back to article VW Scirocco BlueMotion Technology TDI 140

Style, practicality, economy and sporting performance - not necessarily aspects of the car makers’ art you would expect to find all combined in a single model. But that’s what you'll get with the arrival of a new generation of rather desirable but also extremely frugal diesel coupés from the likes of Renault and Volkswagen. …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I rented one of these the other week

    and fully agree with this review. Great fun and once you're on the go you'll be hard-pressed to tell it's a diesel. Also, the stop/start is about the least intrusive system I've used, although that may come at some cost to the ultimate fuel economy. On top of that, it's a VW: it ain't going to break.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      it's a VW: it ain't going to break....

      You driven any recent VWs for any decent length of time (years, not days)??

      My passat was plauged with issues and than new electronic handbrake is about the most unrelaible "switch" ever.

      I've owned veedubs for over 20 years and i've watched them get more and more complicated and more and more unreliable.

      Which is why i passed them over at my last car change....

      1. Armando 123

        But it's a Passat

        Odd, but the people I know who've complained about VW have all been Passat owners. Okay, in one case it was a Golf owner who'd have complained about being hung with an old rope, but still, thinking of the VW owners I know -- five Golfs, two Touaregs, three Jettas, a Phaeton, a Rouaton, and even an Eos -- only the four Passat owners have complained.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Even an Eos

          I know they are not exactly common but people do own them. I do.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        hmm

        Not sure if you notice from the review but its NOT a fucking passat

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Windows

          re: hmm

          Don't know if you noticed, but he wasn't talking about the review, he was replying to a reply on his comment.

    2. Cow Parsley

      VWs never fail? What?

      I bought a brand new VW Transporter van that failed within 10 minutes due to a catastrophic engine failure. They then put another engine in and that one failed as well...needless to say I told them to stuff the third one somewhere unpleasant. This was after I'd spent another £4k converting the inside of the van. Never fail my a*se.

    3. dave 93
      Meh

      Owning is different from renting

      And you can get a 3 door Golf (5 seats, not 4) with the same engine, same adaptive suspension and leather for less (£23,270 ont he website).

      To be fair, you can't have the stop start, but it sounds like it doesn't always work anyway, and must add lots of electrical stuff to go wrong.

  2. Paul 172
    Thumb Down

    More car reviews....?

    "While it lacks the immediate thump-in-the-back of the 2.0 litre turbo petrol engines"

    ...thump-in-the-back from a FWD car...?

    "With 138bhp on tap the 0-60 sprint takes a somewhat leisurely 9.3 seconds but the top speed is an autobahn-friendly 129mph."

    ...clearly you don't go on autobahns...

    1. /dev/null
      Coat

      "thump-in-the-back"

      I think the thump in the back comes from acceleration, which also occurs in FWD cars, I believe.

      1. seven of five

        Thump

        not at 140 BHP in a 1.6 ton car, no sorry sir.

  3. jungle_jim
    Facepalm

    i do wonder...

    "I’d suggest reserving Sport for track days"

    why would you take one of these onto a track?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      why would you take one of these onto a track?

      To see how crap most cars really are when you actually DRIVE them....

      Nothing like total brake failure on the 3rd lap to realise how cheap they are.

      1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

        Re: why would you take one of these onto a track?

        All that tells you is "you took your road car onto a track and broke it, you moron".

  4. Scott Mckenzie

    And the extras...

    Fantastic cars... the 160bhp petrol is still the pick of the bunch for me but this one is well worth a look if you value the economy more than the driving - but there isn't that much in it either way!

    As for DSG, I agree it doesn't work too well on the lower powered Diesel... but for folks who drive in town a lot, it's a phenomenal option, on the Petrol cars it is the opposite - improving economy and reducing CO2 so much more worthy there!

    1. Mark 65

      DSG

      Another benefit of DSG (or automatic in general) is it's far better suited for cruise control although you probably don't get to use it that much in the UK.

