The folly of the EU tests and small capacity engines

Leonard Hofstadter

I had the 'pleasure' of driving a 1.6 TDI Passat over the weekend.

Now, as some of my previous posts show, I'm not a fan of VWs. And I've only driven one diesel before, which was a 1.3 diesel Corsa, which was horrible and immediately made me wonder why anyone would ever drive a diesel.

I have to admit, the B7 Passat is actually a really nice car, I can see why there are so many of these on the roads, along with its very closely related predecessor, the B6. I will be much more enthusiastic about VWs in the future:D.

Of course, the steering is very numb, but it's no worse than a Toyota's steering for example. The handling is actually impressive for such a large front wheel drive car, it's such a shame there is no feedback through the steering wheel. And the build quality is not as good as one might expect from a VW, but otherwise it is a seriously good car, no wonder the motoring journalists always rate it as one of the best cars in the class. Although a little less road noise would have been beneficial, it is still very quiet and the ride comfort is very good despite being on 17 inch wheels.

There are so many thoughtful features in this car, like the levers in the boot for folding down the rear seats, and my favourite feature of them all - the auto hill hold, it's simply brilliant. I can forgive a car for not having a proper old fashioned hand brake so long as it's fitted with this! It's quiet, and the nappa leather seats are superb. The highline model has so much equipment as standard (apart from not having sat nav), although I couldn't see what the big deal about Xenon headlights is - I couldn't tell any difference between these and standard headlights to be honest.

Anyhow, I want to move onto its small capacity engine, as that was the purpose of starting this thread.

To drive, it's actually not as bad as I was expecting it to be, although that's a long way from saying I thought it had enough power.

It's certainly not as slow as a 1.6 NA petrol in this size of car (though that wouldn't be difficult), although a 1.8 NA petrol is definitely quicker (if you're not afraid to rev it). It's not underpowered, but it is rather anaemic and does require very frequent gearchanges, much more so than what is necessary in a petrol. It struggles to maintain 120 kph on inclines in sixth gear - so I found myself having to drop down to fifth on the motorway - something that you'd never have to do with a petrol. It revved quite freely actually, and the power delivery is quite linear and there is no turbo lag, so that was a pleasant surprise, in stark contrast to the 1.3 diesel Corsa I drove before. I'm sure that in something like a Golf or a Polo, this engine would be perfectly adequate for power.

But of course, even with a dual mass flywheel, it is still very rough through the pedals compared to even a four cylinder petrol, hardly a bastion of smoothness and refinement. You'd really notice the difference when pulling away and at low revs. It's also harder to make a smooth gearchange in this compared to a petrol engine as well. One of the most frustrating things about a diesel (well this one anyway) is how unforgiving they are if you are in the 'wrong' gear at lower revs - sixth is useless below about 70 kph and you wouldn't be putting it into fifth gear until you're doing at least 55-60 either. In a petrol you could put it into fifth from as little as 30 kph (on the flat, of course) and while it wouldn't particularly like it, it would deal with it and manage just fine.

What I did find very disappointing about this car though was the fuel consumption. I only got 50 mpg in a car that's supposed to do 66! Now, I certainly wasn't expecting 66 mpg, but I thought it would surely do high 50s mpg anyway. I filled the car up in Charleville, then drove to the Cliffs of Moher, then went to the Burren, then went to Galway and then drove it from there to the M4 service station in Enfield. I thought for that type of driving I should have got at 57 or 58 mpg - it is a 1.6 diesel after all and has 'Bluemotion technology' (whatever that is, but I presume it's the usual eco tweaks that are in every car these days). I would have expected a petrol engined Passat to do around 37 or 38 mpg in similar circumstances, so 12 mpg doesn't seem like a lot of a saving to me.

What this car shows to me at least is the folly of buying a car with such a small engine. It really needs a 2.0 - 25 bhp minimum extra for starters. I also thought the engine was extremely overgeared especially considering how small it is, and it does have only 105 bhp after all. I bet I would have got at least 2-3 mpg more in a 2.0 as well, because there is a lot more power so the engine doesn't need to be worked half as hard.

These EU tests on fuel economy are a total joke and are forcing manufacturers to produce cars with engines that look good on paper but are useless in the real world for matching their quoted mpg.

Is it just me, or are the brand new cars no more economical than the ones from say 5-6 years ago outside of the EU test bed? The official mpg figures seem to have skyrocketed in the past few years (sure there will even be a petrol Focus that is supposed to do 66 mpg on sale next year), but the real world mpg seems to have remained the same, or possibly got even worse.

George Dalton

captainspeed wrote: »

These EU tests on fuel economy are a total joke and are forcing manufacturers to produce cars with engines that look good on paper but are useless in the real world for matching their quoted mpg.

Is it just me, or are the brand new cars no more economical than the ones from say 5-6 years ago outside of the EU test bed? The official mpg figures seem to have skyrocketed in the past few years (sure there will even be a petrol Focus that is supposed to do 66 mpg on sale next year), but the real world mpg seems to have remained the same, or possibly got even worse.

Good post, this bit in particular is my single biggest problem with the current motor tax regime. After all the quoted CO2 figures for any given car are closely related to the quoted economy figures.

These economy figures are next to impossible to replicate with a normal driver under normal road and traffic conditions. So the whole thing is just a theoretical exercise with no basis in the real world at all.

If manufacturers were forced to quote realistic MPG and CO2 figures for their cars then the current 2 tier motor tax system wouldn't be quite so unfair.

