Autospectator reports that Volkswagen has raised the fuel mileage on its already stingy Polo BlueMotion. Powered by a 1.4-liter TDI [diesel] engine, Volksie's miserly machine deploys every mileage stretcher known to mankind, from special transmission ratios to low-rolling resistance tires. Baby Blue was sipping 3.9 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers. VW's boffins "optimized the engine configuration" to squeeze an extra tenth of a liter efficiency from the mini (small "m") mill, dropping consumption to 3.8 liters per 100 klicks. That's almost 62 mpg folks AND it exceeds all Euro-emission requirements for diesels. VeeDub pulled-off this mpg miracle without relying on hundreds of pounds of batteries and electric motors — if you know what I mean.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I bet that car is fun as hell to drive too – probably weighs next to nothing
Single battery? or single fuel tank?
starlightmica:
Single battery? or single fuel tank?
Single battery. Just the one used to start it. No other batteries (or electric motors) needed to achieve that mileage.
Maybe the rumors that diesel technology has peaked were somewhat premature.
I recently took a trip to Kings Island in Cincinnati, OH and rode the Italian Job ride.
As part of the promotion for the ride, they have facts about the movie production as you wait in line for it. One of the facts was that in order to lighten the Mini’s used in the movie for stunts, they switched from gasoline engines to electric motors and batteries.
My question is are these very special batteries/motors that can weigh less than a gasoline engine, or are these very similar to what could be used in production vehicles.
I wonder about this because I always hear people stating that the battery packs would weigh a lot. I’ve noticed over the past 5 years that laptop batteries are significantly lighter than they used to be while providing the same power (newer cpu and hardware loads not included in that).
Orian:
One of the facts was that in order to lighten the Mini’s used in the movie for stunts, they switched from gasoline engines to electric motors and batteries.
My question is are these very special batteries/motors that can weigh less than a gasoline engine, or are these very similar to what could be used in production vehicles.
There are three prime considerations that govern the number and types of batteries and motors used in an electric vehicle: driving range, acceleration and cruising speed. I have a feeling none of these (except maybe acceleration) were of any importance for the cars used in the movie, so they used the smallest batteries and lightest motors they could.
My question is are these very special batteries/motors that can weigh less than a gasoline engine, or are these very similar to what could be used in production vehicles.
You certainly can get an electric powertrain that is lighter than an equivalent gasoline engine but you’ll sacrifice a lot of range and longevity. The main issue with lithium ion batteries (computer and cell phone) is safety (they tend to explode and catch fire if severely damaged) and lifespan (they can only take about 400 cycles before significant performance degradation).
Citroen has been advertising the C3 for over a year and recently the C4 with their 1.6HDI (like the TDI, but ummm…French) getting 3.7l/100. Breaking the 62mpg mark with a diesel isn’t anything new Europe.
All this with 23 more HP and 45 more lb/ft (the Polo 1.4TDI has 69bhp and 114lb/ft compared to Citroen 1.6 @ 92/159)
I’m no Citroen fan boy, but VW hasn’t exactly turned diesel into wine yet…
C3 Economy Specs
In the dvd extras of The Italian Job, they explain that the electric motor Minis were because they couldn’t use gas engines in the subway/underground.
I’d really like to drive a Euro diesel minicar, but VWs current build quality puts me off.
Is it Euro 5 compliant?
The Minis in The Italian Job were electric because that is the only way LA (I think that was the city) would let them drive in their subway system. It was done strictly becaus of a requirement by the hosting municipality.
An electric car (all else being equal)WILL weigh more than an internal combustion car of equivalent power and range.
Sure an electric motor & batteries can be lighter than a petrol powertrain, so long as the batteries only need to last as long as a single take before cutting to a different camera angle.