      I also wonder whether the Manual/DSG fuel figures are that realisable i.e. are they figures achieved under certain testing conditions using an experience test driver who knows exactly when to change to get the best out of it? I believe so, in which case the DSG should give better real-World economy unless you're a Larry Leadfoot. It also has a semi-auto option should you need to prompt it for an approaching hill (towing etc).

      I'm left wondering why the same engine is so much slower accelerating than my Jetta - I assume it's gear ratio related with the BlueMotion gubbings.

    2. Joel Mansford

      DSG 'rocks'

      I have a Mk5 Golf GTI DSG and love the gearbox. I'd say that it scores in two main areas: 1) around town (slow moving traffic and also it'll get in to 5th gear quickly at 30mph)

      2) overtaking, it has the balls to drop to 4th at 95mph which I sure as hell don't myself if you bury your right foot.

      Regarding stats, I think VW 'massage' their 0-60 figures to differentiate more between their lower-power and higher-power models. Officially my GTI does 0-60 in 6.9 but using Racetech kit can consistently pull 6.5 which is close to the R32.

      I reckon they do the same on the diesels to make a case for the 170bhp.

  5. b166er

    Tab order?

    Nice article Alun.

    'all about surfing that wave of torque to surge past the inattentive and the timid' sums up motoring nicely.

    I understand the true BlueMotion cars are 100% tax deductable, presumably this isn't?

    1. DRendar
      Boffin

      Not all of them.

      The Polo definitely is, the old (mk5) Golf definitely wasn't... Not sure about the new one without consulting the big G.

      Basically any car with CO2 emissions < 100g/km is free - although that is likely to change.

    2. Geoff Campbell
      Boffin

      The review says Band C for road tax

      So definitely not 100% deductible.

      GJC

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Criticism

    Here's a few criticisms of the "greenness" the reviewer forgot

    -there is a hint that the reviewer drove above the speed limit. If the review was conducted in the UK, that is an admission of guilt which ought to interest the police.

    -fuel economy suffers from aggressive acceleration and driving above 70mph, both of which this vehicle appears to emphasise

    -all "green" cars take up as much space as "brown" cars.

    -the overall CO2 footprint of the VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda portfolio is pretty weak. Yes, they hype their bluemotion, but BMW have made far better progress in reducing their average CO2 emission rate than VAG have. The BlueMotion product line is essentially there to look eco-smug -at a premium- rather than fix the efficiency of the total fleet.

    1. DRendar
      Mushroom

      @Anonymous Twit

      "-there is a hint that the reviewer drove above the speed limit. If the review was conducted in the UK, that is an admission of guilt which ought to interest the police."

      STFU you middle lane hogging git. (I'm assuming a bit there - but the MO fits)

      He doesn't state where he drove - but for all you know it could have been on a deserted, dry, straight motorway. Still technically illegal, but hurting no-one.

      "-fuel economy suffers from aggressive acceleration and driving above 70mph, both of which this vehicle appears to emphasise"

      Not always - my 03 Golf TDi gets better MPG at 85 than at 70.

      And I'd much prefer a car with more accelerating potential in the 40 - 90MPH range - all the better for overtaking YOU doing 45 MPH on a 50 road.

      For one thing it is a damn sight safer to be able to put your foot down and get past someone before the 18Wheeler runs you down.

      -all "green" cars take up as much space as "brown" cars.

      And you take up as much space as the next person - what's your point?

      "-the overall CO2 footprint of the VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda portfolio is pretty weak. Yes, they hype their bluemotion, but BMW have made far better progress in reducing their average CO2 emission rate than VAG have. The BlueMotion product line is essentially there to look eco-smug -at a premium- rather than fix the efficiency of the total fleet."

      They've made better PROGRESS, that doesn't make it better overall.

      That's because BMW have only just (<10 years) started making smaller, more efficient cars... i.e. 1 Series and Mini. VAG always have made smaller cars, and so their only improvements are to existing lines.

      If Bugatti suddenly added a 1-series Efficient-Dynamics type car to their lineup, then their PROGRESS would be vastly better than the two wouldn't it?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      Slightly missed

      You slightly missed the point, yeah blah blah.. but at the end of the day the Scirocco looks unique on the road and a BMW/Audi looks like any other BMW/Audi. If you drive a Scirocco around town you get a lot more attention and envious looks then you would ever get from a boring grey box.