It is worth noting that there was a time when manufacturer's figures were realistic, both my 2000 Audi S4 and my 2006 Merc E280CDI actually return better MPG than the factory quoted figures, and I would not consider my driving style to be in any way biased towards economy.

September1

It is not just you, actually that is not you at all. Current system of NEDC really leaves a lot to be "improved" in testing, here is Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/14/car-manufacturers-manipulating-fuel-efficiency-tests explaining how tests can be cheated.

What drives me crazy most is that they allow cars to be tested with warm engines, as most of consumers use cars for short distance commuting where significant portion of journey happens with engine at below optimal temperature. Other problem is that NEDC lacks typical acceleration for modern cars, I recommend article on wiki.

maceocc2

I have a 1.6 TDI Passat myself and agree with a lot of your comments. Having lived with the car for ~2 years my single biggest complaint is the gearing.

The gearing is what it is for the bluemotion purpose, it's designed to give better MPG overall, however you need to learn how to use it, which is a load of crap really. Personally I don't think they got the engine/gear ratio's right at all. The pre-boost power of the 1.6 just doesn't cut it when in 6th gear, coupled with the 3 over-drive gears it's just doesn't make sense.

I did get mine remapped (superchips), the increased power is noticeable particularly in the pre-boost range between 1000-2000rpm, and truth be told it has given me better MPG on motor ways, ~55mpg and it can actually maintain motorway speeds in 6th.

jimgoose

Mmm. My brother currently drives a 2010 BMW 520d, and struggles to keep it below 65MPG. However, he would gladly sacrifice some of that for more power. It is a mighty yoke, but we both agree it doesn't have enough engine. He couldn't find a "nice" 530d at the time.

Dartz

Try a 1.5 Dci 90....

The turbo farts some power out at the start to get it moving around town, but above 80kph it just sort of makes noise. And you have to strangle it like an unwanted child to get up to motorway speeds by the end of the slip road sometimes.

On the upside, I'm learning how to take corners at speed, and the gearbox isn't that **** to use. It slots in and out nicely, even if it could do with an extra ratio.

I miss the old Laguna. Thing was a guzzler but it was effortlessly smooth.

Sobanek

captainspeed wrote: »

The handling is actually impressive for such a large front wheel drive car

I was impressed with the B6 Estate's capabilities, especially with large tyres. Certainly much better than most of the rubbish today.

captainspeed wrote: »

... and my favourite feature of them all - the auto hill hold, it's simply brilliant.

Definitely agree. Combined with the DSG Gearbox, it's a wonderful feature.

captainspeed wrote: »

It struggles to maintain 120 kph on inclines in sixth gear - so I found myself having to drop down to fifth on the motorway - something that you'd never have to do with a petrol 2.0 TDI.

FYP.

captainspeed wrote: »

What I did find very disappointing about this car though was the fuel consumption. I only got 50 mpg in a car that's supposed to do 66! Now, I certainly wasn't expecting 66 mpg, but I thought it would surely do high 50s mpg anyway.

It's all lies. You'll never do 60mpg in a Passat unless you feather the gas pedal. In the real world 55mpg is the max.

captainspeed wrote: »

These EU tests on fuel economy are a total joke and are forcing manufacturers to produce cars with engines that look good on paper but are useless in the real world for matching their quoted mpg.

Meanwhile, the Americans drive the 3.6 V6 petrol passat.

captainspeed wrote: »

Is it just me, or are the brand new cars no more economical than the ones from say 5-6 years ago outside of the EU test bed?

I'll partly disagree with this. Diesel - correct. Petrol - incorrect. My grandfather's E39 523i with 170hp used to be able to get 30mpg on a good day. The modern day equivalent (F10 528i 3.0) with larger displacement and more power gets better MPG than this.

Diesels... Can't really say they've improved that much. I mean my cousin's MK4 1.9 TDI with a 130hp gets better MPG than my uncle's B6 2.0 TDI Passat with 140hp. Both Automatics. (Golf being the standard tiptronic, while the B6 is the DSG )


Anyway, like Jeremy Clarkson has said, "we (petrolheads) are a dying breed". Not a lot of people care about the engine in their car (most people care if it's cheap on tax and gets good mpg). I partly blame the EURO emission standards and partly blame the motor tax system here. You can see how people have been brainwashed, since the new CLA180 Petrol is about 2k cheaper than the diesel, yet people will still go for the diesel - when will that 2k pay off itself? After a 100,000 miles?

smoking_kills

George Dalton wrote: »

Good post, this bit in particular is my single biggest problem with the current motor tax regime. After all the quoted CO2 figures for any given car are closely related to the quoted economy figures.

These economy figures are next to impossible to replicate with a normal driver under normal road and traffic conditions. So the whole thing is just a theoretical exercise with no basis in the real world at all.

If manufacturers were forced to quote realistic MPG and CO2 figures for their cars then the current 2 tier motor tax system wouldn't be quite so unfair.

It is worth noting that there was a time when manufacturer's figures were realistic, both my 2000 Audi S4 and my 2006 Merc E280CDI actually return better MPG than the factory quoted figures, and I would not consider my driving style to be in any way biased towards economy.

probably been posted but a woman in the US sued Honda over its MPG claims for the Civic Hybrid..and won!

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=246520

jimgoose

Sobanek wrote: »

...I'll partly disagree with this. Diesel - correct. Petrol - incorrect. My grandfather's E39 523i with 170hp used to be able to get 30mpg on a good day. The modern day equivalent (F10 528i 3.0) with larger displacement and more power gets better MPG than this.