I love fuel efficient cars so cheers to VW – but I’m unimpressed. I drive a Honda Insight – first sold 8 years ago – and average 70 mpg (3.3l/100km). It’s light and heaps of fun to drive.
salokj:
The article doesn’t say whether the VW’s fuel consumption of 3.8l/100km is “extra urban” (what we in the States would call “highway”) or combined. If the former, then Citroen’s engine is clearly superior. If the latter, then the Citroen’s 4.4l/100km combined fuel consumption, while stellar, would not be as impressive as the Wonder from Wolfsburg described in this post.
The 3.9 l/100km spec from VW is “combined”.
By coincidence, the MINI Cooper D will get the exact same mileage, once it gets the start/stop system in September.
Polo is larger and more practical than the MINI though, but the MINI will be a lot faster.
Can’t say I’m surprised. Isn’t the Polo smaller than anything on the US market? Super small light weight car combined with a small engine and other fuel miser goodies has always been the recipe for stellar fuel mileage. Look back at the figures on compacts from years ago. The original Honda CRX with the 1.3l engine got crazy fuel mileage. Something like 60 highway. Even more recent ones like the Civic VX were into the 50s.
One fact that’s missing from the Autospectator article is what a slug this car is. It takes almost 13 seconds to hit 60 mph, which means even the Toyota quasi-electric car (yeah, that one) leaves it in the dust. And the 2009 model is allegedly going to get 80+mpg, with more cargo space and better performance.
And a lot of the benefit comes from the turbocharger, as it allows you to use a smaller motor than would otherwise be required for the same performance. If you dropped a turbocharged gas motor of approximately 1.0 liters into the same car, you could get near equal fuel economy and performance with an engine that is about 1/3rd smaller and a fair bit lighter. As just one example, the Citroen C1 has a 1.0 liter naturally aspirated gas engine that gets 57 mpg (US) on the highway with the same sort of sluggish acceleration, and that’s without using any particularly heroic measures to get there.
“As just one example, the Citroen C1 has a 1.0 liter naturally aspirated gas engine that gets 57 mpg (US) on the highway with the same sort of sluggish acceleration”
Yes but the Polo (or even better the C3) will be able to overtake whereas you will be sitting behind that lorry / tractor / blue rinse lady forever in the C1.
@AuricTech & MR42HH,
Can’t tell if the Polo’s numbers are “combined” or “extra-urban”. I agree that any car that could pull VW Uk’s site (you’ve got to scroll down in the menu for the 1.4l TDI engine) and it doesn’t seem to be the same engine at all (VW puts the torque for the 1.4 TDI @ 114 lb/ft).
In any case, any car that kind of mileage is good, if you are looking for that.
Since I’ve been over here, I’ve driven my fair share of diesels and I can’t say that they’re a lot of fun. By the time you’ve got the turbo wound up you’re approaching the redline…If [when] you hit the rev limiter, your 0-60 time goes way down! I guess you’d get used to the 4000/4500 rpm redline, but I’ve always owned gas cars and have a hard time adjusting to the significantly lower redline. Hey, on the bright side, it’s usually rentals that I “discover” the rev limiter on…
The 3.9 is combined, and the bluemotion has the normal 1.4 TDI, but taller gearing, low roll resistance tires and aerodynamic modifications.
Comparing it with the C1 is weird – that is a much smaller, much lighter car. The Polo isn’t smaller than anything in the US market, it’s in the Honda Fit class.
Diesels are not about redline, the power curve is completely different… you’ll probably reduce your 0-60 time ( cos I like, test *that* on the commute every day) changing gear earlier.
I drive a 1.5DCi Renault, it got me over 55mpg (US) going to belgium and back from the UK (yes, I used the ferry, the little clio’s not quite floaty-light) loaded with gear and stacks of booze from the continent.
Paul Niedermeyer
My $100, get back to me in five years, bet is still on the table?
@salokj:
I looked the specs up on VW’s German website, don’t know if the Bluemotion is available in the UK yet. In know they have trouble of keeping up with the demand here in Germany.
