I was just looking at my auctionview stored searches, and saw VW Lupo Diesel.
I must have logged it because it has good fuel economy, I clicked it to see, and there is 1 available in Edinburgh soon.
It is 1.4 tdi RHD 2004
I looked it up and it is 64 mpg
I seem to recall a German model which Clarkson said did 94 mpg ? Can anyone tell me which one and why we didn't get the model over here? 94mpg would be less than 100 g/km = Band a**
|
That was the Lupo 3L - also sold as a Seat Arosa 3L. Lightweight wheels, skinny tyres, thinner glass and a 1.2 tdi engine.
I think they canned it because it didn´t sell.
Not sure why it didn´t make it over to the UK.
www.spheral.com/g+/uk/uk-lupo.html
|
Thanks,
2 points in response to that article, How can the "first ever 3 litre production car" have a 1.2 litre cubic capacity?
The old VW fuelsaver mechanism was better, put car into neutral engine stops, put car into first gear engine starts. Much better than standing on the brakes (and blinding people behind) to stop/start the engine.
I'm going to see if I can find out the cars g/km rating.
|
|
The 3L is the diesel needed over 100KM, IIRC.
|
|
|
How can the "first ever 3 litre production car" have a 1.2 litre cubic capacity?
It refers to the fuel consumption rather than the engine size. On the continent fuel consumption is measured in litres per 100 Kilometres rather than miles per gallon. The Polo could achieve 3 litres per 100 Km which equates to 94 miles per gallon.
|
>The Polo could achieve 3 litres per 100 Km which equates to 94 miles per gallon.
Presumably not on a combined cycle. Which Polo would that be then?
|
>The Polo could achieve 3 litres per 100 Km which equates to 94 miles per gallon. Presumably not on a combined cycle. Which Polo would that be then?
Sorry, my mistake. Lupo not Polo.
|
|
|
|
I see it was very good @ 81 g/km
(I have not read this pdf file yet so don't flame me for anything it says, I am just using it as a reference for the 3L g/km rating, interesting to see the "Twingo smile" too @ 78 g/km, but they forgot the Smart Cdi @ 88 g/km or 90 g/km for older models)
www.transportenvironment.org/docs/events/2006-09_d...f
A hybrid 3L managed 60 g/km
www.greenpropulsion.be/news04.asp
This page (2nd item down) answers my first point above (about the 3litre)
www.autobloggreen.com/category/audi
It refers to 3 litres per 100 km traveled.
|
|
|
The old VW fuelsaver mechanism was better, put car into neutral engine stops, put car into first gear engine starts. Much better than standing on the brakes (and blinding people behind) to stop/start the engine.
>>
Not for the environment it was'nt, every time a car starts unburnt fuel exits the exhaust. I remember reading that a car could idle for 20 minutes and put out the same emissions as one hot start, obviously the car would use more fuel idling.
|
Not if it's properly designed. Systems like the Prius spin the engine up to 1000rpm before injecting fuel, meaning the whole thing's pretty seamless. Other systems like the Citroen Stop Start also have beefed-up starters. A hot start's much less damaging than a cold one.
If there was any problem, it would have shown up on the Prius's emission tests - but it's much cleaner than normal petrol or diesel cars.
Plus stopping the engine is better for the catalytic converter - it tends to cool down while the engine is idling, but if the engine stops, it stays hotter due to no exhaust gas flow, making it more effective when you start moving again.
|
I ran a 1.7 normally aspirated Lupo diesel for 90k as a tuition car. MPG did reach 60+, and it was probably the best small hatch I have owned. When I sold it there wasn't a single rattle or squeak from anywhere, it still drove like new.
One point to watch is pedal boxes collapsing, not unknown on these models though mine was ok.
--
|
|
|
Not if it's properly designed. Systems like the Prius spin the engine up to 1000rpm before injecting fuel, meaning the whole thing's pretty seamless. Other systems like the Citroen Stop Start also have beefed-up starters. A hot start's much less damaging than a cold one.
The Golf ecomatic was designed years ahead of the Prius (1993 launch?) and its primary function was to save fuel, not the planet, which was the point I was making. The Ecomatics engine did'nt stop until it was up to normal running temperature and being diesel of that era did'nt have a cat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H
I think it was too expensive to build. The story went that wotsisname that ran VW at the time heard that Renault were building a 3l car (Clio?) and interpreted it as 3l of fuel for 100km. Consequently VW dashed to beat Renault to it, only to find that Renault's 3l car was the usual mid engined maniac edition of the Clio (and as they did with the 5 before that). With a 3l engine. Just goes to show, you should listen to the whole story and not assume!
JH
|
|
Wasn´t it VW´s response to a very public challenge by the German green lobby to build (and sell) a car capable of travelling 100km on 3 litres of fuel?
|
I have a Seat Arosa 1.7Sdi. It can do over 80 mpg if driven gently on A-roads (~65mph).
In 5 years and 190,000 miles nothing has gone wrong. No MOT failures. New front shocks at 120,000 miles plus tyres, cambelts, brakes. Fresh semi-synth oil every 5k miles, new filter every 10K miles.
I avoid turbo-powered cars: not worth the hassle with the egr valves/seals/fully-synth when mileage gets over 150K miles.
|
I'm with Blakes 7. I had the 1.7SDi in a Polo for 9 months and 23k miles in 2003, without even an oil change. Bullet-proof engine.
The Lupo 3L tdi was really hi-tech I recall, tiptronic box, extra thin wheels and glass, lightweight aluminium body etc. and quite pricey. Don't think they ever bothered with a RHD version. It also had a specially-developed 1.2 TDi engine, not the habitual VAG 3-cylinder 1.4tdi of that era.
I had a Lupo 1.0E petrol in 2000 for a couple of years. 100% reliable, frugal, and could still keep up with the traffic on the motorway. In "budget" cars such as these why run to the expense of a larger engine to try and recoup a few mpg?
|
|
|
|
