Why VW's get bad gas mileage?

First, I'm a fan of VW, so I'm not just here attacking them. I had an
87 Fox I used my last 2 years of college, and it's one of those cars I'm
sorry I ever got rid of.
I MAY be in the market to replace my current ride (a focus), and the new
Rabbit has caught my eye... reminding me of the days that I loved
driving my first VW.

I was doing some research last weekend, and I'm shocked. I know they've
been moving VW upmarket for years, and honestly the rabbit seems a much
better buy than the Golf was...

but the kicker is that the VW gets (with the base gas engine) *terrible*
gas mileage when compared to it's peers.
The civic is also brand new and gets much, MUCH better gas mileage.
I don't like the corolla, but it's a mileage champ too.
I love the Mazda 3, and it gets comparitively terrible gas mileage when
compared to the honda and toy., but still better than the VW.

I could go on (my ford gets better mileage with an auto tranny)... but I
wonder WHY? Anybody have a feel for it.

(I'm basing this on EPA estimates, as a standard for comparison)
JP

On 2006-08-05, Jon R. Patrick > wrote:
>
> I could go on (my ford gets better mileage with an auto tranny)... but I
> wonder WHY? Anybody have a feel for it.

Hold out for the new diesel Rabbits, coming in model year 2008.

-Bryan


--
remove the "REMOVE" from my email to email

Jon R. Patrick wrote:
> First, I'm a fan of VW, so I'm not just here attacking them. I had an
> 87 Fox I used my last 2 years of college, and it's one of those cars I'm
> sorry I ever got rid of.
> I MAY be in the market to replace my current ride (a focus), and the new
> Rabbit has caught my eye... reminding me of the days that I loved
> driving my first VW.
>
> I was doing some research last weekend, and I'm shocked. I know they've
> been moving VW upmarket for years, and honestly the rabbit seems a much
> better buy than the Golf was...
>
> but the kicker is that the VW gets (with the base gas engine) *terrible*
> gas mileage when compared to it's peers.
> The civic is also brand new and gets much, MUCH better gas mileage.
> I don't like the corolla, but it's a mileage champ too.
> I love the Mazda 3, and it gets comparitively terrible gas mileage when
> compared to the honda and toy., but still better than the VW.
>
> I could go on (my ford gets better mileage with an auto tranny)... but I
> wonder WHY? Anybody have a feel for it.
>
> (I'm basing this on EPA estimates, as a standard for comparison)
> JP

First of all, for some reason VWs seem to get mileage closer to the EPA
ratings than some other brands (Honda, Toyota, etc.) - secondly, the
base engine's architecture dates back to 1974. It's a great engine, but
if you really want economy perhaps you should be looking at a TDI or
similar.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Has an estimated fuel mileage been announced yet for the new Rabbit? What
can we expect?

"Papa" > wrote in
ink.net:

> Has an estimated fuel mileage been announced yet for the new Rabbit?
> What can we expect?
>
>

22/30 according to the EPA.
for a comparison:
Mazda 3 28/35
Focus 27/37
Cobalt 25/34
Civi 30/38

(all are base engines with manual tranny. all are '07 models, except for
civic with is '06

"Jon R. Patrick" > wrote in message
88.18...
> "Papa" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>> Has an estimated fuel mileage been announced yet for the new Rabbit?
>> What can we expect?
>>
>>
>
> 22/30 according to the EPA.
> for a comparison:
> Mazda 3 28/35
> Focus 27/37
> Cobalt 25/34
> Civi 30/38
>
> (all are base engines with manual tranny. all are '07 models, except for
> civic with is '06

That's not a very impressive set of numbers for the VW Rabbit diesel. Too
bad.

On 2006-08-06, Papa > wrote:
>
> "Jon R. Patrick" > wrote in message
>>
>> 22/30 according to the EPA.
>
> That's not a very impressive set of numbers for the VW Rabbit diesel. Too
> bad.

