Experience of Volkswagen Passat Bluemotion 1.6 TDI ?

sasol

I am currently on the lookout to upgrade my car. My budget is €10K to €11K. (Cash. Will sell current car privately)

I am looking to get an economical diesel car. I have been looking on various sites to see what is out there and I have been considering the Volkswagen Passat Bluemotion 1.6 TDI such as this

http://www.pmccreeshmotors.co.uk/car/500047/2009-volkswagen-passat-bluemotion-1-6-tdi-30-tax-armagh/


Does anyone have experience of this type of car and what do you think ? Is there anything a buyer of a 1.6 bluemotion should be aware of ?

I am not looking for something that is very powerful, but I would obviously like to be able to drive in comfort and comfortably overtake when necessary - Is the 1.6 engine too small for a car this size ?

Some garages say that you could get up to 60mpg for this type of car - is that to be believed ? Probably not I guess,so what would be a realistic value. Most of my driving will be on country roads and journies in the region of 50 to 60 miles. I will be doing very little city or town driving.

Any feedback or advice would be appreciated !

Is that not a lot to spend on a car with 80 odd K miles on the clock, after you add vrt that is ?

12.5 seconds 0-100, I couldn't cope with that. Even my MK II Prius is 2.5 seconds faster. Oh I know power isn't everything but i just couldn't live with having to drive the crap out of a big car with a weak engine, it's frustrating.

The 2.0L 140 ps would be a far better engine for that car. Even the old 1.9 130 did better in the old B 5.5 - 5.6 Passat.

Here is one quote from a what car (owner)

Quote

Bad points: Loads of rattles within the car, mainly dash and from the doors. Couple of whacks to the dash or doors would normally sort them out. Interior finish not as good as an A4. Reliability is so so. Had an engine management failure whilst on the M3 that caused the engine to go into safe mode (30mph) whilst in the outside lane. Scared the life out of me and also the cars behind! No issue, was resolved with a software update by VW. Couple other electric failures which have been covered under warranty. The main issue for me was the awful 1.6tdi engine. 0-60 in over 12 seconds, awful in this day and age. Car would struggle to overtake in 5th or 6th gear, and would also struggle up minor hills in second gear and advise you to drop into 1st! Because the engine is so weak, fuel economy is very, very poor as you have to drive the car hard in lower gears. Urge everyone to get the 2.0tdi if possible, as the 1.6tdi will frustrate keen drivers.

Now driving a VW CC 2.0tdi 140 that averages 55mpg. That's economy you expect from a Tdi Bluemotion engi.

End Quote.

In fact some owners are getting as much mpg in the petrols.

The NEDC Test is a complete farce, but it's there to make C02 figures and fuel consumption much lower than in real life, and the car buyer gets screwed.

In the U.S Ford was sued for lying about fuel consumption and Ford had to send cheques out to owners, this was for their hybrid cars, people power in the U.S works wonders, we need to do this in the E.U.

sasol

Thanks for reply.

VRT is about €2100. So in total , it would be costing in the region of €10,600 altogether. I would have thought that was reasonable for a 4 year old Passat, but perhaps not when the mileage is taken into account.

I am geting about 35 mpg out of my current 1.8 petrol and the tax is €696, so I want to move to something that is far more economical before it breaks me.


I have also been looking at Mondeo's such as

http://www.usedcarsni.com/112591957

This one is about €9200 when VRT is taken into account.

The reason I was veering towards Passat is because of fuel economy and better resale value.

@120-130

I think the 1.8 125 hp engine in the Mondeo is also underpowered but you could get a remap, not a tuning box but a proper remap and get maybe 150 odd hp out of the mondeo.

It won't be very fuel efficient though either, I'd say 40-45 odd mpg from the Mondeo judging by owner reviews.

I think at the end of the day the only way to save money is to keep driving what you have, the difference between 35 and 45 mpg is only about 3 kms per litre. You'd want to be doing a fair few miles to make it worth while.

See fuel economy is only part of the equation, there is depreciation, that can be more than fuel consumption in some cases. Even considering the road tax, you really need to sit down and work it out, if you (want) a new car, then this is different, but we don't buy cars to save money really at the end of the day.

I know some people hate me mentioning the Prius but I get 60-64 mpg, it takes time, it's not a normal car. My GF drives it now mostly motorway @120-130 kph averages 53 mpg per tank, she doesn't even try to drive fuel efficient and has no interest in hybrid driving tips. So I assume that 53 mpg is the worst case in the Prius MK II.

