Carrying on from the Octavia replacement post the first demonstrator was delivered yesterday - have it for a week.
Wanted to try a Sport spec but they didn't have one, eventually came up with an SE, turns up on 18" wheels and has parking sensors on the front. When wheels can change the handling and ride why do they put big wheels on demonstrators? Leaves me wondering what the ride on stndard wheels is really like.
Initial impressions - even after a 1.9 tdi 105hp Octavia this car is way underpowered, granted it is not run in yet (2k miles) but it won't accelerate from 25 in fourth!
Gripes so far:
Whjeels as above - actually rides quite well but what is it like if you don't spend £700 on 18" alloys.
They have screwed up the cruise control with the new system, see if I can get used to it but so far it is enough to put me off the Passat. It does not seem to set at the current road speed, just at the speed it is set to and if you don't look at the display that could be significantly more than the speed limit! I keep flashing the headlights or indicating when I want to set or adjust the speed.
You really have to use the gearbox - defeats the main benefit of a diesel
No manual so not sure exactly how the parking brake works, why the stop start sometimes doesn't, and what features the radio and Aux inputs have. Will call them this morning and see if I can pick it up this afternoon.
For a car that is supposed to be more economical than the Ocatvia (60 odd combined instaerd of 50 odd) the trip is showing 52mpg for my run to work, Ocatvia would be showing about 65mpg. Again not run in but that is worse than the 2.0 Passat CC I tried in May.
Give it a few days and a few more miles and see if the opinion changes.
|
>> turns up on 18" wheels and has parking sensors on the front. When
My Passat CC has 18" wheels and the ride is better than the Mazda6 Sport before it on 16". But I do have adaptive dampers. When I had the demo I was surprised how good the ride was.
>> underpowered... but it won't accelerate from 25 in fourth!
My Mazda6 Sport 2.0d 143PS didn't like to be driven in fourth below 30+mph. It would accelerate but you knew the engine was labouring. Revs were too low. What revs are showing at 25mph? Although I doubt the 2.0 BlueMotion Technologies 130PS engine can't cost you much more and would be much better in the real world. Auto Express reviewed the 1.6 BM Passat and commented on the engine.
>> They have screwed up the cruise control with the new system, see if I can
What's the problem? Maybe it's because you don't have the manual?
Press the button at the end of the stalk to set current speed (after pulling it forward to turn on if it was off). Then pull forward and push back to increase or decrease speed in 1mph increments/decrements. Push it up/down for 5mph increments/decrements (to nearest 5mph). Set speed is shown in the MFD. Large characters when it is active and small to show what speed it is set to. It does not show the speed that was set when turned off.
>> You really have to use the gearbox - defeats the main benefit of a diesel
The 1.6D BlueMotion car is fine for cruising. In the real world the 2.0D BlueMotion Technologies model will return just as good MPG and has regenerative braking, stop start. But emissions are higher at 119g/km for a company car.
>> No manual so not sure exactly how the parking brake works
The parking brake will auto release only if you're wearing the seatbelt. If you're not then to release it you have to put foot on the brake pedal and then push it forward. Auto-hold does not work without the seatbelt on either.
When you stop the car and take your seatbelt off or stop the ignition the parking brake will engage automatically if you had auto-hold on. Or of course pull it up.
>> why the stop start sometimes doesn't
The car needs to have been running for a bit before it will even try to use it. Then it usually works as long as you've moved since you last dipped clutch and put in neutral. It won't work if there is too much demand on the battery. For short journey's it's not going to be active.
>> what features the radio and Aux inputs have
What stereo is in the car? Manual for stereo/sat nav is separate to the car manual.
>> Again not run in but that is worse than the 2.0 Passat CC I tried in May.