Diesels... Can't really say they've improved that much. I mean my cousin's MK4 1.9 TDI with a 130hp gets better MPG than my uncle's B6 2.0 TDI Passat with 140hp. Both Automatics. (Golf being the standard tiptronic, while the B6 is the DSG )...

My father had big old Zodiacs and Granadas for years back in the day - mighty yokes, but the thirst of a dragster. The modern EFI systems are fantastic, really - the same and larger capacity engines deliver far more power and use somewhere in the vicinity of a third less fuel, cube-for-cube.

As for these here turbodiesels - it seems to me that what's happening is a peculiar sort of inversion of what was happening with the old two-stroke 500GP motorcycles. That is to say, all the "good stuff" - be it ferocious power, in the case of the old GP bikes, or economy, as in the newer diesel cars - is being concentrated into more and more specific and narrower powerbands in the rev-range, such that keeping them in the economy sweet-spot is beyond the ken of the average civilian driver.

I think all diesels should have sophisticated 8-speed automatic transmissions (from the good folks at ZF Friedrichshafen AG, if necessary), and then you'd see more of a match-up between some of the less outlandish manufacturer claims for fuel economy and the real world.

MuppetCheck

captainspeed wrote: »

What I did find very disappointing about this car though was the fuel consumption. I only got 50 mpg in a car that's supposed to do 66! Now, I certainly wasn't expecting 66 mpg, but I thought it would surely do high 50s mpg anyway. I filled the car up in Charleville, then drove to the Cliffs of Moher, then went to the Burren, then went to Galway and then drove it from there to the M4 service station in Enfield. I thought for that type of driving I should have got at 57 or 58 mpg - it is a 1.6 diesel after all and has 'Bluemotion technology' (whatever that is, but I presume it's the usual eco tweaks that are in every car these days). I would have expected a petrol engined Passat to do around 37 or 38 mpg in similar circumstances, so 12 mpg doesn't seem like a lot of a saving to me.

What this car shows to me at least is the folly of buying a car with such a small engine. It really needs a 2.0 - 25 bhp minimum extra for starters. I also thought the engine was extremely overgeared especially considering how small it is, and it does have only 105 bhp after all. I bet I would have got at least 2-3 mpg more in a 2.0 as well, because there is a lot more power so the engine doesn't need to be worked half as hard.

Going into a gear too early can often increase fuel usage in diesels. Any I owned were much happier in 5th up to about 110kph than in 6th. Fuel economy improved significantly when I started to leave it in 5th and using 6th for the motorway mostly. The gearing is quite high in most, and often 1st is too short.

I have found that the diesels I've had all miss the stated figures by a significant margin. I'm not a hard driver but in the real world where a bit of town driving is thrown in low-mid 40's is about what you can expect from the 2-ish litres. You can break 50 on an N-Road run, comfortably so if you leave the air con off and drive like a granny, but at 120-130 kph you'll hit mid 40s for the most part (although the ones I use are quite hilly and I notice a significant increase in consumption on certain parts regularly).

Town driving in any isn't a pleasurable experience, you're well aware what you're sitting in, and the often heavier controls tend to grate. How people buy them for low miles I just don't understand. They are much more useful than the equivalent petrol on the open road however.

Idbatterim

Mmm. My brother currently drives a 2010 BMW 520d, and struggles to keep it below 65MPG. However, he would gladly sacrifice some of that for more power. It is a mighty yoke, but we both agree it doesn't have enough engine. He couldn't find a "nice" 530d at the time.

dont these engines have 184bhp?

jimgoose

Idbatterim wrote: »

dont these engines have 184bhp?

They do. And the car weights a shade over two ton.

Ronnie Beck

jimgoose wrote: »

Mmm. My brother currently drives a 2010 BMW 520d, and struggles to keep it below 65MPG. However, he would gladly sacrifice some of that for more power. It is a mighty yoke, but we both agree it doesn't have enough engine. He couldn't find a "nice" 530d at the time.

Bo[[ocks

jimgoose

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

Bo[[ocks

Well, that's what the on-board display thingy says. Obviously that drops while it's under acceleration.

Ronnie Beck

jimgoose wrote: »

Well, that's what the on-board display thingy says. Obviously that drops while it's under acceleration.

Them on-board displays in real time are useless for calculating your average mpg. Sure freewheeling downhill in gear you'd be getting infinite mpg. I'd say calculating it correctly you'd be getting 45-50mpg like the rest of the similar sized diesels.

jimgoose

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

Them on-board displays in real time are useless for calculating your average mpg. Sure freewheeling downhill in gear you'd be getting infinite mpg. I'd say calculating it correctly you'd be getting 45-50mpg like the rest of the similar sized diesels.

I find the Jaguar one rather good. And while freewheeling downhill in gear you actually are getting infinite MPG. The injector dwell-time is precisely zero in modern yokes while this is going on.

Max Power1

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

Them on-board displays in real time are useless for calculating your average mpg. Sure freewheeling downhill in gear you'd be getting infinite mpg. I'd say calculating it correctly you'd be getting 45-50mpg like the rest of the similar sized diesels.

Freewheeling downhill you do get infinite mpg once you are in gear

I've found my OBC mpg in the e60 to be accurate within 0.2mpg so I dont see why it wouldnt be the same in the f10

Sobanek

I found the OBC in the Volvo V50 inaccurate to 1l/100km which is a 5 MPG difference.