Now if you have LPG station close bye then at 80C/L and convert the Prius MK II, it works out at around 83 mpg in a normal car.

Something to think about, but the Prius isn't everyone's cup of tea but it is one of the most reliable cars on the road in the world and has only 1 belt for the water pump, the MK III has 0 belts.

Anyway, if I were personally to buy a Passat it would have to be the 170 ps as they are worth a small premium as it's an engine suitable for a car that size, the 140 hp would be the absolute minimum, you could also get a remap.

While herself has the Prius I drive the CRV, it's a 2000 with 130k Miles, in absolutely perfect condition, great engine, lots of torque low down and great power come 5.5k revs pulls like a train to over take and sounds great. Cost of 1700 Euro's. Tax 700 Euro's. I could convert to LPG and it would be as cheap to run as a 60 mpg diesel. If I wanted to if I needed it to commute. I wouldn't have to take out a loan for a 50 mpg "diesel". I'm just gone off diesel today, I'm not sure I could go back.

FrontDoor

You could get a 2010 for that money in England.

That engine is fine for that car and will pull it along without any problems. It won't win any races, but is fine for overtaking, etc.

I would strongly advise a good test drive because I couldn't imagine a slower car than the Prius.

Certainly not 2.5 seconds slower.

reilig

We've a Jetta with the same engine. About similar miles. Never had a reliability issue. Ample power in the 1.6 - unless you are going drag racing. Plenty of poke for passing out. Good solid car on the motorway with low noise. Driving a diesel car is a totally different experience to a petrol. You drive differently - accellerate at different times and coast at other times. You get used to it after a day or 2.

Savage fuel economy. 60mpg is achievable.

Timing belt to be done every 60k miles. Make sure it has been done. Cost approx €350 in an indy garage for us.

Jesus.

sasol wrote: »

Is the 1.6 engine too small for a car this size?

Deleted User wrote: »

12.5 seconds 0-100

There's you're answer to that one mate

MidlandsM

I sold a good few bluemotion passats over the last 2 years........decent saloons, but can be spartan inside.

engine wise, well make sure the cluch and flywheel is good otherwise you'll be in for a big bill..........and the t belt as said.

for one out of the uk, I'd want one with a full vw service history......period.

otherwise, decent cars ............you could buy a lot , lot worse.

sasol

MidlandsM wrote: »

I sold a good few bluemotion passats over the last 2 years........decent saloons, but can be spartan inside.

engine wise, well make sure the cluch and flywheel is good otherwise you'll be in for a big bill..........and the t belt as said.

otherwise, decent cars ............you could buy a lot , lot worse.

Thanks.

Have you sold many Volkswagen Passats 2.0 BlueMotion 2 TDI CR DPF 110 ? Much of a difference in power compared to the 1.6 bluemotion ? or much of a difference in the MPG ?

MidlandsM

sasol wrote: »

Thanks.

Have you sold many Volkswagen Passats 2.0 BlueMotion 2 TDI CR DPF 110 ? Much of a difference in power compared to the 1.6 bluemotion ? or much of a difference in the MPG ?

yes, but i prefer to buy, stock and sell 1.9tdi vw's in golfs and passats, better engine and people know it and prefer to buy them,. and easier sell for me basically.

power wise, yes, the 2.0 has more torque and horses, but the 1.6 bluemotion is ok, adequate for many peoples needs.

pm me if you want a quote on one, I can source you one from the uk and undoubtably save you many $$$$$$$$$$$$ :pac:

I certainly wouldn't settle for "adequate" If price is a concern then that's a different matter but then I'd buy a Golf as it wouldn't feel so slow.

This is something you'll be living with for a few years and if you make a wrong decision you're stuck with it.

One way to know is to take one on a proper test drive and if a sales man won't give you that then I'd tell them to get lost. I wouldn't ever just settle with a spin around town at 30-40 mph.

If you're happy with it then that's all that matters but you won't know until you take it for a proper test drive.

Leonard Hofstadter

I drove one of these for over 1000 km last weekend. The engine is simply too underpowered for that size of car. It's also a lot less economical than one might expect too - I got just 50 mpg on open road driving and i would have expected a similar size petrol to do around 38 or 39 in similar circumstances. I reckon the 2.0 140 would be more economical in the real world.

MidlandsM

Deleted User wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't settle for "adequate" .

agreed.

but thats you, but you're not buying the car. It's adequate for many.