In the real world, the 1.6D is too underpowered for a heavy car. But in the official tests it can provide high MPG and low emissions. But you drive it in the real world. I'd go for the 2.0D. In the end I went for the 170PS 2.0D... BIK rate is exactly the same as the 140PS for the CC. Just a higher list price so about £10/month more overall. Worth it in my opinion.
|
I had a Golf Plus as a hire car a couple of weeks back with the 1.6 unit.
I liked it - very refined, but no ball of fire - cant imagine that it would be much fun in anything bigger, and on a run of about 80 miles of which 60 were motorway the trip compute only showed 52 mpg. This one had nearly 10K on it so as a hire car being driven quite hard I would expect it to be well run in
|
I tried a 1.9 diesel Golf as a replacement for my Focus hatchback.
It was significantly slower, noiser and a lot more expensive.
But other than that, I'd have bought one. :)
|
If the car won't pull from 25 in fourth, that doesn't make it underpowered - it just means it's in the wrong gear. Even my far-from-underpowered 2.4 Volvo diesel objects to being treated like that, and presumably the Bluemotion VWs have higher gear ratios to massage their performance in the official tests.
All the same, these are interesting comments, partly because I've been meaning to try the equivalent 1.6 Greenline II version of the Skoda Superb. I've already been pleasantly surprised by the drivability of a 1.6D engine in a similarly hefty Volvo S60, and the Greenline package is the only way to combine the Elegance interior with sensible 16" wheels. I'm still inclined to give it a try if I can find one.
|
>> If the car won't pull from 25 in fourth, that doesn't make it underpowered -
>> it just means it's in the wrong gear. >>
Or has little grunt at low revs or has poor gearing ...
Edit: Or both, probably true in the case of a small engined large car chasing low CO2 ...
Last edited by: Cheddar on Fri 23 Dec 11 at 11:58
|
|
I would'nt even try to get a diesel of any size to pull from 25mph in 4th. Its lazy and unsuitable driving, no wonder DMFs go phut, and they get sooted up.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 23 Dec 11 at 12:02
|
|
I can pull cleanly from 15mph in 5th gear in my car but only because it is geared at 18mph/rpm and revs to 7500rpm!
|
|
depends what your idea of clean is.
|
|
I have to say I doubt it, how many revs is it pulling at 15mph in 5th?
|
And it might be smooth - but is there any clutch slip as well?
As has been said by others, 25mph is probably too low for most diesels in 4th. I know my previous car wouldn't like that. Not tried it in the 170PS diesel I have now because I don't drive at 25mph in fourth gear.
The change up indicator would probably not be telling me to change up to 4th until 30mph anyway. And at that speed it would only be doing 1200rpm (ish) I think. I'd have to check.
|
|
850-900 ish, little over tickover which is 6-700 ish? With good anticipation and planning I rarely leave top gear.
|
>> 850-900 ish, little over tickover which is 6-700 ish? With good anticipation and planning I
>> rarely leave top gear.
I am sorry, but I have to say thats very poor and lazy driving. Its not designed to do that, and its not doing it any good, and its not very efficient. As I say that not my idea of smooth.
|
|
OK, I'm not saying I do it all the time but it can do it. Most of the time its first instinct to change up or down without realising. On the flip side, I do spend a fair bit of time at the other end of the rev counter! :)
|
Why would anyone try to make a small Diesel pull from below its natural turbo spool revs anyway, its frustrating beyond endurance and damages the thing long term.
One of the reasons i dislike little turbocharged engines with manual boxes in heavy vehicles of all sizes, have to be a masochist to choose to drive one.
|
My Yaris d4d pulls cleanly from 4th at 23mph and it's high geared - 2800rpm at 70. (in fifth)
Most modern diesels are horrible at low speeds and clatter like a bus...
|
>> My Yaris d4d pulls cleanly from 4th at 23mph and it's high geared - 2800rpm
>> at 70. (in fifth)
It only weighs 980kg though madf.
In response to the other threads, accelerating at low revs in a high gear puts a lot of stress on the crankshaft.
|
Mine wont the Focus 1.6 TDCI.I wouldn't use 4th gear under 25 mph.