Fuel economy:
urban:
4.9 – 5.1 (48/46 mpg US)
extra-urban:
3.2 – 3.4 (74/69 mpg US)
combined:
3.8 – 4.0 (62/59 mpg US)
This is rather good, for a car that is not underpowered for it’s size, seats four in relative comfort
(these are ranges: The lower number is for a car with no options, the higher for a loaded one)
Now… it’s not all that much better than a Prius in terms of CO2 emissions, but much easier to get those numbers in real life… and there is one more thing: money.
Prius: 24,887.16 €
Polo bluemotion: 16,300 €
Yes but the Polo (or even better the C3) will be able to overtake whereas you will be sitting behind that lorry / tractor / blue rinse lady forever in the C1.
Put a turbocharger on the 1.0 liter gas engine, and it will be able to do the same, while retaining most of its fuel economy. The passing power is largely the result of the forced induction.
This is rather good, for a car that is not underpowered for it’s size, seats four in relative comfort
By American standards, it is underpowered. These days, you’d be hard pressed to find very many compact cars in the US that can’t hit 60 mph in under 10 seconds.
Americans just don’t care that much about fuel economy. Fuel prices aren’t high enough to inspire them to prioritize it.
In the whole diesel vs. hybrid debate (which I frankly don’t quite understand, but that’s another topic), what the oil burners often miss is that the appeal of cars such as the Prius is in the electric motor, not the gas motor.
Diesel fans are fixated on obtaining mileage from a gallon of fuel, while hybrid owners like the idea of the electric motor, and the statement that they make by using less gas **because of the electric motor.** Diesel fans view hybrids as gas engined cars with a battery, while hybrid owners view their cars as the gateway to electric cars in our future. The focus is actually quite different, and hybrid buyers are willing to pay a premium to make that statement. (And in Europe, they have no choice, due to import tariffs.)
“Put a turbocharger on the 1.0 liter gas engine, and it will be able to do the same, while retaining most of its fuel economy. The passing power is largely the result of the forced induction.”
Only partly. A large part of the passing power comes from the longer stroke and bigger energy in each bang that a Diesel makes – the petrol will still need to spin faster but the turbo will fatten the torque curve where you need it. The turbo will have to be tiny to avoid lag and that would limit absolute torque.
I’m also not sure the Petrol will match the Diesel for economy once a Turbo is added. There are other factors such as the need to lower the compression ratio and so forth.
Still an Aygo/107/C1 Turbo or Supercharger would be an interesting project to test this out on. Does TTAC fancy sponsoring a research project ?;-)
“Paul Niedermeyer
My $100, get back to me in five years, bet is still on the table? ”
Whats the bet for ?
I’m also not sure the Petrol will match the Diesel for economy once a Turbo is added.
You are right, the diesel will get better fuel economy. But the differential will shrink, I’d say to about 20%.
The gas motor saves weight and produces more power for a given cubic inch/ liter. The passing power can be derived from the turbo as needed. And Audi’s FSI technology offers one example of being able to increase compression for gas motors, which helps to improve their fuel economy. A 2.0 liter turbo gas engine can now produce similar performance to the small-block V-8’s of yesteryear, while delivering much better fuel economy.
@TaxedAndConfused
Renault has a 1.2 turbo gas engine, which is available in the Twingo and Clio – the Clio is similar in size to the Polo.
Fuel economy is:
7.6 urban (31 mpg)
5.0 extra-urban (47 mpg)
5.9 combined (40 mpg)
That’s not bad for a 100hp gasser, but nowhere close to a comparable diesel.
With Volkswagen and others turbocharging everything, we’ll see some interesting stuff soon, like Fiat’s turbo 2-cylinder.
Renault has a 1.2 turbo gas engine, which is available in the Twingo and Clio – the Clio is similar in size to the Polo.
Fuel economy is:
7.6 urban (31 mpg)
5.0 extra-urban (47 mpg)
5.9 combined (40 mpg)
That’s not bad for a 100hp gasser, but nowhere close to a comparable diesel.
That Renault will get to 60 mph more than 2.5 seconds faster than the Polo.