(its not for me either;))

rocky

reilig wrote: »

We've a Jetta with the same engine. About similar miles. Never had a reliability issue. Ample power in the 1.6 - unless you are going drag racing. Plenty of poke for passing out. Good solid car on the motorway with low noise. Driving a diesel car is a totally different experience to a petrol. You drive differently - accellerate at different times and coast at other times. You get used to it after a day or 2.

I was in Germany 2 weeks ago and in a taxi Touran 1.6 104 ps 7 speed dsg.

Have to say I was not impressed with the Engine, it was noticeably smoother and quieter than the PD's but it did feel strained when he drove it on a bit.

It had a bit of torque and you could feel a bit of a shove at up to 40 mph after that it didn't feel of anything.

The Touran was nice though and very good quality inside, you can't beat German cars to sit in, the non poverty spec ones that is. It was a very solid well built car.

Jesus.

Deleted User wrote: »

Even my Prius is 2.5 seconds faster.

If the OP is still even considering the 1.6 after hearing the above, he's a sandwich short the picnic basket.

That small sentence would awaken any car lover in the middle of the night in cold sweats. :eek:

Jesus.

Jesus. wrote: »

If the OP is still even considering the 1.6 after hearing the above, he's a sandwich short the picnic basket.

That small sentence would awaken any car lover in the middle of the night in cold sweats. :eek:

LOL well It's up to him at the end of the day, but he really needs to drive it first and not just in town at 30 mph. If he's happy with it then fine, but I couldn't imagine being happy in a 12.5 something 0-100 car. I'd rather buy a punto and save a fortune, at least you expect a Punto to be slow.

To put that into perspective a 90 hp 1.3 multijet Grande Punto is half a second faster !

MuppetCheck

Deleted User wrote: »

LOL well It's up to him at the end of the day, but he really needs to drive it first and not just in town at 30 mph. If he's happy with it then fine, but I couldn't imagine being happy in a 12.5 something 0-100 car. I'd rather buy a punto and save a fortune, at least you expect a Punto to be slow.

To put that into perspective a 90 hp 1.3 multijet Grande Punto is half a second faster !

Since when is 0-60 a measure of real world performance? Does everyone gun their car from a standstill? Mid range is a better measure of performance. Not that I'd imagine it's anything special in that regard but I've driven cars with slower 0-60 times that have been better than the quoted times would suggest.

Leonard Hofstadter

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Since when is 0-60 a measure of real world performance? Does everyone gun their car from a standstill? Mid range is a better measure of performance. Not that I'd imagine it's anything special in that regard but I've driven cars with slower 0-60 times that have been better than the quoted times would suggest.

Of course nobody guns their car from 0-100, but that is in a way missing the point. It's as good a measure as any of what kind of performance the car is going to give. And in the case of the Passat, the 12.5 second 0-100 time is indicative of its jack of performance. It is too slow and not economical for a diesel, a larger engined one would be a lot quicker and would use less fuel for good measure.

MuppetCheck

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Since when is 0-60 a measure of real world performance? Does everyone gun their car from a standstill? Mid range is a better measure of performance. Not that I'd imagine it's anything special in that regard but I've driven cars with slower 0-60 times that have been better than the quoted times would suggest.

I need to gun it to get out of a side road onto the main road, not all the time but when it's busy I really need to step on it.

George Dalton

captainspeed wrote: »

Of course nobody guns their car from 0-100, but that is in a way missing the point. It's as good a measure as any of what kind of performance the car is going to give.

No it isn't, for the simple reason that under normal conditions it will never do a 0-100 sprint. It will however accelerate from 50-80 in 4th gear, or 80-100 in 5th or similar on a daily basis so surely that is a better measure to base your decision on?

captainspeed wrote: »

For all I care, it could take four seconds to do the sprint, but truth is that a 1.6 TDI Passat is too slow and not economical for a diesel, a larger engined one would be a lot quicker and would use less fuel for good measure.

For some drivers yes, people who are used to or like a car with decent power will end up thrashing the 1.6TDI a bit which will hurt economy. But for most Irish drivers a 1.6TDI is perfectly adequate and will return very good MPG. I wouldn't drive one myself but that doesn't make them a bad car.

MuppetCheck

captainspeed wrote: »

Of course nobody guns their car from 0-100, but that is in a way missing the point. It's as good a measure as any of what kind of performance the car is going to give. For all I care, it could take four seconds to do the sprint, but truth is that a 1.6 TDI Passat is too slow and not economical for a diesel, a larger engined one would be a lot quicker and would use less fuel for good measure.

