Golf 1.4GT SCT Roadtest

[Jim 2]

So, the much awaited 1.4FSI twin charged Golf is upon us..

 

http://www.autocar.co.uk/FirstDrive_Sum ... _ID=217183

 

Sounds intriguing but don't quite see how it spells the end of diesels just yet. FSI + a charger + turbo will keep initial cost of the car very high (probably similar to or higher than a diesel i'd of thought) and fuel economy is still way off.

 

Does sound like a hoot though.. I bet with some noise restrictor / air filter tweakage it makes a mean noise ;)

[veeDuB_Rado 0]

I dont get it really, cos having a turbo means alot of time and money so as a supercharger

[RACK 0]

Would be interesting to see what kind of power a tuned version would put out. The charger is kicking out 1.8bar as standard, sweet!

[timg60 0]

will it go in my c??

better insurance and tax probably!!!!!!!!! :multi:

[saysomestuff 0]

holy crap - 170bhp from a 1.4 @ 40mpg ?!?!

I'm with tim, where do I sign?

[GIXXERUK 0]

hmmi'd like to have go in that ,40mpg !

[Ford 0]

Me too! That is now high on my lists of wants. I recently sold the C to Dinkus due to too many miles etc. So in a serious cost cutting mission (no point doing things by halves) I plumbed for a 1.4 mk 4 golf (45mpg)... I know seriously underpowered. So was thinking the next car would be along the lines of Jim's T diesel.... but that 1.4 twin charged beast looks awesome! Scratch out diesel, that is on my next christmas list!!!

 

(Still hankering after another C - once I reduce my daily mileage.. and insurance)

[coullstar 0]

I dont get it really, cos having a turbo means alot of time and money so as a supercharger

 

How can you not get it? Low down torque from the SC with high end power from the turbo. As said all the power and economy from a 1.4 compared to a 2l therefore cheaper insurance and tax.

Its the perfect commuter car plus it wont sound like a tractor.

 

Idea was used many moons ago on the Lancia Delta S4. That had about 400-500bhp from a 1.8!!

[Campaign 0]

Interesting article in the Petrol/Diesel debate... Sunday Times

[Campaign 0]

Idea was used many moons ago on the Lancia Delta S4. That had about 400-500bhp from a 1.8!!

 

But they couldn't stop 'em from blowing up :)

[samm_cvr6 0]

Yep, looks like petrol is catching up with diesel. I would say the advantages are, it sounds better then a diesel, is more refined, and more fun to drive, when you factor in that petrol is actually slightly cheaper then diesel, there is probably sod all in it.

BUT, it may cost more to run? in terms of keeping both the chargers sweet, plus, if it were my money, I would just get a golf/leon 150 tdi and save a bit of cash......

[Kevin Bacon 5]

148lb/ft at 1250rpm, that's more than the VR and WAY more than the G60 people....from 1.4 litres! Hats off to VW. They usually always are one step ahead of the game and the reason for this engine is as stated....spiralling fuel costs. What they've given us is a performance engine with frugality comparable to a diesel....using the more refined petrol as it's food.

 

I can't help thinking they've been conservative with the outputs (typical VW), I mean 1.8bar from the charger and a huge 2.5 bar from the turbo....that really should be pushing 190-200hp, not 170...but I guess it depends on the flow rate of said components and it'll also be compliant with EURO5/6 emissions, which is restrictive as hell. And you can guarantee a good 20hp or so is swallowed up driving that charger...but with both, 40mpg is nothing short of amazing.

 

As I've said in a previous post, diesel has reached a plateux because they can't rev as fast as a petrol and the only way to make a diesel fast is to turbo the hell out of it, and as BMW have found with the 535d, all this boost affects mpg....so now the tables are turning, petrol technology is fast approaching diesel mpgs....but with better performance and refinement.

[Andy665 0]

Interesting engineering but I'd bet my life that it won't average 40mpg in real world conditions. I do not know of one vehicle sold or currently on sale that achieves the stated figures - I reckon most magazines will be reporting low to mid 30's, not bad for a car with 170BHP but my 14 year Rado averages 31mpg

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Combined mpg of 37mpg....which takes into account all driving conditions. Can't argue with that.

[Andy665 0]

The stated combined average for the Rado G60 was 36.6 - I don't think many people are seeing that. Lots of bad press lately about stated combined averages not being achievable in the real world. With ever rising fuel costs I think people are giving much more thought to economy and its about time that the tests were changed - I think its ridiculous that all of these figures are acheived on rolling roads, therefore no drag etc to take into account

[Kevin Bacon 5]

That was in the 90s. Today it's a lot more stringent. VW wouldn't have invested all that money in R&D and development if the engine didn't meet it's targets and as you can see in the pic, they weren't exactly driving it with kid gloves.

[Andy665 0]

I'm certainly pleased that VW are investing in the future of the petrol engine but every manufacturer bar none produces whole ranges of vehicles that cannot meet their official fuel consumption figures in real world conditions - its not the fault of the manufacturers but the testing procedures that allow artificial figures to be produced and then used for marketing purposes. I can't remember the last time I measured my fuel consumption on a rolling road

 

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing full road tests of this engine - early reports are very positive and its nice to see VW doing something different from the mainstream - lets hope that VW aren't going down a blind alley with this, it will certainly be interesting to see what the publics response is like

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I think it will do well. The G60 and VR were ground breaking engines in their time and met with high praise from motoring pundits and this is another innovative, although not original, engine which I'm sure will be popular. A few mpg difference here or there can be forgiven if the performance is half as good as claimed.

[samm_cvr6 0]

It's not so bad if all manufacturers mpg figures are equally out, ie all tested on a rolling road, although not accuracte. I think the official figures for the VR are 29.5 combined which I think is pretty accurate depending on length of trip, I've had it up to 38mpg if you are prepared to sit on the motorway at 60 for long enough, (I only did it because I was following my dads land rover! lol)

Perhaps it would be better to compare the golf 168TDI with this twin charged 1.4

[dig776 0]

Sounds interesting - would be great in a lupo.

 

Wonder how relevant the petrol savings would be after a few miles when the charger and turbo need replacing though.

[samm_cvr6 0]

Yea, will be good to see the 168TDI in the polo aswell!

lot of forthcoming competition for it aswell which is only good for buyers I suppose...

[Andy665 0]

Wonder how long before this engine first appears in a Rado

[samm_cvr6 0]

just been reading the same topic convo on mk4 forums.... does seem to be the way forward, and no doubt it will be more reliable then say a G60 engine, a good alternative, but the 168TDI is looking very appealing...