535 km to a 43.3 litre fill up. That's a 2 litre diesel (although the car at this stage could do with a service).

Moral of the story is - don't trust your manufacturer, trust your instinct.

bazz26

Having come from a 3 Series 2.0 litre 143bhp diesel BMW to a 2.0 TDi 140bhp Passat CC I can tell you that the BMW was more economical, but the CC feels more refined, quieter and more responsive through the gears.

As for VW quality, well not sure about the lesser models but the CC is definitely up there.

My CC interior:




My old BMW interior:




BMW wins hands down as a driver's car though.

Chimaera

A significant reason modern diesel engines are not getting better economy than those of 10-15 years ago is emissions equipment.

Standards for CO2 emissions haven't changed substantially over the years so the downward pressure on that hasn't been that strong. While there's some pressure from the marketplace, when CO2 emissions are used to calculate taxes, it's not getting top billing in the design stages.

What have been changing substantially over the years are the standards for particulates and NOx, requiring the use of particulate filters and expensive NOx catalysts. Bluemotion, Bluetec, etc are technologies making use of urea injection to catalyse NOx, referred to commercially as Adblue.

One of the downsides to the particulate filters in particular is that they adversely affect fuel economy since they use extra fuel to burn off the collected particulates. NOx reduction strategies are also affecting engine efficiency. The most efficient operating parameters for a diesel engine tend to increase combustion temperatures and pressures which favours NOx formation, so manufacturers are pulling back from that point to reduce NOx which also reduces economy.

What's stopped things going to hell entirely on the economy front are greatly improved fuel injection systems (from a performance point of view at least, reliability may be another story), higher fuel standards (you can be sure the official tests are being run on ideal fuel), and better design of the engine itself, particularly in terms of optimising air-flow through the engine.

It'd be an interesting experiment to retune a modern common rail diesel to get rid of the DPF, NOx traps and optimise the engine operating parameters for efficiency and see what could be achieved.

Leonard Hofstadter

I know it's a fairly old thread, but I felt it was worth posting this here just to back up my point.

I've just handed back a Mondeo 2.0 TDCi 140 PS, which I had for the weekend. I drove about 520 km in it, and it was 95% motorway. I drove around 135-140 km/h most of the time (I wasn't in Ireland before Iwannahurl and the other usual anti-speeding brigade get on their high horses....), so somewhat faster than what I drove the 1.6 TDI Passat. I managed approximately 45 mpg, some achievement considering it was all motorway, whereas when I had the VW it was a mixture of motorway and main roads in Ireland. Despite the considerably slower speeds, the Passat only did about 50 mpg.

This just proves my point about how stupid it is to buy a small engined version of a car like a Mondeo or Passat. It also shows how silly the EU tests are, because the Passat was claimed to do 66 mpg, whereas the Mondeo was claimed to do 58. Despite a claimed 8 mpg difference, the real world difference was just 5 in my hands, and that was driving a far higher speeds, so if I'd driven the Mondeo at the same speeds I'd driven the VW at, no doubt that 5 mpg difference would have been at worst no difference, and at best the Mondeo would have done 3-4 mpg more easily.

The 140 PS Mondeo is a LOT faster than a 105 PS Passat unsurprisingly, but it's certainly no rocket. There's not a lot of difference performance wise between it and a Mk2 Avensis 1.8 petrol, unless you're a die hard diesel fan and/or are unable to use a petrol engine properly and give it some revs. It's fustratingly slow pulling away in first gear, but once up to speed it moves quite nicely.

Otherwise, the Mondeo is a superb car, the steering is nicer than the Passat's and the pedals and controls are so beautifully weighted. I have to admit I thought it would drive better than it did, though. This morning I got to take it through some very twisty roads, which I was dying to do because of the Mondeo's reputation for being the best car in its class to drive by some margin. I was ever so slightly disappointed by it actually. Don't get me wrong it does drive very well, it's so agile for something so big, the handling is really good for such a big FWD car and it did put a grin on my face, but I was hoping for more feedback through the steering wheel. I was expecting more steering feel I guess. It doesn't feel artifical and numb the way a Passat or Avensis does, but it doesn't weigh up as much as I thought it would, and the difference in steering feel is less than I thought/hoped it would be. Apart from that it definitely deserves its reputation for being the family car of choice for the keen driver.

PS: diesels still suck:D

Jesus.

Dartz wrote: »

I miss the old Laguna. Thing was a guzzler but it was effortlessly smooth.

A Laguna 1 or 2? Which engine? Cos you have to strangle the 1.6 like an unwanted child too :P

Jesus.

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

Them on-board displays in real time are useless .

They always overestimate (or is it the petrol stations? ) . We were on about that the other night:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057102045&page=11

keithclancy

Sobanek wrote: »

I found the OBC in the Volvo V50 inaccurate to 1l/100km which is a 5 MPG difference.

535 km to a 43.3 litre fill up. That's a 2 litre diesel (although the car at this stage could do with a service).

Moral of the story is - don't trust your manufacturer, trust your instinct.

I have a 2005 V50 2.0D

There is something wrong there, I'm getting around 750km with mixed Dutch Snelweg (CC set at 130km/h) and German Autobahn (CC set at 160km/h) driving. (3 days 128km each way)

With just Dutch roads I get around 850km/fill.

Last fill I got 682km with 38.14 liters.

Lots of town driving I guess ?