    3. SkippyBing

      re: There's a hint that the reviewer drove above the speed limit

      It doesn't say where he drove faster than the speed limit, maybe it was on one of the track days he refers to or on private land in which case you can drive as fast as you want. An admission of guilt would be 'when I was doing 90 on the motorway', I do hope you aren't in the Police or the CPS but I fear you probably are.

  7. tony72
    Thumb Up

    Good car

    I've got a 2009 Scirocco TDI and I absolutely love it. The only thing wrong with it is the rear visibility isn't great; I got the rear parking sensors option to help with that. The improved fuel economy and lower tax bracket of this version one means I'll have to see how much I can get for my current one on trade-in, it might well be worth me upgrading. I get about 40-45mpg on my daily commute, I think the stop-start might make a big improvement on that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Stop-Start

      Can't you just stop and start the engine yourself? It's not much more effore than putting it in neutral and releasing the clutch, surely?

      1. Iznik

        Re Stop-Start

        But automated Stop-Start reduces a car's official fuel consumption figures so that you might typically pay £30 per annum instead of £90 for car tax, which is real £££. Plus automated Stop-Start has a beefier battery and dynamically assesses its state before turning off. So when very cold (lots of heating on) or very hot (likewise aircon) it won't bother.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why DSG?

    DSG is fantastic: convenience of an auto, almost the economy & performance of the manual. In town it's fantastic, and there's enough control to still make the B roads fun.

  9. /dev/null
    WTF?

    "Do that to a sports coupé and what you end up with won’t be much of a sports coupé any longer"

    What, make it more aerodynamic, and it's not a sports coupé any more? Huh?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Automatic mpg

    Take the point regarding the fuel consumption + automatic = less good, but interestingly the latest BMW 1 series (about to hit the streets) has an 8-speed auto that gives BETTER fuel-consumption and LESS emissions in the more powerful versions (comparable, or better, than the BHP of the VW here). Which feels a bit like discovering perpetual motion.

    1. Scott Mckenzie

      MPG

      See my above... but VW/Audi were the first to offer better MPG and lower emissions with the DSG (or S Tronic) gearboxes. Though bizarrely only in the petrol cars. BMW et al are just playing catch up.

      Anyone who buys diesel is silly though so not really an issue :D

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Automatic mpg

      "Take the point regarding the fuel consumption + automatic = less good, but interestingly the latest BMW 1 series (about to hit the streets) has an 8-speed auto that gives BETTER fuel-consumption and LESS emissions in the more powerful versions"

      Can't comment on the BMW implementation, but for VW, the petrol DSG gearbox typically has 7 gears vs 6 for the manual, so you get better economy/emissions by having the extra gear. Conversely, most of the diesels have 6 gears in both configuration, so the automatics tend to suffer on that side ...

      1. Scott Mckenzie

        Not quite

        Only the smaller 1.4 engined petrol cars have the 7 speed wet clutch system... the 2.0 petrol and Diesel cars have a 6 speed dry clutch system due to the extra torque.

        The 7 Speed one is stunning though!

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hurumph

    >>> Pressing on in the Scirocco is all about surfing that wave of torque to surge past the inattentive and the timid

    God, you "petrol heads" are so annoying.

    1. Scott Mckenzie

      Also not quite...

      This review is clearly from a 'Diesel head' petrol heads are already half a mile further down the road

      1. Mark 65

        Re:Also not quite...

        Unless the diesel head is driving an Audi Q7 6.0 V12 TDI

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Petrol heads?

      Pftt.

      Even "petrol heads" are just "tin-box, slow-motion zombies" to bikers...:-)

      Though as a biker I grow alarmed that 1.5 tons of metal now gets similar (and sometimes better) mpg to large capacity bikes. Methinks the bike manufacturers need to start focusing on economy again - wasn't that one of the reason bikes were popular in the first place?

