Audi dealer query

anotherbaldrick

**waits for ensuing sarcasm**

why would we wish to do anything to delay you.

neilmcl

TradePro wrote: »

Now, can you please stop spouting sh*te in an attempt to undermine me.[/I]

An ex-VW employee/representative who clearly has an axe to grind doesn't need any help from anyone here to do that. Your own flawed posts are doing the job quite nicely. :rotfl::rotfl:

motorguy

TradePro wrote: »

Now, can you please stop spouting sh*te in an attempt to undermine me.

You've included a link to the WRONG CAR!!!!!

Its not a "Bluemotion Technology" - thats the tag VW put on their standard cars when they have stop start etc, on them. The Bluemotions are standalone models - i would have thought someone who professes to have worked for VW would know this????

Heres a link to a review of the Bluemotion 2 at the time by Business Car magazine.

http://www.businesscar.co.uk/tests/2009/vw-passat-20-tdi-bluemotion-2-estate-test-drive?acceptpolicy=1

and i quote "However, on my first trip in the 2.0-litre diesel Passat, the trip computer read 75.8mpg after 53 mainly motorway miles, and all I'd done was turn off the aircon and set cruise control to 70mph.

The official combined fuel figure is 57.6mpg and the extra-urban figure is 68.9mpg. Until now, we've only ever got near official figures in any car we've tested - with this Bluemotion 2 we smashed the official figure. If you think the 75.8mpg figure was a one-off, I also achieved 69.2mpg with the aircon on and without cruise control for the return commute. Thinking I could do much better I also tested the car at 65mph using cruise and with no aircon and didn't quite break the 80mpg barrier with a 79.8mpg stat."

So no i'm not trying to undermine you - you're just plain WRONG.

I owned one of these cars. It could do 1000 miles on one tank at a push. And its not that unbelievable when you consider i'd a 1999 Passat 1.9 TDI that once averaged 64mpg over a long haul trip through England. (Twice actually as my dad covered the same route in the same car and got 63mpg). 720 miles on a single (smaller) tank.

TradePro wrote: »

VW/Audi vehicles are unreliable, overpriced cr*p, and EVIDENCE of this can be found all over. You can all try to defend the junk you have bought by creating anecdotes, but when you're sat in the rain on the hard shoulder waiting for the AA, don't forget who predicted it would happen. The day will DEFINITELY come when you will accept my first hand knowledge and experience, I'm moving on.

**waits for ensuing sarcasm**

Pure balls to be quite frank.

motorguy

neilmcl wrote: »

An ex-VW employee/representative who clearly has an axe to grind doesn't need any help from anyone here to do that. Your own flawed posts are doing the job quite nicely. :rotfl::rotfl:

I can only assume he got made redundant or dumped out of the dealership.

This level of bitterness isnt natural to be honest.

motorguy

TradePro wrote: »

Now, can you please stop spouting sh*te in an attempt to undermine me.

Actually heres PROOF - i had this in my photobucket account from early 2010

64mpg (showing) over the course of 2/3rds of a tank of fuel (showing)



AND

Route covered showing 645 miles AND 1/3 of a tank left..





I also have pictures of the receipt for the full-to-the-brim tank of fuel i put in it from the week before from Tescos.

And i also have pictures of the car in question parked outside my house if you want that too - 2010 register Passat 110BHP CR Bluemotion 2

You'll also note that the car barely had 3200 miles on it at the time, so not even run in.

I await your apology.

anotherbaldrick

motorguy wrote: »

Actually heres PROOF - i had this in my photobucket account

64mpg (showing) over the course of 2/3rds of a tank of fuel (showing)



AND

Route covered showing 645 miles AND 1/3 of a tank left..





I also have pictures of the receipt for the full-to-the-brim tank of fuel i put in it from the week before from Tescos.

And i also have pictures of the car in question parked outside my house if you want that too.

You'll also note that the car barely had 3200 miles on it at the time, so not even run in.

I await your apology.

