06/08 Golf MPG

Sharkey_dub

Can anyone tell me what MPG i should expect from these 06/08 Golfs?

1.4 Petrol =
1.6 Petrol =
1.9/2.0 Diesel =

Thanks.

166man

Sharkey_dub wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what MPG i should expect from these 06/08 Golfs?

1.4 Petrol =
1.6 Petrol =
1.9/2.0 Diesel =

Thanks.

1.4 Petrol = Low 30's was what I got in my cousins car. Very underpowered
1.6 Petrol = Never driven one but probably expect more than 1.4 35 ish
1.9 Diesel = Older engine very economical roughly 50mpg
2.0 Diesel = Older one not as efficient as newer one so probably mid 40's...

Hope this helps... stay away from the 1.4 though very underpowered...

dev100

Sharkey_dub wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what MPG i should expect from these 06/08 Golfs?

1.4 Petrol =
1.6 Petrol =
1.9/2.0 Diesel =

Thanks.

1.9 tdi 06 130k on clock 1000km per tank for roughly 72 euro @ 1.43 a litre
my journey to work is 50km. broken up into 38km @ 110kmph to 120kmph on motorway and 12 km @ 80kmph on an R road. id prob get better mileage if I drove handier

L-M

1.4 Petrol = Mother had one for 5 years, got around 40mpg out of it.
1.6 Petrol = Father had the same engine in his Passat and got roughly the same.
1.9/2.0 Diesel = I have a 1.9 TDI, it's brutal around town, but very, very good on long runs.

No real experience with driving a 2.0 TDI over along period.

Edit: Also there's enough power in the 1.4, if it was so "underpowered" no one would be driving them. It's perfectly acceptable for what it is.

Sharkey_dub

Dev thats about 54 MPG?

Sharkey_dub

Sharkey_dub wrote: »

Dev thats about 54 MPG?

Doesn't sound out of the way to me given the types of spins he described.

166man

Limerick man wrote: »

1.4 Petrol = Mother had one for 5 years, got around 40mpg out of it.
1.6 Petrol = Father had the same engine in his Passat and got roughly the same.
1.9/2.0 Diesel = I have a 1.9 TDI, it's brutal around town, but very, very good on long runs.

No real experience with driving a 2.0 TDI over along period.

Edit: Also there's enough power in the 1.4, if it was so "underpowered" no one would be driving them. It's perfectly acceptable for what it is.

It has 79bhp! People drive them purely because of the VW badge on the front. It's not that important but 14 seconds to 60 is really poor. People bought them because cheapest way into a VW Golf.

dev100

Sharkey_dub wrote: »

Dev thats about 54 MPG?

Roughly 50 ltr tank

Think its in or around that My brain is switched off:) On trip computer 4.2ltr to 4.5ltr per 100km give or take . Im not heavy footed, like to get it into top gear and leave it there. I dont drop gears and grit teeth to pass lads either.

L-M

166man wrote: »

It has 79bhp! People drive them purely because of the VW badge on the front. It's not that important but 14 seconds to 60 is really poor. People bought them because cheapest way into a VW Golf.

No, not everything revolves around having a diesel engine and rocket ship power, you do realise that? I drove one for 3 years with 18 wheels on it, and she had hers for 5 years. They're perfectly acceptable, absolutely nothing wrong with the "power", not that they're intending to have any power anyway.

Edit : Also you're claims of low 30's are probably because you were driving the arse out of it

markoire

OP, I drive a 2.0tdi 140, have covered 25,000 miles in about a year and its showing 47mpg average on the computer! Can easily get 60mpg on a long spin at 100km/h. Find it better than my previous 115 tdi a4!

Help2

Sharkey_dub wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what MPG i should expect from these 06/08 Golfs?

1.4 Petrol =
1.6 Petrol =
1.9/2.0 Diesel =

Thanks.

See the link below These are claimed averages... so you probably wont get these figures unless you take it handy.. so just take away a few mpg

1.4 Petrol = Claimed 40 (43 FSI model)
1.6 Petrol = Claimed 40
1.9/2.0 Diesel = so many different versions...50-53mpg.. the bluemotion claims 62mpg

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/summary.aspx?model=1177&page=3

EPM

Limerick man wrote: »

No, not everything revolves around having a diesel engine and


rocket ship power, you do realise that? I drove one for 3 years with 18 wheels on it, and she had hers for 5 years. They're perfectly acceptable, absolutely nothing wrong with the "power", not that they're intending to have any power anyway.

Edit : Also you're claims of low 30's are probably because you were driving the arse out of it

To be fair to them, the gearing really does make the best of what's available.