      1000hp+ per ton is fine for me...but would it be too much to ask to get more economy next time?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Tin-box, slow motion zombies?

        Maybe in a Scirocco, but not in a 'proper' car. 145 along the north end of the A9 with a bike screaming along behind you (not being shaken off but not able to overtake either) and a V8 roaring in front of you is a hell of a lot of fun :D

        I have the feeling that this is a moot point, though- the sort of person who'd buy a VeeDub Scirocco Diesel Bluemotion doesn't seem like the sort of person who'd even try to match a bike. Or have anything to do with bikes other than yell "ORGAN DONOR!" and feel safe and smug.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      But it's....

      ...a diesel!?

  12. jason 7
    Happy

    The shape of the Scirocco........

    ....always looks to me like a VW Golf that has sat in a microwave for a minute and melted slightly.

  13. BinaryFu
    FAIL

    Honestly?

    Economically speaking, these vehicles really don't make any sense at all unless you're truly in the market for a new car. The cost savings on fuel (one of the common arguments I hear from the greenies as a GREAT reason to buy one) equates to taking over 30 years for the car to pay for itself.

    By that time I'd expect 2 more of them would be required, which means they are not cost efficient at all. Now granted, when they come down into a much more reasonable range of cost, then yes, there will be a definite economic reasoning for purchasing one. Until then, my very evil road hog will still be more economically sound.

    1. HipposRule

      Actually..

      .. when i costed our Eos as to whether to go for petrol or diesel it took about 7 years to pay for the initail cost differecne with about a 3ppl difference allowing 12k miles a year.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Go

        Compare your Eos

        to, say, a BMW 840Ci. 30mpg on a motorway run (though 19-ish around town). But it only cost me £3500 (They're not usually that cheap- this one was an utter bargain!).

        It's faster, more comfortable, just as easy to drive and probably easier to work on (the M62 V8 engine has been used all over for >10 years so it's well-understood by mechanics, has a massive supply of spares and provides all the modern on-board diagnostics you could want!), can seat 4 adults (so long as 2 of them are mid-5ft or less). Plus it'll cruise from John O'Groats to Reading without raising an eyebrow- <2000rpm at 70mph? As an aside, Alun Taylor, THAT is what makes something a GT car. A Grand Tourer.

        Now okay, it uses (roughly) twice as much petrol as the Eos. But the £20k saving over a mid-range Eos (£23-ish according to the website) is equivalent to (at £1.33 per litre for fuel) over 100,000 miles of motorway driving or about 75,000 miles 'combined'.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    sure, it looks like a nice enough car...

    But "sporting performance"? 9.4 seconds to 60? Maybe in 1965... My beater '93 Ford Escort did that with a blown head gasket - hell, the F250 Super Duty hits 60 in 9 flat, if I recall correctly, and might still do it while towing this vee dub. And it gets 25mpg on the highway...

    Also, diesel belongs in bulldozers and big rigs, not cars. When I was in Valencia I kept hearing delivery trucks come up behind me, but then they were actually S-Classes - new ones, too. It's like seeing a beautiful woman, and then she speaks with James Earl Jones' voice. Eughghugh!

    1. DRendar
      Boffin

      Yankdar

      My Yankdar is going off again.

      You must have been in Valencia in the 1980s. Modern Diesels are quiet and refined with only a hint of rattle. There is no way that you heard a new S-Class over the sound of your own engine - none - zlich. Unless you were riding a bicycle. Or he was doing 80MPH in second gear.

      The new small 1.2l - 1.6l TDi engines do rattle a fair bit - especially the Bluemotion ones but not the 2-4l power houses they put in high end Mercs/VAG/Beemers

      Diesels have more torque, lower CO2 emissions*, Less Tax (VED) for equivalent Power, WAY better fuel consumption**, last longer ***, can run on nearly anything****, and retain their value for longer*****. What's not to like?

      * yes yes they have higher NO2 among other things, but when you take into account that a diesel will probably have an on-the-road life nearly double that of an equivalent petrol, and the pollution caused by the manufacture of that second petrol car - well you get the idea.