Don't hold your breath, when I posted up details of my fuel and oil consumption which proved he was talking twaddle he refrained from replying and changed his tack

Ultrasonic

motorguy wrote: »

Heres a link to a review of the Bluemotion 2 at the time by Business Car magazine.

http://www.businesscar.co.uk/tests/2009/vw-passat-20-tdi-bluemotion-2-estate-test-drive?acceptpolicy=1

and i quote "However, on my first trip in the 2.0-litre diesel Passat, the trip computer read 75.8mpg after 53 mainly motorway miles, and all I'd done was turn off the aircon and set cruise control to 70mph.

The official combined fuel figure is 57.6mpg and the extra-urban figure is 68.9mpg. Until now, we've only ever got near official figures in any car we've tested - with this Bluemotion 2 we smashed the official figure. If you think the 75.8mpg figure was a one-off, I also achieved 69.2mpg with the aircon on and without cruise control for the return commute. Thinking I could do much better I also tested the car at 65mph using cruise and with no aircon and didn't quite break the 80mpg barrier with a 79.8mpg stat."

I'll believe brim to brim test results, but the above indicated mpg figures are useless. My own (albeit 8 year old) VAG car indicates mpg figures that are about 25% optimistic. I would be astonished if any car maker truly was selling a car that exceeded its extra-urban fuel economy by as much as above for real-world driving. Even cruising at 55 mph or so come to that!

motorguy

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I'll believe brim to brim test results, but the above indicated mpg figures are useless. My own (albeit 8 year old) VAG car indicates mpg figures that are about 25% optimistic. I would be astonished if any car maker truly was selling a car that exceeded its extra-urban fuel economy by as much as above for real-world driving. Even cruising at 55 mph or so come to that!

I quoted the article to show that those sorts of figures were certainly not uncommon. Also, if you read the article they mention having done 340 miles and having 700 miles range / 2 thirds of a tank of fuel left, so again those figures stack up to approx 62mpg given the tank size.

Brim to brim on the Bluemotion 2 i was getting approx 2 mpg less than stated.

Bear in mind that whilst thats certainly 'real world' for me, I was doing a long commute, so very little urban work.

Heres a Bluemotion (3) 1.6 article whereby it did over 1500 miles to a tank - it held the world record at the time (it may well still do)

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/10/04/passat-bluemotion-enters-record-books-running-1-527-miles-withou/

(measured based on a full tank and miles covered, not by the trip computer)

Again my 1999 Passat 1.9TDI did 720 miles on one tank of diesel, and if you look up the tank size and do the calcs thats around 62-63mpg. The trip computer was reading 64 ish.

If yours truly is 25% out then theres something seriously wrong with it

motorguy

Actually that autoblog link - theres a press release at the bottom and the figures were validated by two AA patrolmen who followed the car the entire time

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/10/04/passat-bluemotion-enters-record-books-running-1-527-miles-withou/

"The Passat BlueMotion's fuel tank was drained before the record breaking journey and filled with 77.25 litres of standard forecourt diesel, resulting in an overall fuel consumption of 89.83 miles per gallon. This substantially exceeds the Passat BlueMotion's official combined figure of 64.2 mpg."

So as you can see, a very capable car.

Ultrasonic

motorguy wrote: »

I quoted the article to show that those sorts of figures were certainly not uncommon. Also, if you read the article they mention having done 340 miles and having 700 miles range / 2 thirds of a tank of fuel left, so again those figures stack up to approx 62mpg given the tank size.

And that I believe. But it's very different to the 75.8 mpg etc in the quote.

Again my 1999 Passat 1.9TDI did 720 miles on one tank of diesel, and if you look up the tank size and do the calcs thats around 62-63mpg. The trip computer was reading 64 ish.

I've done 64 mpg plus trips with a similar engine (BKC vs I guess ALH?), my best being 65.9 mpg (all brim-to-brim). This is mostly driving at 60 mph indicated (~57 mph on satnav) in hot weather.

If yours truly is 25% out then theres something seriously wrong with it

I have heard of others being as bad, I assume it's a question of how it was calibrated (or not!) when installed. The distances recorded on the trip computer are right by the way (agreeing with satnav/Google maps). I have a Scangauge II that I've calibrated to be correct to within about 0.5%, and interestingly the difference between its readings and my trip computer isn't a simple scaling factor, so the trip computer is possibly wrong in quite a complicated way . I'm sure mine is an extreme example, but it does make me sceptical of exceptionally high indicated mpg figures in other cars.