Mori - the Audi 5 is much different from the Volvi 5.
VW 2.5 Fuel Efficiency
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
What are the differences?
It's in a Volvo.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Why didn't Volvo build their own engine?
They liked the experience from PRV so much.
They do BUILD their own engines, just this design had it's roots in Porsche. The main difference from Audi is the modular webbed design, multipart head (no gaskets, just glue) and captured camshafts. Porsche is into big oil capacity (one reason I bought the car).
I actually know squato about the Audi5. Was it sleeved aluminum?
They do BUILD their own engines, just this design had it's roots in Porsche. The main difference from Audi is the modular webbed design, multipart head (no gaskets, just glue) and captured camshafts. Porsche is into big oil capacity (one reason I bought the car).
I actually know squato about the Audi5. Was it sleeved aluminum?
Yeah don't know why that 2.5L engine does not get so great of a gas mileage. Nice thing is that it only needs regular gas. I don't think VW are meant to be very fuel efficient cars like Honda or Toyota.
2.5L is the base gas engine now with the old 2.0L phasing out. I drive a Jetta with the 2.0L engine and get about 24 around town and 30+ freeway. I used to get 19-20 around town but that was because I didn't know about checking tire pressures. I don't know about the newer ones but on freeways running 65-70mph, the tach reads 3000rpm thats somewhat high. Guess they don't have very tall top gear/final drive.
5 cylinders is like having power of a 6 with economy of a 4 but guess its not true in this case. VW offers more engine choices whereas Honda and Toyota offers usually one or two engine choices. But comparing VW with Honda is not the same class, VW used to be considered an economy car. Comparing Honda and Toyota is a fair comparison. That was back before the early 90s though.
2.5L is the base gas engine now with the old 2.0L phasing out. I drive a Jetta with the 2.0L engine and get about 24 around town and 30+ freeway. I used to get 19-20 around town but that was because I didn't know about checking tire pressures. I don't know about the newer ones but on freeways running 65-70mph, the tach reads 3000rpm thats somewhat high. Guess they don't have very tall top gear/final drive.
5 cylinders is like having power of a 6 with economy of a 4 but guess its not true in this case. VW offers more engine choices whereas Honda and Toyota offers usually one or two engine choices. But comparing VW with Honda is not the same class, VW used to be considered an economy car. Comparing Honda and Toyota is a fair comparison. That was back before the early 90s though.
Last edited by a moderator:
The EPA ratings for the VW 2.5 are 22/30, with the 6-speed AW Automatic.
My friend, who has the '06 New Beetle with the identical engine and transmission, gets 19-20 around town as well, and she doesn't even drive it hard. So I still conclude that the obtained mpg figure by the reviewer are in-line with real-world performance. A quick check over on VWVortex showed that many owners are getting very low 20s in urban driving, dipping into the high teens if lots of stop-n-go driving is present.
For comparison, the 06 Civic, under the same conditions, achieved over 30MPG.
The 2.5L I5 is not an economy engine. It is extremely high maintenance and requires a lot of $$$ to operate and maintain. Cabin Air Filter swaps every 20k, Engine Air Filter every 40k, and new platinum plugs every 40k miles. Tire pressure monitors must also be replaced every six years. Six quarts of 502.00 complaint synthetic oil, along with a $15 filter element, every 10k miles.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Then why do you compare the 2.5 to a Civic? What's the purpose? The two cars are obviously not aimed at the same clientele.
I meant that the VW 2.5 is not an economy engine, even though they target it as so.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
They do?
Amazing what is considered "high maintenance" these days.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
I'm waiting for the disposable throw-away car.
JHZR2
Staff member
a 2.5L engine is not an economy engine, no matter what.
A jetta would be better suited with a well-designed 1.8L powerplant (N/A, of course), but Ms. Doesntknowhowtodrive wouldn't be able to stand it.
Somehow my Saab returns mixed driving economy right at the midpoint of the EPA figures (I never deviate from ~30 MPG actual in mixed driving), and 36-38 MPG on the highway, in a more substantial car than the jetta, and with more fun and performance than that 2.5L engine can give.