I had a Leon with the same 1.6 engine in a car the same size. Best I ever got out of a tank was 37mpg. Will easily crack 40 driven carefully.

PaulKK

Limerick man wrote: »

No, not everything revolves around having a diesel engine and rocket ship power, you do realise that? I drove one for 3 years with 18 wheels on it, and she had hers for 5 years. They're perfectly acceptable, absolutely nothing wrong with the "power", not that they're intending to have any power anyway.

Edit : Also you're claims of low 30's are probably because you were driving the arse out of it

Have to agree LM, there's been 3 1.4 golfs in my family over the last few years, MKIII, MKIV and MKV and the owners never complain about them being under-powered. They aren't designed or marketed as a performance car ffs.

You never hear anyone saying any 1L or 1.2L cars are under-powered on here, yet the golfs and focii get woeful abuse.

I wouldn't drive one myself but they are grand for people who don't give a crap about performance, that's why there are so many around.

L-M

It's a kinda bandwagon that loads of new Motors posters are hopping on... Said bandwagon needs to be stolen and burnt out.

EPM

Limerick man wrote: »

It's a kinda bandwagon that loads of new Motors posters are hoping on... Said Octavia wagon needs to be stolen and burnt out.

FYP

166man

166man wrote: »

......... People bought them because cheapest way into a VW Golf.

Which is why you wouldn't p1ss on a 1.8 Alfa 156
I take your's is the 2.5 at least :pac:

166man

Limerick man wrote: »

No, not everything revolves around having a diesel engine and rocket ship power, you do realise that? I drove one for 3 years with 18 wheels on it, and she had hers for 5 years. They're perfectly acceptable, absolutely nothing wrong with the "power", not that they're intending to have any power anyway.

Edit : Also you're claims of low 30's are probably because you were driving the arse out of it

I never said it did have to have lots of power, it doesn't have to have 'rocketship power' but a bit of power would be welcome when overtaking and so on.

My claim of fuel consumption were based on personal experience. Motorway from Cork to Dublin, car filled up in Cork and almost empty by Dublin. All motorway driving at 100-110km/h. That's roughly 240 ish miles which I think I worked out to be 19 mpg. So for me low 30's were optimistic

Your comment about 'driving the arse' out of it just annoys me really, just needless to be honest. Surprised to hear that from such a frequent poster.

RE RJ's comment. Mine unfortunately is only the 1.6 still wishing it was a 2.5 though. With 120bhp it has plenty of power for me anyway..

A golf that returned 19 miles per gallon on a cork to Dublin spin must have had huge issues, also tis 160 miles city to city, 240 miles :pac: you must have started in bantry.

L-M

166man wrote: »

I never said it did have to have lots of power, it doesn't have to have 'rocketship power' but a bit of power would be welcome when overtaking and so on.

I don't get this hole power for overtaking thing, even if I had a fast car I would still wait until there was ample opportunity to overtake. And even and that it's fine, might have to drive it up the revs a bit but I never had a problem.

My claim of fuel consumption were based on personal experience. Motorway from Cork to Dublin, car filled up in Cork and almost empty by Dublin. All motorway driving at 100-110km/h. That's roughly 240 ish miles which I think I worked out to be 19 mpg. So for me low 30's were optimistic

LOL 19 mpg... You sure there wasn't a hole in it?:rolleyes:

Your comment about 'driving the arse' out of it just annoys me really, just needless to be honest. Surprised to hear that from such a frequent poster.

Needs are musts and all that, in my four years I've seen many a lad like yourself start posting on the forum with what are, IMO, false and needless claims. People ask here for realworld answers.

EPM

166man wrote: »

My claim of fuel consumption were based on personal experience. Motorway from Cork to Dublin, car filled up in Cork and almost empty by Dublin. All motorway driving at 100-110km/h. That's roughly 240 ish miles which I think I worked out to be 19 mpg. So for me low anyway..

Did you go the long way in 3rd gear? Because those figures don't stack up at all.

sean1141

i had a 1.4 leon. it was a thirsty yoke but no way was i only getting 19mpg.. i usually got about 400 miles out of a tank and i didnt spare it!!

dev100

166man wrote: »

I never said it did have to have lots of power, it doesn't have to have 'rocketship power' but a bit of power would be welcome when overtaking and so on.

My claim of fuel consumption were based on personal experience. Motorway from Cork to Dublin, car filled up in Cork and almost empty by Dublin. All motorway driving at 100-110km/h. That's roughly 240 ish miles which I think I worked out to be 19 mpg. So for me low 30's were optimistic

Your comment about 'driving the arse' out of it just annoys me really, just needless to be honest. Surprised to hear that from such a frequent poster.