Sobanek

keithclancy wrote: »

I have a 2005 V50 2.0D

There is something wrong there, I'm getting around 750km with mixed Dutch Snelweg (CC set at 130km/h) and German Autobahn (CC set at 160km/h) driving. (3 days 128km each way)

With just Dutch roads I get around 850km/fill.

Last fill I got 682km with 38.14 liters.

Lots of town driving I guess ?

1. Poorer quality diesel in Ireland - we always got higher mileage on French and German derv
2. Approximately 40 kilometres on the motorway and then 10 in city traffic.
3. My foot is a bit heavy.
4. On our trip to Poland we managed an average of 6.2l/100km on the autobahn (3 people onboard + luggage + air con constantly on)

It's definitely possible to squeeze much more miles out of the tank since I managed to do an eco 100km trip on the motorway alone and after that filled the car up with only 5.5 litres.

Jesus.

captainspeed wrote: »

This just proves my point about how stupid it is to buy a small engined version of a car like a Mondeo or Passat.

Not really though mate. You're getting 5 mpg less on Motorway with the Mondy vs regional roads Passat.

keithclancy

Sobanek wrote: »

1. Poorer quality diesel in Ireland - we always got higher mileage on French and German derv
2. Approximately 40 kilometres on the motorway and then 10 in city traffic.
3. My foot is a bit heavy.
4. On our trip to Poland we managed an average of 6.2l/100km on the autobahn (3 people onboard + luggage + air con constantly on)

It's definitely possible to squeeze much more miles out of the tank since I managed to do an eco 100km trip on the motorway alone and after that filled the car up with only 5.5 litres.

What are they putting in Irish diesel

8.09 liters/100km is very bad though, I wouldn't have a light foot either.

I'd change out the filters, check the tyre pressure and do a check for fault codes on the ECU anyway.

For normal driving 6.2/100 would even say to me that something is wrong.

BMJD

Jesus. wrote: »

Cos you have to strangle the 1.6 like an unwanted child too :P

*yawn* just cos your Da let you get crucified :rolleyes:

Mc Love

captainspeed wrote: »

I know it's a fairly old thread, but I felt it was worth posting this here just to back up my point.

I've just handed back a Mondeo 2.0 TDCi 140 PS, which I had for the weekend. I drove about 520 km in it, and it was 95% motorway. I drove around 135-140 km/h most of the time (I wasn't in Ireland before Iwannahurl and the other usual anti-speeding brigade get on their high horses....), so somewhat faster than what I drove the 1.6 TDI Passat. I managed approximately 45 mpg, some achievement considering it was all motorway, whereas when I had the VW it was a mixture of motorway and main roads in Ireland. Despite the considerably slower speeds, the Passat only did about 50 mpg.

This just proves my point about how stupid it is to buy a small engined version of a car like a Mondeo or Passat. It also shows how silly the EU tests are, because the Passat was claimed to do 66 mpg, whereas the Mondeo was claimed to do 58. Despite a claimed 8 mpg difference, the real world difference was just 5 in my hands, and that was driving a far higher speeds, so if I'd driven the Mondeo at the same speeds I'd driven the VW at, no doubt that 5 mpg difference would have been at worst no difference, and at best the Mondeo would have done 3-4 mpg more easily.

The 140 PS Mondeo is a LOT faster than a 105 PS Passat unsurprisingly, but it's certainly no rocket. There's not a lot of difference performance wise between it and a Mk2 Avensis 1.8 petrol, unless you're a die hard diesel fan and/or are unable to use a petrol engine properly and give it some revs. It's fustratingly slow pulling away in first gear, but once up to speed it moves quite nicely.

Otherwise, the Mondeo is a superb car, the steering is nicer than the Passat's and the pedals and controls are so beautifully weighted. I have to admit I thought it would drive better than it did, though. This morning I got to take it through some very twisty roads, which I was dying to do because of the Mondeo's reputation for being the best car in its class to drive by some margin. I was ever so slightly disappointed by it actually. Don't get me wrong it does drive very well, it's so agile for something so big, the handling is really good for such a big FWD car and it did put a grin on my face, but I was hoping for more feedback through the steering wheel. I was expecting more steering feel I guess. It doesn't feel artifical and numb the way a Passat or Avensis does, but it doesn't weigh up as much as I thought it would, and the difference in steering feel is less than I thought/hoped it would be. Apart from that it definitely deserves its reputation for being the family car of choice for the keen driver.

PS: petrols are still better:D

Do you have your own blog or something? the above is definitely deserving of it! There's no bullsh1t about what you are talking unlike most of the motor journo's out there who are just glorified salesmen/women!

I am looking to change for a mondeo based on the more space to cart stuff about and your "review" is pretty good for the car!

Tea 1000

captainspeed wrote: »

I know it's a fairly old thread, but I felt it was worth posting this here just to back up my point.

I've just handed back a Mondeo 2.0 TDCi 140 PS, which I had for the weekend. I drove about 520 km in it, and it was 95% motorway. I drove around 135-140 km/h most of the time (I wasn't in Ireland before Iwannahurl and the other usual anti-speeding brigade get on their high horses....), so somewhat faster than what I drove the 1.6 TDI Passat. I managed approximately 45 mpg, some achievement considering it was all motorway, whereas when I had the VW it was a mixture of motorway and main roads in Ireland. Despite the considerably slower speeds, the Passat only did about 50 mpg.

