Fuel economy - Golf Mk6 1.6 TDi 105hp (Manual)

forgotmyname

Its got a fair bit heavier over the years but recently the increase is small.

1975 Golf 372cm / 146.5" 821kg
1981 Golf 386cm / 152" 832kg
1986 Golf 399cm / 157" 1009kg
1995 Golf 402cm / 158" 1120kg
2005 Golf 420cm / 165" 1319kg

Newer models are close to the 2005 weight as they use lighter materials to get the fuel consumption up and emissions down.

So its grown 19 inches and put on 498kg over 30 years.

The new polo is bigger than the original Golf. And the lupo is not a great deal smaller than the original Golf.

cyclonebri1

The fact that you have figures based on the instantaneous (assumption) fuel consumption based on same speed same road etc but simply different gear is a fair result, no one argued with you that it would be more economical in top gear.
It was merely that your supposition that fuel consumption was directly related to throttle position was the point that both I and Ultras immediately picked up on.

I too have found the same in regard to high geared 6 speed boxes, or rather I'm pretty sure, never, without offence, been anal enough to try to prove it by driving up and down the same stretch of road, don't have instantaneous FC readout either.

Delivery_Driver

It is pretty anal Bri, but having some mapping problems and this information is just a bi-product of trying to find a fault.It logs everything the ecu reads.
I think I see what you're getting at though, that just because the throttle is open more, it doesn't mean the engine is in a position to consume more air and fuel.
Most modern diesels are turboed though, with little lag so are more sensitive to throttle change than an average NA engine.

cyclonebri1

Yep, I think you see exactly what I mean, although in the case quoted wider throttle probably does equate to higher fuel consumption, but there are other variable that the ecu uses to deliver correct fueling.


My point was that alone it does not govern fuel consumption, had the other poster simply said he'd checked instantaneous fuel consumption for both scenarios then he would be at the end result of the computers decision after taking all signals into account,;);)
anyway, now I'm getting anal:eek:

forgotmyname

OIH. Im not anal. compulsive obsessive maybe. prefectionist most likely.
Stubborn old mule according to the wife.

But in my defence i had just bought the OBD reader and thought a good test would be to verify my previous trip computer results of higher gears actually using more fuel.

Shame i couldnt take out any variables like me.. Using the cruise control would have been even better, But it gave a throttle reading of zero %.
That would have proved the speed was exactly the same on each run.


I can start my spam now and sell you all a super duper fuel saving device. 1st you must clean your ashtray and never smoke in the car whilst its fitted.



You pop my device in your ashtray and you too can save upto 50% on your fuel costs. Or you can get upto 50% more power. Depending which way up you place it.
Special offer to members on here, Only £100,000 whilst stocks last




Next project, Im going to prove the world is really flat.

londonTiger

forgotmyname wrote: »

Its got a fair bit heavier over the years but recently the increase is small.

1975 Golf 372cm / 146.5" 821kg
1981 Golf 386cm / 152" 832kg
1986 Golf 399cm / 157" 1009kg
1995 Golf 402cm / 158" 1120kg
2005 Golf 420cm / 165" 1319kg

Newer models are close to the 2005 weight as they use lighter materials to get the fuel consumption up and emissions down.

So its grown 19 inches and put on 498kg over 30 years.

The new polo is bigger than the original Golf. And the lupo is not a great deal smaller than the original Golf.

Cool, where did you get the data from? bear in mind, the stats go up to mk5, OP is talking about mk6, would love to know that.

Also there's a big weight difference between a 1.4 mkiv and a 2.0 disel mkiv, the latter has a much heavier engine and extra turbo equipment on board. So it's not entirely appls to apples. Weight can vary a lot within a series.

From what I know the golfs from mkv's + no longer have the standard petrol engines (or at least I've never seen a standard 1.6 or 1.4 period, most had TSI, FSI, TDI, GTI etc), they have some sort of turbo or fuel injection to reduce fuel consumption which will obviously add weight.

Trebor16

I have these figures for you:-

Mark 1 weight = 790-970kg..................... length = 3.705 metres
Mark 2 weight = 910-1245kg................... length = 3.985-4.035 metres
Mark 3 weight = 1035-1315kg.................. length = 4.074 metres
Mark 4 weight = 1090-1512kg................. length = 4.149 metres
Mark 5 weight = 1323-1617kg................. length = 4.204-4.24 metres
Mark 6 weight = 1142-1496kg................. length = 4.199-4.213 metres

londonTiger

Nice stuff.. thanks for that. its nice that vw realsied that mk5 was just too big for a hatchback and they made adjustments.

forgotmyname

Guiness CAR book. Nearly 1000 pages of cars from 1915 or so to the 90's

Engine specs, Dimensions, Weight, power, fuel consumption etc etc etc.

For over 5000 cars.

cotill46

i drive a golf 1.6 TDI Match, on motorways i can get 64 mpg with the cruise control switched on but only manage to get around 51 when driving urban and extra urban. but i do get the best fuel economy when i use the cruise control.