I'm not missing his point though - he's banging on about 0-60s in this thread and I was responding to that.

And I wouldn't be so sure about that economy assumption either. From owning a 2 litre common rail vag in a lighter car it is tough to average 50mpg from a tank. If you were driving with economy in mind the 1.6 would probably be more economical than the 2 litre, if driven on a bit the 2 litre would be less stressed. What sort of economy figures were you expecting from it? And what load did the car have in terms of passengers and luggage?

Jesus.

George Dalton wrote: »

No it isn't, for the simple reason that under normal conditions it will never do a 0-100 sprint. It will however accelerate from 50-80 in 4th gear, or 80-100 in 5th or similar on a daily basis so surely that is a better measure to base your decision on?

Which would undoubtedly be gutless as well.

For some drivers yes, people who are used to or like a car with decent power will end up thrashing the 1.6TDI a bit which will hurt economy. But for most Irish drivers a 1.6TDI is perfectly adequate and will return very good MPG. I wouldn't drive one myself but that doesn't make them a bad car.

I'm sorry George but I just don't know how on earth someone, having spent a small fortune on a lovely car like that, would be satisfied with such a puny engine. It would make the entire purchase a total waste in my opinion.

Fair enough if you were spending a grand on a run-around Corsa or something. But a bloody Passat!!!

I know this phrase is used a lot on here but I think its very applicable here:

Only in Ireland.

George Dalton

Jesus. wrote: »

Which would undoubtedly be gutless as well.



I'm sorry George but I just don't know how on earth someone, having spent a small fortune on a lovely car like that, would be satisfied with such a puny engine. It would make the entire purchase a total waste in my opinion.

Fair enough if you were spending a grand on a run-around Corsa or something.

But a bloody Passat!!!

Have you seen the way the average motorist drives?

The majority of them would be actually frightened by something with a bit of power :pac:

Sure George, for someone who doesn't care about power and more about the badge or just comfort, then I'm sure the 1.6 TDI is fine. But the OP should really take it on a good test first. He did say he'd like to,be able to over take and for comfort so one would assume the 1.6 is not powerful enough.

Jesus.

George Dalton wrote: »

Have you seen the way the average motorist drives?The majority of them would be actually frightened by something with a bit of power :pac:

True but then there's a bit of power and something so wheezy that its more of a danger on the road than anything else.

I just think that 12.5 second time is dreadful for a VW Passat. Truly and unutterably pathetic.

It depresses me George.

George Dalton

Deleted User wrote: »

He didn't say he couldn't care about power so you would assume that the 1.6 would not be powerful enough.

Based on my experience I would assume the opposite. Most people who don't mention power aren't concerned one way or another about it. If someone wants something with a bit of power they will mention it specifically.

George Dalton

Jesus. wrote: »

True but then there's a bit of power and something so wheezy that its more of a danger on the road than anything else.

They are absolutely nowhere near being that bad. To suggest they are slow enough to be a danger on the road is just not true.

You don't hear anybody complaining about the old 1.9TDI 105bhp Passats, and the 1.6 TDI 105bhp version performs similarly. It is also a lot quieter, smoother and more economical than the old PD unit.

Bpmull

Jesus. wrote: »

True but then there's a bit of power and something so wheezy that its more of a danger on the road than anything else.

I just think that 12.5 second time is dreadful for a VW Passat. Truly and unutterably pathetic.

It depresses me George.

The 1.6tdi is not anywhere near as bad as some are making it out to be. I know our octavia is abit lighter than the passat but 1.6 is perfectly adequate in it. It accelerates fine. The only place where you may find it slightly underpowered is overtaking but if you drop a gear and floor it it will move. I drove our one for a good six months and never thought it was severely underpowered or that the engine was struggling to move the car. Our one has done 63mpg on long runs and does 55mpg tipping around.

Jesus.

Bpmull wrote: »

The 1.6tdi is not anywhere near as bad as some are making it out to be. I know our octavia is abit lighter than the passat but 1.6 is perfectly adequate in it. It accelerates fine. The only place where you may find it slightly underpowered is overtaking but if you drop a gear and floor it it will move. I drove our one for a good six months and never thought it was severely underpowered or that the engine was struggling to move the car. Our one has done 63mpg on long runs and does 55mpg tipping around.