This just proves my point about how stupid it is to buy a small engined version of a car like a Mondeo or Passat. It also shows how silly the EU tests are, because the Passat was claimed to do 66 mpg, whereas the Mondeo was claimed to do 58. Despite a claimed 8 mpg difference, the real world difference was just 5 in my hands, and that was driving a far higher speeds, so if I'd driven the Mondeo at the same speeds I'd driven the VW at, no doubt that 5 mpg difference would have been at worst no difference, and at best the Mondeo would have done 3-4 mpg more easily.

The 140 PS Mondeo is a LOT faster than a 105 PS Passat unsurprisingly, but it's certainly no rocket. There's not a lot of difference performance wise between it and a Mk2 Avensis 1.8 petrol, unless you're a die hard diesel fan and/or are unable to use a petrol engine properly and give it some revs. It's fustratingly slow pulling away in first gear, but once up to speed it moves quite nicely.

Otherwise, the Mondeo is a superb car, the steering is nicer than the Passat's and the pedals and controls are so beautifully weighted. I have to admit I thought it would drive better than it did, though. This morning I got to take it through some very twisty roads, which I was dying to do because of the Mondeo's reputation for being the best car in its class to drive by some margin. I was ever so slightly disappointed by it actually. Don't get me wrong it does drive very well, it's so agile for something so big, the handling is really good for such a big FWD car and it did put a grin on my face, but I was hoping for more feedback through the steering wheel. I was expecting more steering feel I guess. It doesn't feel artifical and numb the way a Passat or Avensis does, but it doesn't weigh up as much as I thought it would, and the difference in steering feel is less than I thought/hoped it would be. Apart from that it definitely deserves its reputation for being the family car of choice for the keen driver.

PS: petrols are still better:D

Autocar actually managed better overall mpg from their 2 litre test Passat than from their 1.6 test Passat. So yes, no point in going for the puny engine!
The Mazda 6 (old one, haven't driven latest yet) is a better handling car than the Mondeo, although the Ford steering is a little better. I'd sooner the 6 though.

Sobanek

keithclancy wrote: »

What are they putting in Irish diesel

8.09 liters/100km is very bad though, I wouldn't have a light foot either.

I'd change out the filters, check the tyre pressure and do a check for fault codes on the ECU anyway.

For normal driving 6.2/100 would even say to me that something is wrong.

The car when it was only 16 months old would do 6.3l/100km, so I'm guessing it's just the way we drive or the fact it doesn't have DPF installed as standard or the fact we drive with air con on all the time.

It was a huge step up from 10l/100km in the 1.6 Golf anyway so we never complained.

//edit: Actually most people on spiritmonitor report 6.2 - 6.8 l/100km, so we're good there.

http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/479596.html

You can see how air con affects the mileage.

keithclancy

Sobanek wrote: »

The car when it was only 16 months old would do 6.3l/100km, so I'm guessing it's just the way we drive or the fact it doesn't have DPF installed as standard or the fact we drive with air con on all the time.

It was a huge step up from 10l/100km in the 1.6 Golf anyway so we never complained.

//edit: Actually most people on spiritmonitor report 6.2 - 6.8 l/100km, so we're good there.

http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/479596.html

You can see how air con affects the mileage.

I also leave the Aircon on all the time, its recommended in the manual.

The 2005 model doesn't have a DPF.

Bizarre, I have 321,000km on the clock now, I think if I was getting the economy you are I would consider getting rid of the car, that ads up when driving 45000km/year

Leonard Hofstadter

Jesus. wrote: »

Not really though mate. You're getting 5 mpg less on Motorway with the Mondy vs regional roads Passat.

Erm that is the point. The Mondeo is supposed to do 8 mpg less, but only did 5 mpg less, and that was despite the fact that I drove it a lot faster. Had I driven it slower it would of course have used less fuel - there is no way a Mondeo could use more fuel at 120 kph than at 130-135 for example.

Anyway, the only thing that really let the Mondeo down was the fact that it had the wrong engine. Diesels really do suck:D.

spank_inferno

Its about choice.

No point complaining about the 1.6tdi unit when the 2ltr is available with power outputs ranging from 110ps to 184ps.

It suits some people & is a competent enough engine when matched to a lighter car.

I don't get the hate?
Dont like it? Then don't get it.

Jesus.

captainspeed wrote: »

Erm that is the point. The Mondeo is supposed to do 8 mpg less, but only did 5 mpg less, and that was despite the fact that I drove it a lot faster. Had I driven it slower it would of course have used less fuel - there is no way a Mondeo could use more fuel at 120 kph than at 130-135 for example.

No but it wouldn't go as far either! Motorway driving would in almost all cases be more economical than regional road driving.

But we're splitting hairs here. I totally agree with your overall point regarding little engines in large cars.

Anyway, the only thing that really let the Mondeo down was the fact that it had the wrong engine. Diesels really do suck

Funnily enough, I'm one of the few with the opposite opinion there. Myself and Dr Fuzzenstein seem to be the only ones who prefer to drive diesels! I have a petrol car but I do prefer diesels, I must admit.

Very good thread mate with some excellent points.

Tea 1000

Jesus. wrote: »

No but it wouldn't go as far either! Motorway driving would in almost all cases be more economical than regional road driving.

But we're splitting hairs here. I totally agree with your overall point regarding little engines in large cars.



Funnily enough, I'm one of the few with the opposite opinion there. Myself and Dr Fuzzenstein seem to be the only ones who prefer to drive diesels! I have a petrol car but I do prefer diesels, I must admit.

