you aren't telling us any facts. Just utter bs which people who might not know you take your postings as fact

Prove it or shut up.

 

Just read all the literature that the VAG produce, Why would they lie they want to sell cars and would get found out by the press if they did?

 

Diesel good, Petrol better.

Just read all the literature that the VAG produce, Why would they lie they want to sell cars and would get found out by the press if they did?

Diesel good, Petrol better.

you're laughably saying you can get over 50mpg in both petrol octy and fabia vrs.

I'm saying it's impossible.

The fact you've been asked numerous times to prove it and come up with excuse after excuse speaks volumes

You spout this crap so much I actually think you believe it yourself.

I actually lol reading your posts they're that full of stinking bull manure.

Just read all the literature that the VAG produce, Why would they lie they want to sell cars and would get found out by the press if they did?

 

Diesel good, Petrol better.

As routinely stated in numerous motoring magazines the official fuel consumption figures are notoriously inaccurate as the European testing is totally unrealistic as its all completed on rolling roads etc. These are currently being reviewed I believe as it is acknowledged that in real world situations these figures can be almost impossible to recreate.

you're laughably saying you can get over 50mpg in both petrol octy and fabia vrs.

I'm saying it's impossible.

The fact you've been asked numerous times and come up with excuse after excuse speaks volumes

You spout this crap so much I actually think you believe it yourself.

I actually lol reading your posts they're that full of stinking bull manure.

 

I have numerous engineering qualification, metrology, thermodynamics, BSc Hons Degree, and happy you are amused.  Live long and Prosper.     

As routinely stated in numerous motoring magazines the official fuel consumption figures are notoriously inaccurate as the European testing is totally unrealistic as its all completed on rolling roads etc. These are currently being reviewed I believe as it is acknowledged that in real world situations these figures can be almost impossible to recreate.

unless you're lol and you can beat the manufacturers figures across a whole tank.

I suspect his facts on literature is the 0 to 60 figures which I've proven to him are incorrect. He simply won't accept this even though it's widely known that the vag group are conservative with their performance figures which is why they have the cheapest insurance rates against similar models from different makes. They've done it for years and you can always beat any 0 to 60 time they publish

I have numerous engineering qualification, metrology, thermodynamics, BSc Hons Degree, and happy you are amused. Live long and Prosper.

good for you. Glad that helps you get impossible mpg from your glorious engines

Btw my vrs isn't fake. It's real. It came like that from the factory. It's not like I bought a glorious 1.8tsi and stuck a 'fin' on the back and pretended I've got a vrs.

As routinely stated in numerous motoring magazines the official fuel consumption figures are notoriously inaccurate as the European testing is totally unrealistic as its all completed on rolling roads etc. These are currently being reviewed I believe as it is acknowledged that in real world situations these figures can be almost impossible to recreate.

 

There i some foundation in fact although totally agree in ideal conditions but are a useful benchmark and a target to aspire to. 

 

More the problem in the UK is congested roads, people not buying the car ideal for their journey types due to lack of understanding.

 

Hyundai have recently been reprimanded for exaggerated claims.  My very nice Skoda dealership proffered that true MPG would be about 10% than book which I respected that forthright statement.

 

If I was living in mainland Europe I would probably drive a diesel something like a 2.5 V6 as it would be the sensible option but here in the UK where diesel is more expensive and the petrols have really closed the gap in MPG, for the same performance, ie 1.4-1.6 petrol against a 2 litre diesel,  and the direct injection turbo-petrols are nicer to drive according to most of those who have driven both.   Time for bed Zebadee,.       

good for you. Glad that helps you get impossible mpg from your glorious engines

Btw my vrs isn't fake. It's real. It came like that from the factory. It's not like I bought a glorious 1.8tsi and stuck a 'fin' on the back and pretended I've got a vrs.

 

1.8 TSI L&K DSG (quicker than a wiesel VRS according to Skoda).  Congrats at getting your to sub 7 second to 60 off Beachy Head. 

1.8 TSI L&K DSG (quicker than a wiesel VRS according to Skoda). Congrats at getting your to sub 7 second to 60 off Beachy Head.

Not real world and last time I looked the 1.8 couldn't be got in a vrs.

oh and I proved it unlike any of your ramblings.

Just read all the literature that the VAG produce, Why would they lie they want to sell cars and would get found out by the press if they did?

 

Because they are a large company that is only interested in how much money they can make. They will say anything that helps them sell a car even if it is not strictly true. Have you seen any cosmetic adverts? 

 

They get away with it because they hide behind small print, "standardised" tests that are not realistic and I don't think they are that closely monitored.

So JRW says that lol is lying because he can 'beat the figures' but because his diesel apparently got 6.98 0-60 and can 'beat the figures' he is right and lol is wrong?

Sounds a bit hypocritical to me, Jesus some muppet a while back was quoting he was getting an 'average' of 70mpg from his CR Vrs a couple of weeks ago using the brim method !

And btw JRW, say all you like your 6.98 with printout yeah yeah is feckin BS, something wasn't right in that time even your 1/4 mile time wasn't plausible in comparison to other cars on that day.

So JRW says that lol is lying because he can 'beat the figures' but because his diesel apparently got 6.98 0-60 and can 'beat the figures' he is right and lol is wrong?