Is it just me, or should they have at least kept their 1.8T engine in the car, rather than moving to something with such displacement, which is obviously a pig.
Let's face it... there are lots of GM 3800 V6 engines returning excellent economy in all sorts of driving... with bigger vehicles... there are lots of 2.0L engines that return fine performance and economy in vehicles of all sizes. a 2.5L engine in a small car is out of place, and given the economy, 'spirited driving' in the test, or not... something is wrong.
JMH
A jetta would be better suited with a well-designed 1.8L powerplant (N/A, of course), but Ms. Doesntknowhowtodrive wouldn't be able to stand it.
Somehow my Saab returns mixed driving economy right at the midpoint of the EPA figures (I never deviate from ~30 MPG actual in mixed driving), and 36-38 MPG on the highway, in a more substantial car than the jetta, and with more fun and performance than that 2.5L engine can give.
Is it just me, or should they have at least kept their 1.8T engine in the car, rather than moving to something with such displacement, which is obviously a pig.
Let's face it... there are lots of GM 3800 V6 engines returning excellent economy in all sorts of driving... with bigger vehicles... there are lots of 2.0L engines that return fine performance and economy in vehicles of all sizes. a 2.5L engine in a small car is out of place, and given the economy, 'spirited driving' in the test, or not... something is wrong.
JMH
The 2.5L V6 in my Ford Contour gives good fuel economy, especially considering it's 11 years and 142,000 miles old.
JHZR2
Staff member
I guess I should rephrase...
In the nicher that the jetta/rabbit seem to try to fill - an upscale economy car, a 2.5L engine is not what one would considr to be economical. Even if it does routinely hit 30 MPG on the highway, it really isnt all that good.
IIRC, on your contour, you routinely get 31 MPG, right (or am I thinking of another person?). Thats good, especially considering the age and mileage of the vehicle. And, to that end, one would think that an engine put into a car that should theoretically be superior in engineering and technology. by virtue of the fact that it is a few corporate design cycles ahead, should make at least the same fuel economy and power output, right? Emissions controls might take their toll, but 30 MPG is still expelling more gross tonnage than 31 or 33 or 40, etc.
For priding their mexican-made cars for having German engineering, IMO this is a step back for VW.
But thats just my opinion...
JMH
In the nicher that the jetta/rabbit seem to try to fill - an upscale economy car, a 2.5L engine is not what one would considr to be economical. Even if it does routinely hit 30 MPG on the highway, it really isnt all that good.
IIRC, on your contour, you routinely get 31 MPG, right (or am I thinking of another person?). Thats good, especially considering the age and mileage of the vehicle. And, to that end, one would think that an engine put into a car that should theoretically be superior in engineering and technology. by virtue of the fact that it is a few corporate design cycles ahead, should make at least the same fuel economy and power output, right? Emissions controls might take their toll, but 30 MPG is still expelling more gross tonnage than 31 or 33 or 40, etc.
For priding their mexican-made cars for having German engineering, IMO this is a step back for VW.
But thats just my opinion...
JMH
Eh, they are both good cars in different ways. My CR-V as well as my mother's V-6 accord are snazzy cars but can be insubstantial feeling. Meanwhile my SAAB and my co-worker's Jetta just feel more solid. But the Civic has a huge greenhouse....
Anyway, as Bill always points out, it's the driver, not the car, that makes the most difference in fuel economy.
Anyway, as Bill always points out, it's the driver, not the car, that makes the most difference in fuel economy.
Isn't the 2.5L supposed to be based on like half of a Lamborghini engine?
I agree that the 2.5L is too much engine for the car. They should have kept the 1.8L engine or improve the 2.0L. Germans come up with good ideas, they just need to work making it better.
I agree that the 2.5L is too much engine for the car. They should have kept the 1.8L engine or improve the 2.0L. Germans come up with good ideas, they just need to work making it better.
Yes, for highway driving. Throw in a traffic jam and it might drop to 24-25 MPG. The absolute worst I ever saw on it was 17MPG, and that was when it took an hour to go 15 miles. (That was also the day I saw three accidents in those 15 miles).
- Status
Similar threads