Those are the specs for the gas version. No, we don't have any idea
of what mpg will be for the diesel rabbit. They are over a year away,
and will have a brand new type of diesel engine in them. You are
going to have to wait a while for mpg specs for the diesel rabbit.

-Bryan


--
remove the "REMOVE" from my email to email

"Bryan K. Walton" > wrote in message
ink.com...
> On 2006-08-06, Papa > wrote:
>>
>> "Jon R. Patrick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> 22/30 according to the EPA.
>>
>> That's not a very impressive set of numbers for the VW Rabbit diesel. Too
>> bad.
>
> Those are the specs for the gas version. No, we don't have any idea
> of what mpg will be for the diesel rabbit. They are over a year away,
> and will have a brand new type of diesel engine in them. You are
> going to have to wait a while for mpg specs for the diesel rabbit.
>
> -Bryan
>
>

Well, that's good to hear. Maybe I'll buy one after all. Cheers.

VW doesn't have a car to compare to those others here. The polo probably
would stand up just fine. All those subcompacts have 110 hp range engines
with comparable great mileage. VW doesn't have an engine that small here.
You cant compare apples and oranges. The Rabbit mileage should be the same
as the base engine jetta, or very close.
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Jon R. Patrick wrote:
>> First, I'm a fan of VW, so I'm not just here attacking them. I had an 87
>> Fox I used my last 2 years of college, and it's one of those cars I'm
>> sorry I ever got rid of.
>> I MAY be in the market to replace my current ride (a focus), and the new
>> Rabbit has caught my eye... reminding me of the days that I loved driving
>> my first VW.
>>
>> I was doing some research last weekend, and I'm shocked. I know they've
>> been moving VW upmarket for years, and honestly the rabbit seems a much
>> better buy than the Golf was...
>>
>> but the kicker is that the VW gets (with the base gas engine) *terrible*
>> gas mileage when compared to it's peers.
>> The civic is also brand new and gets much, MUCH better gas mileage.
>> I don't like the corolla, but it's a mileage champ too.
>> I love the Mazda 3, and it gets comparitively terrible gas mileage when
>> compared to the honda and toy., but still better than the VW.
>>
>> I could go on (my ford gets better mileage with an auto tranny)... but I
>> wonder WHY? Anybody have a feel for it.
>>
>> (I'm basing this on EPA estimates, as a standard for comparison)
>> JP
>
> First of all, for some reason VWs seem to get mileage closer to the EPA
> ratings than some other brands (Honda, Toyota, etc.) - secondly, the base
> engine's architecture dates back to 1974. It's a great engine, but if you
> really want economy perhaps you should be looking at a TDI or similar.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"none2u" > wrote in
:

> VW doesn't have a car to compare to those others here. The polo
> probably would stand up just fine. All those subcompacts have 110 hp
> range engines with comparable great mileage. VW doesn't have an engine
> that small here. You cant compare apples and oranges. The Rabbit
> mileage should be the same as the base engine jetta, or very close.

But in this market is *does* have to compete. If it's in the same size-
catagory, so it'll be compared with those cars.
The fact is, I'm interested in the Rabbit, but I can't find a reason to
buy it. Everytime I do, I find another car that's just as nice, but
cheaper and more fuel efficient. Then, add in there MAY be a question as
to reliability, and the crappy dealer nearby, and suddenly that Mazda
looks good.
Finally, you're wrong. The Polo would compete with the Honda Fit, Nissan
Versa, and Toyota Yaris. The Rabbit competes against the cars
previously mentioned.
Here's the engine sizes for you to argue over. Note I'm still limiting
the EPA and now HP stats for the base engines only.
brand epa engine Power
city/hwy size (HP)

Rabbit 22/30 2.5L 150hp
for a comparison:
Mazda 3 28/35 2.0 140
Focus 27/37 2.0 136
Cobalt 25/34 2.2 148
Civic 30/38 1.8 140