      ** Even taking the higher cost of Diesel into account - yes

      *** Yes the servicing is slightly more expensive - but not massively so like some make out - and as I've said - the car will last probably twice as long.

      ***** Just not the French ones...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Megaphone

        Re: Yankdar

        Guilty as charged - but I'm still right about diesels. :)

        Torque is nice and all, but turbo petrols have quite a bit themselves, good mileage, and don't sound like a dying old man. And I was in Valencia in 2009 (irc) and the situation I described was with me walking. Maybe I'm spoiled having been involved with motorsport for 20 years, but no diesel is going to raise the hair on your neck like a big block V8 reflecting off the hills as it goes down the Watkins Glen back straight at 150mph. Oh, you might make them sound aggressiive, or get them to rev high, or stop them from rattling... But you won't make them -beautiful-.

        How many people hear a diesel go by and say, "Jesus Christ, listen to that thing..."?

        If a diesel comes along that satisfies those requirements, I will be wrong, happy, and I will eat my hat - a Williams F1 hat.

        1. HipposRule
          Thumb Down

          I take it...

          .... from your comments you are a Merkin, therefore no experience of a real diesel

          1. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            I suppose...

            ...you will never read this, but for the record, I have experienced diesels in Valencia (which I specifically mentioned), London, Budapest, and Helsinki, among others. Is that enough?

            But hey, don't let that stop you from generalizing about 'Merkins'. I'll go get my gun and ten gallon hat, plant myself in my 30-foot-long duallie F250, and heft my wobbling bulk over to the McDonald's for a super-size Big Mac.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @HipposRule

            I take it you drive either a diesel or a little 4-pot petrol engined car then, or you'd know what a good engine note sounds like.

            4-cyl: Farty, or bellowing through a bucket disguised as a tailpipe and not doing much.

            V6: Smooth, makes a lovely sound when you floor it.

            V8: mmmm, V8s... either shouty American ones or smoother, more refined (but less exciting) European ones.

            V10: Pretty varied, but generally sound... odd. Nice, but odd.

            V12: Awesome.

            Diesel: Tractor. As much as the adverts like to say you'll never know the difference, you can always, ALWAYS tell the Diesel. Weird torque curve and more of an agricultural sound to it. Nothing particularly wrong with them- in vans or family cars they're great, but like David said they just don't have the smooth sound or awe-inspiring roar of a 'proper' engine. Maybe when someone sells a V12 diesel the matter will be settled.

  15. Joe Harrison

    Believe it or not

    @DRendar: Six months ago I was hit from behind by a Porsche doing more than twice my speed on a deserted, dry, straight motorway. Thank you Mercedes for construction safety and I was barely scratched. I am lucky to be alive; please don't encourage these crazy people who are convinced they are outstanding drivers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      "Six months ago I was hit from behind by a Porsche doing more than twice my speed"

      What he didn't say is that he was going 2mph...

      1. steogede

        @Dave W.

        Perhaps he was doing 35MPH on the motorway.

    2. DRendar
      WTF?

      Hmmm

      I'm sorry that you were in an accident, but I call BS on this.

      If you were on the road, then it wasn't deserted. And if it was dry and straight, how did he not see you? Were you driving in the middle lane, doing 40 without your lights on at night?

      And even if you *were* doing 40MPH on a deserted motorway - this is a dangerous speed, as you're doing between 50-60% of the speed of most traffic and if he then hit you at 80MPH then it's extremely unlikely that you'd walk away with barely a scratch. Was the Porche a write-off? Was he killed?

      Or are you saying you were doing 70MPH, and therefore he hit you at 140MPH?

      So lets assume you're telling the truth - the reason for the accident is one of the two of you were driving like a nob.

      Speed, and speed alone, doesn't cause accidents - bad driving causes accidents. If the accident happened at 90, then it will have happened at 70 as well.

      Why do you people not reply in-thread? Is it so that people won't notice your 'reply', not respond and so it looks like you won the argument?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Drandar

        >> If you were on the road, then it wasn't deserted. And if it was dry and straight, how did he not see you?