RE RJ's comment. Mine unfortunately is only the 1.6 still wishing it was a 2.5 though. With 120bhp it has plenty of power for me anyway..

19mpg ???I have a 2.5tdi jeep sitting in yard used the odd time. Im getting better mpg than that. Are you sure you are doing the calculations right?

166man

Limerick man wrote: »

I don't get this hole power for overtaking thing, even if I had a fast car I would still wait until there was ample opportunity to overtake. And even and that it's fine, might have to drive it up the revs a bit but I never had a problem.



LOL 19 mpg... You sure there wasn't a hole in it?:rolleyes:



Needs are musts and all that, in my four years I've seen many a lad like yourself start posting on the forum with what are, IMO, false and needless claims. People ask here for realworld answers.

So because you don't believe me that means it's false? There is no benefit to me of giving bad figures to anyone, I was trying to help somebody from my own experience with that car/engine. Another example last summer myself and a mate were down in Killarney with the car. Filled up in Killarney and drove back to my house in Waterville. We also did other other trips here and there. After just 110 miles being driven according to the trip computer we had just over half a tankful. We were both shocked and had driven the car very easily with no harsh driving..

As for others comments about the fuel consumption, I really didn't understand it either, 200 and something miles from a tank was really poor. I'm not sure if there was anything wrong with the car but I thought I would share my experience.. obviously this forum is the wrong place to do it.

Why is it with this forum that so many posters feel the need to shoot down any claim or opinion that could be different to theirs?:mad:

dev100

166man wrote: »

So because you don't believe me that means it's false? There is no benefit to me of giving bad figures to anyone, I was trying to help somebody from my own experience with that car/engine. Another example last summer myself and a mate were down in Killarney with the car. Filled up in Killarney and drove back to my house in Waterville. We also did other other trips here and there. After just 110 miles being driven according to the trip computer we had just over half a tankful. We were both shocked and had driven the car very easily with no harsh driving..

As for others comments about the fuel consumption, I really didn't understand it either, 200 and something miles from a tank was really poor. I'm not sure if there was anything wrong with the car but I thought I would share my experience.. obviously this forum is the wrong place to do it.

Why is it with this forum that so many posters feel the need to shoot down any claim or opinion that could be different to theirs?:mad:

Keep your knickers on dude:) It is hard to believe a smallish engined car would give such bad mileage. 19 mpg would be an example of a jeep pulling a heavy load. Not a normal sized car. A 1.4 petrol car should give better mpg than that.


I had an 00 lancer after having a 96 diesel megane. I used to only had to fill megane once every 2 weeks. In the lancer for same journeys i had fill it every week. It finally dawned on me it had a bloody small tank in it.

EPM

166man wrote: »

So because you don't believe me that means it's false? There is no benefit to me of giving bad figures to anyone, I was trying to help somebody from my own experience with that car/engine. Another example last summer myself and a mate were down in Killarney with the car. Filled up in Killarney and drove back to my house in Waterville. We also did other other trips here and there. After just 110 miles being driven according to the trip computer we had just over half a tankful. We were both shocked and had driven the car very easily with no harsh driving..

As for others comments about the fuel consumption, I really didn't understand it either, 200 and something miles from a tank was really poor. I'm not sure if there was anything wrong with the car but I thought I would share my experience.. obviously this forum is the wrong place to do it.

Why is it with this forum that so many posters feel the need to shoot down any claim or opinion that could be different to theirs?:mad:

So by your reckoning if people feel your comments are not accurate they are to say nothing? You've had two owners say that the figures are not representative of that car already so something with the car or your calculations has to be amiss.

FrontDoor

I had a 1.4 golf for 100k km.

6.8/9 l per 100km was the average over a few thousand km at a time. Motorway, city driving etc.

Very comfy car, especially in comfortline. Very accomplished around town and very good on roads where you are going 80-100kmph.

On a motorway, solid as a rock, 3500 rpm at 110 or so kmph. Never really liked it on the motorway at all.

Never let us down and it would be a perfect car as a family run about or a mainly city driver.

166man

166man wrote: »

.................. I'm not sure if there was anything wrong with the car but I thought I would share my experience.. obviously this forum is the wrong place to do it.

Why is it with this forum that so many posters feel the need to shoot down any claim or opinion that could be different to theirs?:mad:

You'd struggle to find a car that would return 19mpg on a Cork to Dublin spin being driven in the correct gear within the speed limits

Regarding the opinion thing, if I was to say that 1.6 Alfa 156s are cheap, rattley, underpowered crates of sh1t that require too much care and attention relative to what they are would you not come along and post a comment or two that would disagree with my sentiment?

