That makes me feel good, got 10.4L from my 6.0L Commodore, Auckland to Papamoa, I thought it could do better!
electromic,
Jan 27, 11:22am
I wasn't driving! The drivers are the type to slow for every bend and then accelerate slowly for the entire straight only to slow again. I have seen better from an sp23/and sp25 but have not tested them myself yet.
cassiusarmani,
Jan 27, 7:06pm
So the two liter is not best option for those on tight budget!
wrong2,
Jan 27, 8:06pm
rubbish
tazcsv,
Jan 27, 11:22pm
Looks like they can tow 500kg or 750kg braked so does your caravan come under that fully loaded! my guess would be its just not a good idea.
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 3:50am
I would suggest you go for a MK5 VW Golf with the 2.0 engine. It will give you similar economy to many little 1.3 litre Japanese puddle jumpers but has a heap more power. This is down to using a vastly more efficient engine and transmission.
If you get one starting the later part of 2005 it should even have trailer stability control which will save your butt like nothing else can if the trailer gets a sway on.
I remember the U.K's big Caravan association named it "tow car of the year" and having towed with them myself I can see why.
You really can have the best of both worlds.
Here is a video on it done by Practical Caravan Magazine, the one in question is the facelifted Diesel version but you can expect much the same from the cheaper earlier 2.0 Petrol as its really much the same car with similar pulling power underneath.
I would have to agree with Jazz; that is providing that the golf is a well serviced example and it would pay to have a trans cooler installed for peace of mind. However I highly doubt the fact that it will be as economical as a 1.3 Jap offering but it would be reasonably good
wrong2,
Jan 28, 5:34am
because its pure Fantasy
having asked other Golf owners at VW forums, none have agreed with him
the figures hes claimed for the 2.0L are better than what 1600cc Golf owners have said they get
monaro17,
Jan 28, 5:36am
My suspicions were correct then :-)
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 5:47am
Not a lot of point in a trans cooler, the Golf is DSG so no torque converter to heat up.
If you understand the technology, 4 speed auto, 90's technology engine but the extra weight of the modern safety equipment vs 6 gears, no torque converter and FSI engine capable of leaning burning at obscenely frugal ratio's its no surprise at all.
If in doubt, go and drive one, make sure its running the correct fuel and then turn the consumption meter on.
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 5:48am
Don't feed the troll.
monaro17,
Jan 28, 5:49am
I'll try not to. Anyways, what is the towing capacity of the model golf in question!
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 5:51am
Something like 1500KG braked from memory. They were designed with caravans in mind, because they are very popular for that purpose in the U.K
monaro17,
Jan 28, 5:52am
Seems like a good alternative for cassiusarmani
shorebee,
Jan 28, 5:57am
they barely move uphills with 4 people in them, maybe find a 2.0 focus as you will get a newer nz new car, better chasis, great transmission and enjoyable driving. or get the sp23 mazda but after buying a axela 1500 for the other half it wouldnt even take the kids and some camping stuff inside the car - letalone put something on the back
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 6:04am
Focus is really only good if its the current model one or manual. They wereruined with the horrible 4 speed auto especially for towing.
shorebee,
Jan 28, 6:08am
i have a brand new focus diesel and the powershift is great, i did have an 07 focus and a 4 speed auto but a low mileage(under 150ks) should be sweet, autos no worse than a corolla, in fact better, its not a dsg but they are looking for a vanilla hatch ok for towing. my focus ran about 7/100
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 6:23am
No offense but the Corolla auto is a horrible pig too, and one of the last things I would want to tow a caravan (even occasionally) with.
Couldn't agree more with you with the Focus and powershift though, which is basically much the same deal as with the Golf I have suggested. just you can buy the Golf in an older/cheaper model with the same advantages.
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 7:44am
For those interested in relative Fuel economy, this site doesn't really have any examples of the 2.0 non turbo Golf I am suggesting. However. lets stack the odds against the Golf and use the high performance 2.0 Turbo GTI version which by nature of the owner will likely also be driven relatively hard.
Lined up against the little automatic Mazda 2 which at most only develops about half as much power, yet there is less than 1.3 l/100km difference in average economy.
Anyone who is not a biased simpleton should be able to see that the non turbo driven more normally is going to be capable of very similar economy to the Mazda and its ilk. Hang even the Turbo one in the example is pretty close, only costing about $400 a year more to run on average than the Mazda for typical NZ km's.
The only catch with the Golf is you MUST run 98 octane to get the fuel economy. Without it, it can't get into its ultra lean burn fsi mode very often. This is usually why you get some people who can't seem to do as well economy wise.
Aside from the fuel economy, the Golf is just a million times better car, its like comparing a bicycle to a motorcycle, its just a whole other class of vehicle all together.
Oh, and compared against the larger Mazda 3 (which is what the OP is talking about after all) there is even less of a difference with under half a litre per 100km between them. (and remember this is the Turbo so realistically the regular Golf will easily use less than the Mazda 3 Auto)
the thejazzpianoma has claimed in the past that the 2.0 Golf will achieve 23.5 km/l
this claim gets laughed at by Golf owners (& not just the 2.0L owners either)
very few cars can better 18km/L, & they generrally are 1300cc & smaller
i have a 19909's 1300 that will get there, the best economy possible isnt a sole possesion of brand new cars
thejazzpianoma is so full of BS about economy rates that its borderline mental
wrong2,
Jan 28, 8:05am
& yet when turbo cars are not driven hard, instead driven in the torque sweetspot, can match or even better (if tuned for it) the economy of NA engines
the very best economy possible wont be shown from hard driving will it. this is just more propaganda from someone who thinks euros are the best. a fanboy basically
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 8:12am
Dig. dig. dig. the hole is only getting bigger wrong2. Nice quoting me out of context there BTW.
shane191,
Jan 28, 8:23am
If you are going to tow a caravan with a small car think what would happen if one of your kids run out in front of you, your brakes wont be big enough to stop in time compared to a bigger car.
thejazzpianoma,
Jan 28, 8:31am
That is generally why caravan's have brakes as well and cars are not rated to tow very heavy unbraked trailers.
The bigger issue is sway, but that can also be managed with the likes of VW's tow stability control which will allow the likes of the little Golf to save a situation that a car even twice its weight may not.
Watch the video link I posted earlier in this thread of the Golf towing through an obstacle course.
stevo2,
Jan 28, 8:41am
Jazz, the OP's said its a very old 1965 caravan so it probably wont have brakes.
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.