Very good thread mate with some excellent points.

What is your petrol car though? That'll be quite telling!

MuppetCheck

captainspeed wrote: »

Erm that is the point. The Mondeo is supposed to do 8 mpg less, but only did 5 mpg less, and that was despite the fact that I drove it a lot faster. Had I driven it slower it would of course have used less fuel - there is no way a Mondeo could use more fuel at 120 kph than at 130-135 for example.

Anyway, the only thing that really let the Mondeo down was the fact that it had the wrong engine. Diesels really do suck:D.

Depends on the gearing. Same drive to work with cruise on at 120 gets me about 44 over a tank. Do it at about 128-130 and I get 47 to a tank. Thought I was going mad but this has proven to be the case over many, many tanks.

And if you drive a 2 145bhp litre petrol back to back with the 2 140bhp litre diesel I can bet you it's the diesel that's the better car to drive. I drive a diesel and it does kill you a little inside when you start it (especially a cold morning like this) but saying they suck is utter bollox. Much more effortless compared to their N/A petrol equivalents in a range.

Jesus.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

What is your petrol car though? That'll be quite telling!

Na mate, I'm not talking about one car, I'm talking about my whole motoring life. I've always preferred diesels and the way they drive. I like the low-end torque and the fact that you can drive them without them even breaking sweat. Its just a personal preference. I know most guys seem to like revving a car pretty hard and they can't get that in a diesel. I'm the opposite. I like effortless movement

(Disclaimer: So as not to open up another petrol vs diesel can of worms, I'm talking specifically about average bog-standard motors and yes I know you can get petrol cars with lots of torque. Its quite simply that there are, believe it or not, some people who prefer to drive diesels over petrols.)

Dartz

Jesus. wrote: »

A Laguna 1 or 2? Which engine? Cos you have to strangle the 1.6 like an unwanted child too :P

Laguna 2, '02, 1.8

Was a fine engine for the car. Like a sofa.

lomb

Ive driven the 1.6 B7 recently, have a 08 2l common rail non dpf 140 B6 that I bought for brother.
To say the 1.6 is disappointing even in a new model is an understatement. Fuel economy is irrelevant . The difference between 5 or 10mpg is irelevent when it comes to running costs. I cannot describe how much better the older 2l car is. I wouldn't drive the 1.6 if you paid me and that's the truth. I also test drove the 2l Passat CC which again was a great car.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Jesus. wrote: »

No but it wouldn't go as far either! Motorway driving would in almost all cases be more economical than regional road driving.

But we're splitting hairs here. I totally agree with your overall point regarding little engines in large cars.



Funnily enough, I'm one of the few with the opposite opinion there. Myself and Dr Fuzzenstein seem to be the only ones who prefer to drive diesels! I have a petrol car but I do prefer diesels, I must admit.

Very good thread mate with some excellent points.

You can add me to that list too...(for the most part anyway)

R.O.R

The 1.6 diesels in the Passat / Mondeo size vehicles are incredibly fuel effecient, up to around 100 - 110 km/h, but drop of dramatically after that. The larger 2.0Tdi models aren't as effecient as the smaller block at those speeds, but much better when you tip over 110.

I had a 508 1.6Hdi a few months ago. Average consumption on the way home (M50/M1 - lucky to get over 100km/h on any stretch and it's all steady speed), and the OBD told me that my economy for that journey was 4.1 L/100km - distance to empty just kept going up. Left the office with 700km to empty, arrived home (62km) with over 1,000km to empty!

Following day, took it to Cork early in the morning, so managed to do an average speed of a bit more than 110 km/h, which shot the economy up to 5.9 l/100km.

I had a Passat 1.6Tdi for a week when they first came out, and managed an average of 4.5L/100km (to and from work), then had a Superb 2.0Tdi 170ps (when the emissions on that were 159g) the following week - managed an average of 4.3L/100km on that which was the same to/from work journey, but also a higher speed blast to Portlaoise over a weekend.

What's best very much depends on what it's used for.

Jesus.

Dartz wrote: »

Laguna 2, '02, 1.8 Was a fine engine for the car. Like a sofa.

The 1.8 sounds a bit better at least than the 1.6. That one's severely under powered.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

You can add me to that list too...(for the most part anyway)

Would you have a V8 daysul in your Sierra? :P

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Jesus. wrote: »

The 1.8 sounds a bit better at least than the 1.6. That one's severely under powered.



Would you have a V8 daysul in your Sierra? :P

Not in the sierra but I have a diesel beetle conversion on my to do wishlist.
Swap out the puny engine and put in an IDI v8 diesel, preferably the big block non turbo one - 7.3 liters and 180 bhp :P


I'm also in the market for an older ('80s) GM/Dodge/Ford diesel pickup.

Jesus.

R.O.R wrote: »

The 1.6 diesels in the Passat / Mondeo size vehicles are incredibly fuel effecient, up to around 100 - 110 km/h, but drop of dramatically after that. The larger 2.0Tdi models aren't as effecient as the smaller block at those speeds, but much better when you tip over 110.I had a 508 1.6Hdi a few months ago. Average consumption on the way home (M50/M1 - lucky to get over 100km/h on any stretch and it's all steady speed), and the OBD told me that my economy for that journey was 4.1 L/100km - distance to empty just kept going up. Left the office with 700km to empty, arrived home (62km) with over 1,000km to empty!Following day, took it to Cork early in the morning, so managed to do an average speed of a bit more than 110 km/h, which shot the economy up to 5.9 l/100km. I had a Passat 1.6Tdi for a week when they first came out, and managed an average of 4.5L/100km (to and from work), then had a Superb 2.0Tdi 170ps (when the emissions on that were 159g) the following week - managed an average of 4.3L/100km on that which was the same to/from work journey, but also a higher speed blast to Portlaoise over a weekend.What's best very much depends on what it's used for.