Bad practice lugging the engine.
|
|
I thought this engine underpowered in a 1.6TDi 105PS Golf so I can imagine how frustrating it must be in a large car like a Passat, more tax dodging madness - pay the tax, drive a 2.0TDi and enjoy driving the car - it'll probably do more mpg too.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Fri 23 Dec 11 at 14:29
|
>> My Yaris d4d pulls cleanly from 4th at 23mph and it's high geared - 2800rpm at 70. (in fifth)
My Passat CC 170PS is high geared(ish) because it's BlueMotion Technology etc. But not a BlueMotion. Not sure what rpm it does at 70. But at 70mph in sixth it's just below 2000rpm.
At lower speeds it will also drive quite happily in 5th, e.g. 40mph. And the revs are about 1200-1300rpm I think. But I don't tend to drive it in anything like 5th at those speeds. The engine is willing but I think a lower gear makes more sense.
|
It tried my Passat CC in 4th today at 30mph. Which it would do. It was at 1200rpm. It would accelerate (slowly) but I personally think that changing down made sense. So at 25mph it would be below 1200rpm. Max torque is from about 1700rpm.
Goodness knows what a 1.6D Passat BlueMotion is like then. Answer is to use the correct gear.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 27 Dec 11 at 23:21
|
|
I would assume that the 1.6 would have different gearing though to yours.
|
>> I would assume that the 1.6 would have different gearing though to yours.
Of course it does. But my post was to highlight that my 170PS 2.0d is only doing 1200rpm at 30mph (so 25mph is about 1000rpm!). The 1.6D which ought to be geared for efficiency may be no better.
In the real world, the 1.6D Passat in BlueMotion trim is not a car I'd want. Maybe for cruising it is fine. I look forward to trying my Passat soon on the winding A roads from south Wales to home. I was actually impressed with an Insignia 160PS 2.0d SRi earlier this year.
As an added note, when I am in third and approaching 40mph the car says to change up to fourth. I don't think it says that when doing 25mph :-)
|
I can't see that the combination of small engine and big body is going to be a good recipe for economy, unless you drive it like a snail. I don't know whether your leasing budget runs to it, IJWS, but a 2.0 TDI sounds like a better bet all round.
And if it doesn't, there's always the Octavia....!
|
The only reason models like this 1.6 diesel Passat exist is to reduce the manufacturer's range average CO2 figure. Most manufacturers are at it now. Ford have even stuck the 1.6 TDCi in the S-Max. That, especially 7 up, is surely too horrible to even contemplate. My in laws have this in the much lighter C-Max, and it's just about adequate. Adding a few hundred kilos is not a good thing for this engine.
Whether these things actually work on the road, or deliver on their economy promises in the real world isn't really a consideration.
And it's clear that off-boost in a heavy bodyshell, none of these engines will "lug" like an old school diesel.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 28 Dec 11 at 11:28
|
>> And it's clear that off-boost in a heavy bodyshell, none of these engines will "lug" like an old school diesel.
I am surprised that in what I thought would be an off boast situation, my Passat CC 170PS diesel does accelerate well. The 140PS version I had on demo didn't. I gambled on the 170PS being better and it has been. It was only about £10/month more including additional tax.
Sadly I sometimes like flooring the 170PS diesel :-) And mpg suffers.
|
>> I am surprised that in what I thought would be an off boast situation, my
>> Passat CC 170PS diesel does accelerate well.
So does my 318d.