Again, you need to compare based upon performance, and not just look at engine displacement in a vacuum. If the benchmark is the Polo’s time to highway speeds, you could accomplish the same thing with perhaps an 800-900 cc gas turbo. That small gas turbo, thanks to the lower displacement and weight savings, would get better fuel economy that the 1.2 liter gas engine, while having similar acceleration to the diesel. When the comparisons between gas and diesel engines are more appropriate, the fuel economy differential shrinks (although it doesn’t disappear entirely.)
Taxed & confused:
I bet dear Paul, if you go back to his article claiming diesel had just about run its course, that in five years time, there will be two main sources of energy and motive power in the Western world:
Nuclear power and diesel. Hybrids are a dead end, unless they’re diesel hybrids. Even then, who needs all those batteries? Just you all wait and see.
In terms of size and weight the Clio is closer to the Polo than the Twingo – the TWingo is Renault’s version of the Aygo/107. The stats for the Clio TCE are :
BHP – 100 @ 5500
Torque – 107 lb/ft @ 3000
0-60 11.1 Secs
Top Speed : 114 mph
MPG Combined – 47
MPG Extra Urban (Highway) – 56
MPG Urban – 37
The same figures for the Polo are :
BHP – 80 @ 4000
Torque – 144 lb/ft @ 2200
0-60 12.8 Secs
Top Speed : 107 mph
MPG Combined – 74
MPG Extra Urban (Highway) – 88
MPG Urban – 57
On the standstill to highway speeds statistic you get to “cruise” momentum at 60 1.7 seconds faster in the Clio, assuming you achieve the perfect “launch”, drive it like you hired / stole it and so forth. Go flat out and you will get to your speeding fine 7mph faster.
Somewhat frustratingly I can’t find more realistic performance figures like 30-50 (for passing) or 50-70 (motorway lane changing).
Based on the MPG values the Polo has a 50+% advantage.
Thats a big difference.
But, hang on – what about another Clio ? This one is the DCi Diesel model.
BHP – 105 @ 4000
Torque – 177 lb/ft @ 2000
0-60 11.1 Secs
Top Speed : 118 mph
MPG Combined – 61.4
MPG Extra Urban (Highway) – 68.9
MPG Urban – 49.5
Still behind the Polo, but a good 30-40% better in MPG terms than the TCE and the performance is pretty equal.
Once again, you folks continue to compare turbocharged diesels with non-turbocharged gas engines, and end up with distorted comparisons as a result.
Part of the benefit you’re citing is due to the turbocharger, not the diesel. With a turbo, you can have a lighter, smaller gas engine to produce similar performance characteristics that would require a larger diesel.
If you made an apples-to-apples comparison (turbocharged diesel vs. turbocharged gas engine with similar performance characteristics), the diesel would probably get 20% better fuel economy, while the gas engine would be perhaps 2/3rd’s the size and would weigh less.
It’s a combination of the turbocharger and the fuel choice that results in achieving better fuel economy within a given performance band. Perhaps half of the savings that you’re ascribing to the diesel component of the drivetrain is actually the byproduct of forced induction.
All the cars in my post have turbos.
PCH101, as stated in both my earlier post and TaxedAndConfused’s post, we compared turbo gassers and turbo diesels.
Anyone like to dig up numbers for the VW Golf TSI vs. the TDI?
“Anyone like to dig up numbers for the VW Golf TSI vs. the TDI?”
Here you go, both are Golf 3dr Hatchbacks so the weights should be similar
TSI (GTI):
220 hp @ 5000 rpm
207 lb/ft @ 1800
0-60 : 7.2
Top Speed : 146
MPG
Combined : 35.3
Extra Urban : 45.6
Urban : 25.7
TDI 170
170 bhp @ 4200
258 lb/ft @ 2000
0-60 : 8.2
Top Speed : 137
MPG
Combined 47.9
Extra Urban : 58.9
Urban : 36.2
Actually the 0-60 times I have are 0-62 (100kp/h). You can take something off those.