple reasons). I think lots of used cars sit around waiting to be sold, then the rego runs out & they sit some more & then they get rust & eventually end up at the scrappers.

Sure, if you need a new car then buy one but I think trying to colour it as an environmental choice is probably only trying to help justify the purchase.

These links are just random things I googled. Maybe they are really inaccurate & BS but it's food for thought.

Better for the Environment: New Car or Keep the Old

Manufacturing a car creates as much carbon as driving it | Environment | The Guardian

403 - Forbidden

Your Car's Carbon Footprint: Hybrid vs. Gasoline vs. Electric Cars - WegoWise Blog

Environmental Impact | EVs might be more damaging than you think | Digital Trends

[bobcrusader]

Because no-one here buys them: Electric car sales still a trickle in Australia: Car News | CarsGuide

Hybrids are good in stop-start traffic, but no better than an efficient petrol on the open highway.

The guys that regularly drive Darwin to Alice Springs all have Diesel Golfs, because they can do it on a tank at up to 200Km/h.

[sillyboy]

Buy a used Suzuki Swift, cheap and fuel efficient.

[Transporter]

Buy a used Suzuki Swift, cheap and fuel efficient.

Less some safety features that the Golf7 has.