BP, my sister has a 1.6 TDI Octy and I have to admit, its not too bad. Going up another class into a mid-sizer/large family car though would hinder it somewhat I'd say.

I checked Youtube there and they seem to be more around the 10 second mark which wouldn't be too bad to be fair:

Old diesel

Jesus. wrote: »

Which would undoubtedly be gutless as well.



I'm sorry George but I just don't know how on earth someone, having spent a small fortune on a lovely car like that, would be satisfied with such a puny engine. It would make the entire purchase a total waste in my opinion.

Fair enough if you were spending a grand on a run-around Corsa or something. But a bloody Passat!!!

I know this phrase is used a lot on here but I think its very applicable here:

Only in Ireland.

To be honest George is right in that for most Irish drivers that engine will be perfectly fine - look at all the 1.4 Ford Focus Mk 2s that are around in pre 08 form.

Irish drivers like small engines in a big body .

However I actually have the same mindset as you Jesus - as to be honest I too can't figure out why if your going for a Passat - why you wouldn't go 2 litre with all the toys.

My own preference on a Passat would be a UK spec 1.8 TSI with leather and other toys like climate, normal suspension and sensible wheel size.

Sometimes I think of someone who bought an 08 Auris 1.4 diesel brand new for 20 grand and think - if they had that much money to waste on such a dull car - they should have just given it away to charity the money I mean.

But to be honest that's their choice and I have to respect that no matter how much I really can't understand it.

I would suggest however to the OP - that he or she should take a 2.0 TDI Passat out for a run - and see what they think.

R.O.R

Old diesel wrote: »

My own preference on a Passat would be a UK spec 1.8 TSI with leather and other toys like climate, normal suspension and sensible wheel size.

Why would you go for a UK spec car then, if you want climate?

Old diesel

R.O.R wrote: »

Why would you go for a UK spec car then, if you want climate?

I mean Uk spec in that I imagine they never did the 1.8 TSI in Ireland - or if they did (unlikely) they won't have sold hardly any.

Its all academic anyway since I wouldn't have the funds for such a car now anyhow .

Was just saying my preferred spec on a B6/B7 Passat

R.O.R

Old diesel wrote: »

I mean Uk spec in that I imagine they never did the 1.8 TSI in Ireland - or if they did (unlikely) they won't have sold hardly any.

Its all academic anyway since I wouldn't have the funds for such a car now anyhow .

Was just saying my preferred spec on a B6/B7 Passat

What you really want then is an Irish Highline. They did sell the 1.8TSi here, but not in any great numbers.

Irish Highlines in the B6 had Climate and leather Sports seats. UK Highlines had manual (climactic) A/C and horrible, retro fitted, saggy leather, over the standard Comfortline seats.

Jesus.

Old diesel wrote: »

I actually have the same mindset as you Jesus.

That's a strong statement for a mere mortal

Truckermal

R.O.R wrote: »

What you really want then is an Irish Highline. They did sell the 1.8TSi here, but not in any great numbers.

Irish Highlines in the B6 had Climate and leather Sports seats. UK Highlines had manual (climactic) A/C and horrible, retro fitted, saggy leather, over the standard Comfortline seats.

Actually the last of the B6 Highlines (2010) were very well specced. Most of the UK Passats have awful spec unless its a SEL model.

sasol

Thanks folks for the replies.

The general consenus is that I should take the 2.0 and 1.6 for a test drive, which I am going to do.

tbh, the 0-100kph time or the 'toys/extras' are well down my priority list. I am just looking for a reliable diesel car that is very fuel efficient and cheap to run.

I am also going to have a look at the Modeo, Insignia and Avensis. My budget is 10K (could stretch it to 11K max), so I think the UK is my only option to get a 09 or 10 car for this price

Yeah definitely take them both for a good test drive, not just 50-60 kph town driving. If you're happy with the 1.6 then that's all that matters.

Wasn't the facelift Passat out in 2010 ?

I would say that the 1.6 has the potential to be the most economical provided you as with most diesels keep the revs down and change up early, it would mean progress is slow as hell and most people are probably not willing to drive like that and driving it inefficiently to get it going making the more powerful 140 hp engine more economical in the long run.

If you're doing shorter trips then the 1.6 in town might be more efficient than the 2.0L. Things like start stop make a difference.

I would imagine you'll see anything from 40-50 mpg in the passat, big difference but it's a bit like my Girlfriend getting 53 mpg in the Prius and me getting 63.