ROR, I don't want to be a pedant but to be honest, you don't know what you managed without actually brimming it and calculating it. There's a thread about those OBC's and how inaccurate they are.

Speaking of checking the mpg when on the M50/M1 with those things, one night I was tipping along at 60 and reset it and it said 3.7L/100km and only increased slightly for the next ten minutes to 4.0 L. I then reset it again, doing exactly the same speed and now apparently I was returning 5.7L! It eventually leveled off to 5.2. The reasons for the wild discrepancies on the same road at the same speed, as far as I can tell, were that immediately prior to the first reset I was going down a very slight gradient and the second time I wasn't. Either way its irrelevant as they both should have averaged themselves out pretty quickly. (And yes the car was warm when I tried this )

I'm not having a go at these OBC's but they're there as a very rough guide alone and even at that they can be of little use. The problem with them is when people start claiming their MPG from them as fact when ofttimes nothing could be further from the truth.

No disrespect ROR

Jesus.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Not in the sierra but I have a diesel beetle conversion on my to do wishlist.Swap out the puny engine and put in an IDI v8 diesel, preferably the big block non turbo one - 7.3 liters and 180 bhp :P

Am I reading you right? You're gonna chuck a 7.3 V8 into a VW Beetle!

LOVE IT! :pac::pac::pac:

I'm also in the market for an older ('80s) GM/Dodge/Ford diesel pickup.

Did they do diesel Pickups in the States in that era?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Jesus. wrote: »

Am I reading you right? You're gonna chuck a 7.3 V8 into a VW Beetle!

LOVE IT! :pac::pac::pac:



Did they do diesel Pickups in the States in that era?

I'd love to do it but tis on the very long finger at the moment.
When I move house to a place with a garage it will be easier.

They did diesels from the early 80's at least, mostly 6 cylinders but ford had a v8 diesel from '83 AFAIR

R.O.R

Jesus. wrote: »

ROR, I don't want to be a pedant but to be honest, you don't know what you managed without actually brimming it and calculating it. There's a thread about those OBC's and how inaccurate they are.

Speaking of checking the mpg when on the M50/M1 with those things, one night I was tipping along at 60 and reset it and it said 3.7L/100km and only increased slightly for the next ten minutes to 4.0 L. I then reset it again, doing exactly the same speed and now apparently I was returning 5.7L! It eventually leveled off to 5.2. The reasons for the wild discrepancies on the same road at the same speed, as far as I can tell, were that immediately prior to the first reset I was going down a very slight gradient and the second time I wasn't. Either way its irrelevant as they both should have averaged themselves out pretty quickly. (And yes the car was warm when I tried this )

I'm not having a go at these OBC's but they're there as a very rough guide alone and even at that they can be of little use. The problem with them is when people start claiming their MPG from them as fact when ofttimes nothing could be further from the truth.

No disrespect ROR

Strangely, I've checked various OBC's against brim to brim calculations, and never found any major discrepancy. That's various manufacturer's, various models, and various engines, both brand spanking new and well run in.

I'm happy enough that the figures given by the OBC is close enough to real life consumption (as measured by the fuelly app and via my own excel calculations), that I will continue to use them.

Zubeneschamali

R.O.R wrote: »

Strangely, I've checked various OBC's against brim to brim calculations, and never found any major discrepancy.

Jesus is talking about resetting the fuel computer and looking at the more-or-less instant figure it generates. This is fun to watch as the figure flies up and down as you accelerate or descend a hill, but it means little.

Jesus.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Jesus is talking about resetting the fuel computer and looking at the more-or-less instant figure it generates. This is fun to watch as the figure flies up and down as you accelerate or descend a hill, but it means little.

Correct. In another example, using my own car this time (the other example was in the missus' car), the other day I was doing 60 on the M1 between the Airport and Whitehall and I reset it. It claimed I was at that point returning 74.5 mpg. The next day in the same area, at the exact same speed, I reset and it claimed I was returning 41!! Again, I left the trip Com for a good few minutes to allow it average itself out but it did so only marginally until I hit traffic at Whitehall. There's no way to reconcile such crazy disparities when the conditions are identical.

Over the whole tank its different, ROR. I'm not referring to that although there was a debate on here the other day as to why every trip Com on earth overestimates in those circumstances as well, as opposed to sometimes underestimating and sometimes overestimating.

Chimaera

The onboard fuel economy readouts can be quite a long way off what's actually happening really, but on any given vehicle they're pretty consistent so after 10 or so tanks you can calibrate them pretty well. This is easiest to do if your car has a long-term average readout (I know VAG do). Reset this when you brim the tank, and note down the value when you brim the tank next time. After a few tanks, you can plot the OBC value against the real value and work out the variation.

The instant readout is usually based on data collected during a short time or distance interval - VAG use the last 30 m driven. This is going to vary depending on driving conditions and style even for similar road conditions. Even a headwind will make a difference. If you're not applying the accelerator pedal, modern fuel injected cars will actually shut off the fuel completely and let the car's momentum turn the engine over so you'll see fuel consumption of 0 or economy of infinity