But I suspect if that engine was stuck in a 7 series, or your 170 PS TDI in a Touareg (the rough equivalents of putting a 1.6 diesel in something like a Passat), it would be somewhat lethargic until the turbo was properly awake.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 29 Dec 11 at 09:48
|
>> I am surprised that in what I thought would be an off boast situation, my Passat CC 170PS diesel does accelerate well. The 140PS version I had on demo didn't. I gambled on the 170PS being better and it has been. >>
Strange, my recollection of driving an Octavia VRS 170 and Golf VI GT 140 in the last year or so is that the 140 engine is more flexible at low rpm.
|
>> Ford have even stuck the 1.6 TDCi in the S-Max. That, especially 7 up, is surely too horrible to even contemplate. >>
We had a Grand C-Max with the 1.6 115 engine as a hire car in France in the summer and five up, fully loaded it was pretty good to drive, the gearing was sensible so no big gaps in the ratios. More than adequate on the Pyreanean passes ...
... unlike a C4 Picasso we had two years before that had the same Ford/PSA 1.6 engine in 110 form though with 5 speeds with a looooong top gear and therefore big gaps in the ratios. I showed my teenage sons what turbo lag is with that.
|
FIL had a leon FR a couple of years back. Think that may have been 170 PS. Drove it and was not impressed - very quick, but it was a bit all or nothing and not easy to pull away gently.
My C5 has the 1.6 HDi with 5 speed, and its fine for day to day motoring - sometime wish it had a little more grunt when pulling away, but Citroen have done a fine job of getting the ratios right.
|
>> FIL had a leon FR a couple of years back. >>
That was probably the old PD unit.
>> Citroen have done a fine job of getting the ratios right. >>
Would have thought it was the same ratios as a C4 Picasso, no doubt fine for every day driving though you might notice the gap in the ratios, particulary 2nd to 3rd on Pyreanean or Alpine mountain roads.
My old TDCi 130 was 5 speed though top was sensibly geared so no obvious gaps between the ratios and it had loads of torque anyway pulling cleanly from 1200 ish.
|
>>
>> >> FIL had a leon FR a couple of years back. >>
>>
>> That was probably the old PD unit.
Yeah, that was awful, it didnt have throttle pedal, just a switch
|
>> >>
>> >> >> FIL had a leon FR a couple of years back. >>
>> >>
>> >> That was probably the old PD unit.
>>
>> Yeah, that was awful, it didnt have throttle pedal, just a switch
>>
Yeah, that's the one!
|
If "development" of this engine had stopped.at the 1.9 130 PS version, it would be remembered a lot more fondly.
Our old Golf thus equipped shades my 2010 318d for refinement and top end pull, but matches it for outright pace, and even eclipses it for throttle/turbo response and sheer bottom end stomp. Also over 10% more fuel efficient. Lovely old lump.
|
>> If "development" of this engine had stopped.at the 1.9 130 PS version, it would be
>> remembered a lot more fondly.
>> Our old Golf thus equipped shades my 2010 318d for refinement and top end pull,
>> but matches it for outright pace, and even eclipses it for throttle/turbo response and sheer
>> bottom end stomp. Also over 10% more fuel efficient. Lovely old lump.
>>
The 318d cant be running right DP if a 1.9PD can get anywhere near it in refinement term. On paper they produce similar max torque though the PD is known for its strong pick up.
|
Sorry, I worded that terribly.
The BMW engine is comfortably quieter and smoother than the PD. In other respects it still makes a good show of itself.
|
>> Sorry, I worded that terribly.
>>
Aha, all is clear ;-)
|
|
HJ did a short test of the S80 with the 1.6 diesel a year or 2 back. 0-60 was about 12s IIRC but he thought it felt ok.
|
>> >> Citroen have done a fine job of getting the ratios right. >>
>>
>> Would have thought it was the same ratios as a C4 Picasso, no doubt fine
>> for every day driving though you might notice the gap in the ratios, particulary 2nd
>> to 3rd on Pyreanean or Alpine mountain roads.
>>
Cant be certain, but I don't think they are the same. I only say that because I drove a 2.0 HDi Picasso for a few weeks, and would say it felt "less keen" than the C5. I guess the slippery shape versus the wardrobe look make a difference t
|
Not been on line for a few days, car returned n 28th.
It was an SE, not a fully skimed bluemotion.
