putting in $50 a week (95) and doing 260km a week on this. seems not very economical or is this pretty standard for these!tiptronic, nana driver, long distance/open road.thanks :)
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 4:01pm
8.85 l/100km sounds pretty darn economical for one of those!
Mind you 2.0 with 2WD I guess thats probably average. Just be thankfull you don't have the Turbo 4WD version.
steph1211,
Nov 21, 4:07pm
your not going to get much better km out of any other car
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 4:19pm
I beg to differ! VW Golf 2.0 FSI will officially do 5.6 l/100km on the open road and I can do much better than that in one but it causes too much fuss when I post my figures! The newer ones again with just as much power are even more economical again.
A smaller but cheap ($3500) Punto 1.2 8V will officially do 4.4l/100km on the open road and there is a nutter on youtube showing his trip computer with 3.5l/100km over a trip.
vtecintegra,
Nov 21, 4:19pm
Is it the six cylinder! Sounds about right.
The later 1.8 four should be a bit better if running properly
vtecintegra,
Nov 21, 4:26pm
Those Euro figures are bollocks though.
IIRC the GDI versions of the Mitsi Carisma were rated around that and its simply not achievable real world.
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 4:33pm
No its actually the Japanese figures that are bollocks but you raise a great point. Have a look at how the Japanese cars are tested vs the European cars. The Japs don't even take the cars up to highway speed and accelerate so slowly that if they did get to 100km/h it would take over half a minute to get there.
The result is its really hard to get the claimed economy figures out of a Jap car but easy to exceed the claimed figures from a Euro car.
As a result anyone can easily better the rated open road figure on the Golf.
vtecintegra,
Nov 21, 4:36pm
Actually both methodologies are equally flawed - in the case of the Carisma I'm pretty sure it gets better results from the EU regime
franc123,
Nov 21, 4:39pm
$50 worth of 95 is not a huge amount of litres is it!I would say what you are getting is about rightfor that model.
lugee,
Nov 21, 4:47pm
In exchange for 0-100km/h in 14 seconds.
richynuts,
Nov 21, 4:55pm
There is a big difference in a legnum and a punto on the open road, at least the legnum would be more comfortable and plenty of room for kids and luggage, the punto would only be enough room for a overnight bag.
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 4:58pm
You must have missed the part where I said "smaller but cheap"
The Golf is still super economical, more comfortable and safer than the Legnum and is larger than the Punto. If you need size a Diesel Passat/Skoda is even cheaper to run overall than the Petrol Golf and its bigger than the Legnum.
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 5:01pm
Quite true the 8V struggles with open road passing too. But a 16V will use only a fraction of a liter more and performs surprisingly well.
The Golf is considerably quicker than the legnum in question with 8.5 seconds to 100km/h.
richynuts,
Nov 21, 5:02pm
LOL though I would still rather pay another 6 cents per km for comfort, besides how can you say a golf is safer than a legnum, they both have abs and airbags don't they!
lugee,
Nov 21, 5:19pm
I've driven a Mk1 Punto 1.2 8V relatively extensively. Definately not a bad car for going to the dairy, but it leaves a lot to be wanted above 70km/h. No doubt the 16V helps and I did hear it was improved a lot in the Mk2.
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 5:29pm
LOL, Yes but the Golf has up to 12 of them. Then there is ebd, stability control, brake force assist, pre tensioners, some have active headrests too. oh and the better crash cell and crumple zones. its significantly safer.
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 5:32pm
I am talking MK2 in fairness. The Mk1 gives you a sore leg on long trips for starters.
I have done a lot of long trips in the 16 Valve CVT, its actually a lovely cruising car and the little engine is only doing 1950rpm at 100km/h on the flat. They are stable and relaxing to drive too, like a much larger car than they really are, but then they were designed to do 100mph all day on the Autobahn.
There is one catch though, that is road noise. You definitely need to fit quiet tyres and evenbetter some dynamat if you were to use it for long trips on a regular basis.
tup,
Nov 21, 5:55pm
Awesome. thanks so much.I was wondering if anything would be more economical but as you say $50 doesn't get many litres! :)it is the V6 model.thanks again. :)
tup,
Nov 21, 5:56pm
The road noise on this one is pretty bad but it has stupid 17" with low profiles. would going back to standard wheels make it more efficient or not!thanks again
craig04,
Nov 21, 5:56pm
They need them too, because the brakes will fail.
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 6:03pm
Yeah but the DSG transmission will have failed before you got up to any notable speed.
Just make sure you stay inside the vehicle while you ponder which of your children to sell to pay for the repairs.
At least that way the strong German roof will protect you when the sky falls.
craig04,
Nov 21, 6:09pm
I'm very proud of you. You finally get it! My work here is done.
thejazzpianoma,
Nov 21, 6:12pm
Darn it! This sarcastic agreement business works both ways!
craig04,
Nov 21, 6:14pm
As far as I can see, nobody was being sarcastic.
phillip.weston,
Nov 21, 6:36pm
To be fair you should be comparing the Galant/Legnum to the MkIII Golf, because they were both released at a similar era, granted the Galant/Legnum was a few years newer than the MkIII Golf, it is still 3+ years before the MkIV Golf and the MkV Golf with 12 air bags. Two air bags, ABS with four wheel vented discs and traction control was about the norm for safety features. All 8G Galant/Legnums came standard with dual air bags - my top of the range MkIII Golf VR6 didn't.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.