Henry Ford III

RoverJames wrote: »

You'd struggle to find a car that would return 19mpg on a Cork to Dublin spin being driven in the correct gear within the speed limits

You're leaving yourself wide open there fella

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote: »

You're leaving yourself wide open there fella

Not really, have a wander around outside
We live in Ireland not Monte Carlo.
The next car you see that wouldn't return 19mpg take a pic of it and lash it up here fella :pac:

TestTransmission

RoverJames wrote: »

You'd struggle to find a car that would return 19mpg on a Cork to Dublin spin being driven in the correct gear within the speed limits

Regarding the opinion thing, if I was to say that 1.6 Alfa 156s are cheap, rattley, underpowered crates of sh1t that require too much care and attention relative to what they are would you not come along and post a comment or two that would disagree with my sentiment?

FYP

You'd struggle to find a car that would wouldn't return 19mpg on a Cork to Dublin spin being driven in the correct gear within the speed limits

TestTransmission

TestTransmission wrote: »

FYP

You'd struggle to find a car that would wouldn't return 19mpg on a Cork to Dublin spin being driven in the correct gear within the speed limits

Well if you have feck all torque :P

krissovo

I have 06 1.4, my fuel computer states I am getting 6.7lts / 100km which is 42 mpg. It does 40,000 km's a year about half motorway half urban and I have a heavy right foot;)

The power is fine, I can get it moving ok and cruises quite well on the motorway but it will never blow you away.

19mpg :eek: I am sorry but I dont believe it, you must have had a fuel leak

Henry Ford III

RoverJames wrote: »

..The next car you see that wouldn't return 19mpg take a pic of it and lash it up here fella :pac:

Didn't you claim your own ZT did worse than that? :pac:

Sadly I couldn't find a picture of it, and didn't bother searching your posts.

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

You'd struggle to find a car that would return 19mpg on a Cork to Dublin spin being driven in the correct gear within the speed limits ........................

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Didn't you claim your own ZT did worse than that? :pac:

Sadly I couldn't find a picture of it, and didn't bother searching your posts.

Not on a Cork to Dublin spin
30+ mpg no bother at all.

Keep trying Henry, maybe someday :P

L-M

166man wrote: »

Why is it with this forum that so many posters feel the need to shoot down any claim or opinion that could be different to theirs?:mad:

When they're ridiculous, yes.

166man

Lads, 19/20 mpg is what we got trundling around country lanes keeping to the speed limit. That's how I worked it out anyway it used almost half a tank to do 110-120 miles. I saw it with my own eyes. I do not know if something was wrong with the car or if it was my driving(:D). I'm sure people have gotten better fuel economy from theirs I'm just posting what I saw. I was extremely shocked when I saw the fuel needle and the odometer..

It should be double the economy than what I got, but I was just posting what I got.

Would it make a difference that the Golf in question was a 2001 1.4?

@LM Just because my own experience of that engine and the fuel economy was appalling doesn't make it ridiculous.

L-M

Maybe not, but telling someone who's plannin to buy one is.

End of, we don't need an argument, it's too sunny :P

166man

Limerick man wrote: »

Maybe not, but telling someone who's plannin to buy one is.

End of, we don't need an argument, it's too sunny :P

Dude true, maybe I just had a lemon, I'm sure it should do more mpg so leave it at that. It is far too sunny especially here!

Henry Ford III

RoverJames wrote: »

Not on a Cork to Dublin spin
30+ mpg no bother at all.

Keep trying Henry, maybe someday :P

Congratulations. That's hugely impressive :pac:

Someday? You pwn yourself most days

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

Not really, have a wander around outside
We live in Ireland not Monte Carlo.
The next car you see that wouldn't return 19mpg take a pic of it and lash it up here fella :pac:

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Congratulations. That's hugely impressive :pac:

Someday? You pwn yourself most days

Someday was a reference to the bit in bold
Cheers for the general sentiment though :cool:

L-M

166man wrote: »

Dude true, maybe I just had a lemon, I'm sure it should do more mpg so leave it at that. It is far too sunny especially here!

You weren't on the Limerick to Roscrea by pass by any chance today?

166man

Limerick man wrote: »

You weren't on the Limerick to Roscrea by pass by any chance today?

I wasn't today now but been up that way many times on the way to Kerry, why?

L-M

166man wrote: »

I wasn't today now but been up that way many times on the way to Kerry, why?

Nah a wine 156 went past me at about 100 miles p/h :P