Volkswagen Touran 2.0 FSI 7 SEATER 2004

GO AND LOOK AT AN IPSUM!

LOOK AT THE 240S MODELS AND 24OU. AND COMPARE!

YOU ARE DOING YOURSELF AN INJUSTICE BY AT LEAST NOT LOOKING AND DRIVING THEM!

two of our friends have bought ipsums after seeing ours and driving an ipsum/mpv/odyssey

Yes, drive both (which is actually good advice) because clearly fordcrzy has not.

Just so you have some clarification. The Ipsum is very similar in size to the VW. I don't know what Ford is on about when he says its smaller. its fractionally wider and utilises its space better. It is about 20cm shorter but that dosn't translate to less interior space.

The Ipsumsuffers the same issues as the Estima, being that it still uses a 1980's technology gearbox which saps the engine of power. The result is in the real world it uses about 20% more fuel than the VW yet its slower than the VW. The difference in consumption is slightly less on paper but test them both and you will see what I mean.

Drive them both over the Kaimai's and the difference becomes huge, just like trying to ride a bycycle without enough gears the Ipsum chops down angrily trying to find the correct gear. Unfortunatelywith two less gears to choose from that correct gear often doesn't exist.

The VW by comparison sails up smoothly being able to keep nearly the ideal ratio and losing no momentum with its very smooth changes which are a result of it being able to have the next gear "pre-selected". This enables it to change literally quicker than you can blink.

While on the subject of gears, 4 vs 6 is a much bigger difference than you might think. Consider that a 4 speed can really only change down to 3rd on a hill without really revving its guts out on a change to 2nd.

A 6 speed can give you 5th 4th and 3rd without resorting to revving excessively.

On slight inclines the small change down to 5th can be done regularly and almost undetectably which gives a boost to economy and available power.

While we are on the subject of gearbox's, it sounds like you might have got lost on the "torque converter" terminology. With automatic gearboxs of old they don't have a "clutch as such" instead they have a fluid filled device called a "torque converter". The catch with this device is that it saps some power in order to operate (with the possible exception of cruising at open road speeds).

This is the primary reason why traditionally automatic cars use more fuel than manual cars. (the other reason is less gears and more weight vs a manual)

The VW uses a sneaky new system of two regular clutches. This means zero loss of power vs the torque converter. It also means less maintenance and quicker changes. That combined with their very fuel efficient engine is why none of the other similarly priced vehicles can match it for economy.

If the VW didn't exist the Ipsum would be a viable contender. The Ipsum also does not fail massively in any one area, its not a bad car. However compare it to the VW and it just fallsa little short right across the baord, i.e power, economy, handling, safety, smoothness etc.

When you add it all up the difference is quite apparent.
All the differences are quite quantifiable and the numbers are on the internet for anyone to see. Drive them both for a week and you won't need the numbers, the difference is quite noticeable.

Thanks for speaking in plain english, it helps a lot. Going over the Kaimai's is a good idea, but I'm yet to find a Touran, for sale, around here. But I'll keep that in mind. The Oddy goes down to 3rd, on Kaimai's. Same on Bombay's, on Hamilton side, on Auckland side stays in top at around 100K??

Aren't you confusing the diesel and petrols here!

Not sure as to what you mean!

Oddy's don't have diesels and I don't know about Volkswagen Touran'a

What smac means is the poster he quoted is not being particularly realistic with their fuel economy figures - that is what you'd expect out of a diesel Golf not a petrol.

If you are buying one of these make sure you check if the transmission valve body has been replaced. If not make sure you buy a mechanical warranty or have a spare $3500 to fix it when it goes. It is a common problem in the Touran, also the A3 and Golf FSI's.

I agree, about warranties. Our last 3 cars all had 3-4 year warranties and made claims on all of them. Well worth it. First one was a leaking transmission, on a Toyota Windom. Was not an easy fix and having warranty company, in our corner, was good. Other was broken engine mount and dealer picked up the bill on that. Said not worth claiming. It's something u gota have, today.

once again jazz you are pulling at straws. i simply put my ipsum in tiptronic mode and mow past all the other people moversup the kaimais. i have driven a touran and was less than impressed and i'll eat my hat if it does 4.7L/100km. also take that the touran is over 100Kg's heavier than an ipsum and well your MPG figures just look sillier and sillier.load the cars up with passengers and the VW gets worse and worse. may be very slightly faster when empty but not when loaded.
take your patch off your eye and give them some unbiased advice.( oh i forgot you are a VW fan boy)

just because you write novels for replies doesn't make you wise or for that fact correct.

No, not confusing them at all. I have lots of first hand experience with this drivetrain in the Golf and Audi A3, we bought in a bunch of them and my folks had a succession of them for every day cars.

We did several Katikati - Hamilton return trips and were amazed to get 60MPG (which is about 4.7l/100km) out of them on this trip. This was taken straight off the trip computer and checked manually as well.I know it sounds a bit over the top but the tests were accurate.

Interestingly I couldn't even get that out of my 1200cc Punto on the same trip!

Admittedly the Golf had about 12'000km on the clock and in the first instance was just returning from the Hamilton dealer for a service. so yes conditions were ideal. BUT still very impressive, its the best economy I have seen from a car first hand.

Just to confirm as well, the Touran will not do as well as that. Its much taller and no doubt weighs more. I know the EOS with the same motor does not do as well on fuel first hand either. BUT the Touran won't be miles away on fuel consumption, and hey even if it uses a whole extra litre per 100km on a trip its still doing really well for a people mover.

I would be the first to doubt those figures if I hadn't had them first hand twice. If you get the chance try it for yourself.

Anyhow, believe me or don't I really don't care. Lets just not hijack the thread on a silly tangent over it.

As for Ford, sorry I am ignoring your reply. You didn't even read it properly, no where did I say the Touran would get that milage. The rest of it is quantifiable engineering, no doubt there are plenty of figures on the net to demonstrate what I am saying if you care to look.

Hey Jazz. I seem to have opened a right, can of worms, with this one.
Don't think we gona get anything I need, from some strange people.