        I think he was replying to the person who implied that it is okay to break the speed limit on 'deserted roads' - the point is you can't know that a road is deserted - assuming that a road is deserted, and making your driving decisions based on that assumption, is very dangerous (not to mention stupid).

        >> And even if you *were* doing 40MPH on a deserted motorway - this is a dangerous speed, as you're doing between 50-60% of the speed of most traffic

        But what if he was doing 40 due to vehicle failure (and was about to pull onto the hard shoulder). Who's fault is it then?

        >> and if he then hit you at 80MPH then it's extremely unlikely that you'd walk away with barely a scratch.

        That's a 40MPH speed differential, equivalent to two cars having a head on collision at 40MPH - with the extra cushioning that the rear end affords - perhaps Mercedes was an HGV and he didn't even feel it.

        >> Speed, and speed alone, doesn't cause accidents - bad driving causes accidents.

        Bad driving causes accidents - but excessive, unsafe speed is bad driving.

        >> If the accident happened at 90, then it will have happened at 70 as well.

        Perhaps, or perhaps the extra thinking time and greater control of the vehicle will enable to you to avoid the accident. You can't control other peoples bad driving (heck I have a hard enough time controlling my own bad driving), but you can try to mitigate it.

        All that said, I don't think that speeding per se is the most dangerous driving fault. Tailgating is (usally) much worse - driving at 70mph and leaving the stopping distance for 30mph is far worse than travelling at 90mph and leaving the stopping distance for 100mph. Most worrying is that the police don't seem to care about that (and tend to be the worst offenders).

  16. Kristian Walsh

    Ah, but for one extra gramme per km, you could have...

    ...an new Alfa Romeo Giulietta, also with Stop&Start and twin-clutch transmission, but with an extra 30 PS (170 vs 140). And it doesn't look like a chocolate Golf that was left in the sun.

    Also, contrary to what you might think, Alfas are pretty solid cars these days. More than can be said about the products of Volkswagen-Audi-Gruppe. As always, I have to make the sole exception of Skoda, who do make reliable, well-built cars with electrical systems that stay working for more than six months.

  17. Eddy Ito
    Unhappy

    Pity party in the US

    It's highly likely that this is just one more wonderful TDI that we won't get. We haven't even seen a scirocco in years.

    1. Robert E A Harvey

      but

      but it won't have the ground clearance to deal with your potholes...

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Joe Harrison

    Going to be pedantic here and suggest the motorway wasn't deserted if you were there.

    I'll admit (anonymously of course) that I occasionally drive at up to double the motorway speed limit when there really is no other traffic. There's not a great reason other than I quite enjoy it.

    If I approach someone, I do slow down quite a lot though. Other drivers should really look before pulling out, but it's better to expect them to do the unexpected. Clearly I know nothing of your incident so will assume the guy in the Porsche was being an idiot. Sounds like he was.

    Same rule applies for people who drive at 40 in 30 zones. If the road is clear, with no pedestrians, side roads or parked cars, then it could be argued that 40 is safe. In reality it rarely is. Nor is sitting in the middle lane on a motorway when the inside lane is empty, regardless of what speed you're doing.

    Back on topic, I own both a petrol and a diesel car. The petrol one has twice the power, half the fuel economy and hits 155 (yes I have). The diesel's often more fun though. I'd have another. With twice the power.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: @Joe Harrison

      >> If I approach someone, I do slow down quite a lot though. Other drivers should really look before pulling out, but it's better to expect them to do the unexpected.

      Yes, they really should look, but if they are doing 70, or 80 or 90 - should they really expect someone doing a 140 to come out of nowhere?

      More to the point, have you stood by the side of a motorway and watched a car go past at 70 mph? That is what a car doing 140 is like to a car doing 70. They may well have looked, but you weren't at a visible distance (or visible due to the some other reason, i.e. curvature of the road) - all of a sudden your on top of them. Imagine you are stood next to the motorway, with your headphones in, you look behind you, then stick your arm out, then look forward, then proceed to cross the motorway (i.e. basic MSM (though obviously on the motorway, most sane people keep an eye on the wing mirror as they manouver). Speeding doesn't just reduce your ability to react to others, it reduces the ability of others to be awere of and react to you.