Sounds a bit hypocritical to me, Jesus some muppet a while back was quoting he was getting an 'average' of 70mpg from his CR Vrs a couple of weeks ago using the brim method !

And btw JRW, say all you like your 6.98 with printout yeah yeah is feckin BS, something wasn't right in that time even your 1/4 mile time wasn't plausible in comparison to other cars on that day.

I'm saying he can't prove it, I can. I've proved it numerous times over numerous runs on different strips.

Could upload printouts now but I am not on my laptop and not going to satisfy lols ego any more as I've proven more than enough over the last 3year's with this joker. He's infamous on the octy2 section and just want to warn people about his false posts.

I only like to post facts when I post as people could come on here and follow false advice.

Can't find any real world figures for the vrs but plenty for golf to prove my figures are true. Bear in mind I have launch control over the manuals

http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/1212_2012_volkswagen_gtd_first_test/

http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=253968.0

Just read all the literature that the VAG produce, Why would they lie they want to sell cars and would get found out by the press if they did?

 

Diesel good, Petrol better.

 

There are no end of stories in the motoring and general press about quoted MPG figures being unrealistic and unachievable in normal driving, and all the tricks they use during the test.

 

If you drive very gently on quiet roads for long journeys it's possible to get to the quoted MPG, but over normal mixed driving that people do in real life it's not.

It also totally defeats the object of buying a quicker car to do that.

I've been told the following, apologies if its not true but makes a good story and explains the in accuracy of the MPG war.

Manufactures when testing MPG and Co2 output do it by the following

1 Rolling road (no wind resistance & no car weight resistance)

2 power steering and alternators are disengaged (no extra strain on the engine)

3 brake pads are removed (no chance of rubbing)

So don't believe what you read in the handbooks!!

So don't believe what you read in the handbooks!!

or any posts relating to mpg from lol-lol

or any posts from lol-lol

 

Fixed that for you.

On the Octavia vRS CR vs 1.4 TSi debate this is how i see it.

Both the Golf and Leon with the 184ps engine have a claimed 0-62 time of around 7.5 secs. The Octavia is something like 8.1. I suspect in reality its no slower than either car so a mid 7 sec 0-62 time is realistic.

i believe also recently that the 1.4 TSi time has been changed from 8.1 to 8.4, technically on paper then the TDI is the quicker car surely?

Not that it really matters. The new 1.4 is a v nice engine, makes for a light car, goes v well and is probably a bit more refined. The diesel is heavier but then has 44ps more power and nearly 100lb/ft more torque at its disposal which should give it fairly collossal mid range go, in much the same way as a current 320d is also pretty rapid.

one thing is for certain, the 1.4 driven as nature intended will never get anywhere near to the efficiency of the TDi, impressive given how much more powerful it is.

one last thing, diesels are actually quite tricky to drive to get the best of them; I find with mine that to get the best go its often best to be in a gear higher than what feels naturally right. Overtakes are best dispatched in 4th generally (most cars its 3rd). Basically if youre in the wrong gear you tend to get made to look like a div by even fairly mundane cars. Just the way the VAG CR diesels are, right gear, right power band a 184 CR should do a fair job of munching a 1.4 TSi 140 once up to speed.

Comparison statistic are compiled by a French database Zeperfs from several of the European car magazines to produced data from data-logging equipment.

 

They have compiled the data for a Mk 3 1.4 TSI in DSG form and for the excellent 150 hp diesel but not the Mk 3 VRSs but should have that data in the next few weeks.   Here is the 1.4 TSI against 150 hp diesel which has shown performance figures surprisingly close the the 180 hp engine in the Octy Mk 3......

 

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel4662-4661.htm  &

 

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match4661-4662.htm    

 

They have most of the quicker Mk 2 Octavias in the database with verified data from 3 or more road tests using datalogging for roll on times as well standing starts.

Some examples...Mk 2 VRSs, 1.8 TSI (EA113 engined not EA888)    

 

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1357-2674.htm

 

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match2674-2671.htm

 

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel2674-2671.htm

yawn....

I think some members should go off to a locked forum chat room and discuss economy and the like because I don't think it is contributing much more to the thread subject (and it is getting pretty boring now)...

I think some members should go off to a locked forum chat room and discuss economy and the like because I don't think it is contributing much more to the thread subject (and it is getting pretty boring now)...

Totally agree.

Just to sum up if you missed anything........

Petrol IS faster.

Diesel MORE economical. 

Totally agree.

Just to sum up if you missed anything........

Petrol IS faster.

Diesel MORE economical. 

 

Thanks for the summary, saves me ploughing through the previous 4 pages!     

Checkout video in Autoexpress online this week.

 

Golf GTI v Golf GTD.

 

Initial inside , may not be conclusive but a good stab as a gut feel.

 

vrskeith

Link here http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/volkswagen/golf/65835/volkswagen-golf-gti-vs-gtd-video-review

 

The GTD got a terrible start off the line, not that I'm doubting the figures much, it's probably about right.

Just read all the literature that the VAG produce, Why would they lie?

 

Hmmmmmm.......  :think:

Edited 20 November, 201510 yr by subvertbeats