Was getting the hang of cruise and found the button on the end of the stalk.
Allowing for it being new I did need to use the gearbox a lot and the economy stuck at about 52-54 according to the trip computer. Did about 250 miles on £30 of fuel so trip computer not far off, very dissapointing.
The reason for trying the car was to see if it would live up to the economyclaims (It didn't) and whether I could live with it if it did (probably not).
The car had park assist fitted, didn't actually manage to get it to fit a parking space in the time we had it, won't be havint that. Dealer thougth it would only parallel park, should(but wouldn't) do both parallel and 90 degree parking.
Wife has made her mind up and wants a 2.0 TD Passat
|
I think a 2.0d will be far superior to the 1.6D. I wonder how worse a full blown BlueMotion model is!
When I got my demonstrator I saw the VW site had a lot of 1.6D Passat SE as demonstrators.
I had the park assist on the demo I had. I only tried it twice:
- Parallel parking outside my house next to my wife's car. The tree on the pavement made it give in. The approach angle is severe so it had no chance. Also not sure how it would have guessed the kerb considering my wife's car is a Seicento and so a lot narrower.
- Gym car park for a reverse into a space attempt (you have to press the button twice for this). Again it's angle of approach was severe and I was afraid it was going to touch. No doubt it had it all worked out.
I am surprised I can parallel park the CC better than the smaller Mazda6. Probably helps having parking sensors at the front and rear? Although getting in a space does not rely on those.
|
The more widespread use of supermarkets, retail parks and off-street car parks means parallel reverse parking is something of a lost art for me, and I suspect many others outside the big cities.
Got quite good at it when I lived in London.
|
|
Got sufficient high street parking round here to still be fully proficient at it, both sides, both ways.
|
I've parallel parked the Passat CC a fair few times in the 3 months of having it. Easy enough. It's not much bigger than the Mazda6 and Mondeo that came before it. And has parking sensors.
I had sussed the parking system on the VWs used the sensors to work out when you could turn to park (and it does). When I'd ordered mine and seen some more I realised there are more sensors on those cars with auto park assist. They are on the side of the front bumper for sure. Not sure of the rear.
The extra cost for me was a small amount but I wouldn't use it. But the sensors might have been useful to the sides :-( Had I realised. The rest is software.
|
Interesting reading about the economy and driveability of the 1.6 engine in the Passat. I got a new company car in November and have now completed just under 3,000 miles. Went for a Golf in the end and was tossing up between the 1.6 and 2.0 TDi engines. There was a monthly saving of around £15 by going for the 1.6, but even with the smaller bodyshell of the Golf, I wasn't convinced that it would feel very spritely.
Went for the 2.0 TDi Bluemotion Technology Match, which seemed a pretty good mix of fuel (and BIK) saving technology, whilst still keeping the 140ps engine and a decent level of spec. So far, the computer is showing an average of 59.3 mpg and this is from a mixture of my B-road commute (16 miles) and 50 mile motorway trips, coupled with a bit of local and more urban pottering. Car is punchy and refined, though the gear change indicator is wildly overoptimistic, suggesting using 6th gear from around 45mph. The care simply doesn't feel happy pulling such low engine revs.
Economy highlights include 71 mpg on a (steady) cross country run from Bedford to Gloucester and 78mpg following a short trip down the M5 using the space saver spare at 50 mph. Thank goodness it has a spare and not a can of goo, as I wouldn't have got home otherwise!!
Other cost consideration is HMRC fuel reimbursement rates. You don't get paid as much for the fuel with a 1.6 diesel, compared to a 2.0. From memory and based on current fuel prices, I need to get around 43 mpg on business trips to break even in the 2.0 TDi Golf. Given that it gets the right side of 60 mpg on most of my business trips, this helps to offset the additional monthly cost over the 1.6 TDi.
|
Volkswagen Passat - First Demonstrator - 1.6 TDI SE - rtj70