  19. A 20

    DSG is useful

    DSG is very useful if you can't drive a conventional manual for whatever reason... I have to say that in my six months experience with the 7-speed DSG I find it's generally smoother than the conventional auto in the Mercedes, and it doesn't eat all the power from the engine as a conventional auto tends to.

    In short, I think the DSG box is a very good thing™.

    Personally I'm less convinced by the stop-start idea. It is a good idea from a fuel economy perspective, but I suspect in most cases it'll become a stop-stop system after a few years ;)

  20. Robert E A Harvey

    ah..

    Knock 5 grand off the price and I'll have one now. Thank you.

  21. Jim 59

    Pricey

    Good MPG but 23.5k for a small family car - too much.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Childcatcher

    Diesel sports coupe

    I know I am too old fashioned, and I know the new diesel engines are quite brilliant, but still I have trouble thinking diesel and sportscar in the same sentence.

    The sound and the free-er revving petrol engine feels a lot more in character. A sports car is supposed to be about the feel, the handling, the sound - much more than pure numbers. And even the glacial 9.3 0-100 time might have been OK, if it was a something like Daihatsu Copen or Smart Coupe (brilliant car, shame about the transmission).

    I am rambling. It's a front wheel drive hatchback anyways. A sporty looking golf, without back doors.

    1. Matt_payne666

      Diesel Sportscars...

      I was sceptical too, but also now a semi convert... 170hp Alfa GT with Q2 LSD - 45+mpg average (mostly twisty country roads) and get the sweet spot and it pulls harder than a petrol... It has certainly surprised some of my petrol GTi-esque friends... just remember how quickly the revs run out! the noise, smell and using the greasy black pump though still spoil things a bit!

      as for this sirocco, they have dulled it down, but not too badly, its hit the right balance of economy and performance for anyone wanting a golf to potter about in without putting up with bland as hell exterior!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        WTF?

        You bought a beautiful car

        and then spoilt it by having it sound like a tractor when you start it?

        There's not much that grinds my gears like (a) people saying 'grinds my gears' and (b) people who buy form-over-function products and then ruin it by trying to make them all sensible- that big-ass iPhone solar panel from today, diesel Alfas (and they do sound crap- there was one behind me in the petrol station today. And billowing black clouds of smoke from diesels that never get a good long run is another no-no). I've no problem with diesels in particular (though I'd never own one), but it does ruin your car's aesthetics. If you want fuel efficiency, buy a Bluemotion. If you want a gorgeous car, buy a V6-powered Alfa. Buying the lengthened 'limo' versions of the BMW 7 series/big Merc/Jag equivalents? You want at LEAST a V8, if not a V12; anything else just won't be smooth enough.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not a huge fan

    I'm not that keen on the looks, I don't hate it I just don't think it's THAT nice to warrant a big price premium over a Golf.

    If you like VAG bear in mind that apart from a the V6s they all need an expensive timing belt change at 4yr, just in time to coincide with a large service. Oh and the particulate filters and dual mass flywheels might well have you wishing you'd got a petrol.

    Also agree with the biker. I looked at changing to a bike to save fuel costs but even modest 500s don't have fuel consumption that is anything special compared to a small diesel or even the latest economical petrol cars. Sports bikes can be worse than my 2l turbo petrol car. Surely it must be possible to get 170kg to go quickly for less fuel than 1600kg.

  24. JeffyPooh
    Pint

    Scirocco diesel?

    Top Gear (UK) did a skit on the Scirocco diesel wherein Jeremy and James produced TV commercials for VW. The "winner" was Jeremy with his visionary 'Panic in Warsaw' ad with the tag line "Berlin to Warsaw on one tank of fuel".

    ..

    The most expensive car to maintain that I ever owned was a 1986 VW GTI. It makes my three subsequent Mercedes look like absolute bargains in comparison.

  25. JCP
    Unhappy

    Working for who - The Bankers in the City?

    Since when is over $38k US for a VW a "working man's car". You poor sots in the UK have been cheated for far too long. Over here $38k gets you a stripped BMW 1 series!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      Not if you're poor...

      If you're poor, then 38k gets you a beat-to-hell 1998 Buick with 108,000 miles and bald tires, at a buy-here-pay-here lot. I actually did the numbers, coincidentally comparing with a one series; it's quite something. And people whine about the poor getting an unfair advantage because they don't pay income tax...

  26. JeffyPooh
    Pint

    The point...

    Paraphrasing the too-serious ad. exec. featured in the Top Gear skit:

    "It's not a Scirocco ruined with a diesel engine; it's a diesel engine improved with Scirocco style."

  27. jungle_jim
    Thumb Up

    whats with all the gears?

    I noticed people mentioning 8 gears on some of the new automatics....

    why has no one developed a modern day variomatic yet? surely that would cane anything else, set the engine to its optimum RPM and let the infintely adjustable 'gearbox' (two cones on a belt) do the rest?

    1. Matt Piechota

      CVT

      "why has no one developed a modern day variomatic yet? surely that would cane anything else, set the engine to its optimum RPM and let the infintely adjustable 'gearbox' (two cones on a belt) do the rest?"

      Nissan, Subaru, Dodge, and Ford (at least) do CVTs (constantly variable transmission) over here in the US, do they not sell those in the UK?

      Ex-gf had an Nissan Altima with one, it's the only automatic I've ever liked. Not enough for me to not buy a manual, but it worked pretty much as you describe. A Dodge Caliber CVT I had as a rental was less interesting. Apparently Dodge thought that people still need 'gears' so it would (very lazily) pretend to have gears unless you had the throttle pinned.

      1. MrT

        Toyota/Lexus hybrids...

        ...also run a CVT - so that's Auris (smaller Yaris from 2012) up to LS600h. Definitely a step up from the DAF/Volvo experience, with the odd 'overdrive' effect where the engine slowed down as the car went from 60 to 70 (and not a jot faster, m'lud) ;-)

  28. jungle_jim
    Happy

    you're probably right

    is it maybe they cant handle much power then? or there are huge transmission losses? these things must surely be superior from a keeping it in the efficiency and/or optimum power band vs a manual (or any gearbox with finite gears)

    im off to do some reasearch as to what the flaw is... thanks

  29. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Economy

    For all the fancy pants Blue Motion gubbins, the MPG and range figures reported in the review aren't much better than my 5 year old Golf TDi 140.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    Blast from the past...

    When I got my Ford Escort back in '98, a friend of mine owned a VW Golf, and we both carpooled on each other's cars so we both knew them.

    He admitted, his car was too noisy while doing 70mph, due to the close-ratio 5-speed transmission. The engine was blaring at 3500+rpm or such, while mine as at balmy but comfy 2750rpm. His would accelerate better, but with a too narrow torque range, you would be shifting gears like a Monaco Gran Prix. Mine on the other hand was 'sleeping' up to 3000 rpm, but it noticeably jumped into its torque range above 3000 all the way to 4500 rpm, where it met the top torque. And you could go all the way to 50mph on 2nd gear, to my utter horror. (Horror that I had abused the engine that far... but anyways...)

    So, in all, we ended up traveling highways more often in my car, while city commuting in his. As for going around those 18-wheel lorries, I just needed some downshifting and stretching the gears... An both cars had 100, 110-ish bhp.

    Now, I still own that Ford, and he sold his car, because it would take a pint of oil with each gas tank, while mine doesn't drop oil... at all.

    If the Golfs (or Sciroccos) improved so much since then, I would like to test it myself...

    Yes, I still drive a 1998 car. It was approved in its emissions test too, according to my country laws and everything this year... and it runs on petrol, only. Eight more years and I can register it as collector's item (and drop most auto taxes) hehehe...

    As a sidenote, the narrower is the torque band, the better is automatic transmission for fuel consumption. Simple humans (my grandma) have a hard time keeping up with the tachometer...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022