Fensterheber Golf IV | Posts 16+

Gremlin wrote:

ulf wrote: So, electric heated mirrors, power-adjustable mirrors, and electric folding mirrors -> Ultimately, I think it's just a display of how much money one has (had) to make life ultimately more comfortable. It's more likely a sign that you have the wrong car... everything is standard with me...without exorbitant costs

.
However, "without" certain features, the Octavia could potentially be offered at a significantly lower price (see, for example, the price increase for the Polo in October 2003: 450 euros for the "Plus" package, which "only" included electric windows and central locking).

Quote:

und ganz ehrlich, ich bin 14 jahre ohne das zeug gefahren.... NEVER AGAIN WITHOUT IT! comfort rulez

I'm glad to hear that you haven't had any problems yet.
The local error database is full of defects related to the comfort features.
And if VW releases something like that, I think the number of individual cases it affects will be quite high... or do you believe that just because it doesn't explicitly mention the Octavia, its susceptibility is correspondingly lower?

I'm curious about the level of suffering someone like you would endure in the name of convenience: so, at what frequency and cost of convenience-related malfunctions would you start to desire a "bare-bones" car again (meaning only features that can also be done manually, like power windows, central locking, and electric mirror adjustment)?

Hi,

I remember that about 16 or 17 years ago, my father and I once fixed a window mechanism on a Trabant, and of course, it had a crank. The guide rail, where the window is fixed, was rusted away, and eventually, the pivoting arms lost their grip.

So, the "bare-bones" version can also fail - and I even know of a case like that from my own circle, while the electric windows in my parents' cars, my sister's car, and mine have worked perfectly so far. Okay, I use the windows less thanks to the AC, but that's just a comfort feature.

Best regards,

Jan, who was very happy about the air conditioning today, given the 30-degree heat.

And if VW releases something like that, the number of individual cases behind it, in my opinion, will definitely not be small... or do you think that just because nothing about the Octavia is mentioned, its susceptibility is correspondingly lower?


already something, because the vast majority of components are developed at VW and then only installed in Skoda later. All the initial problems are caught by VW. I think it's nice of them .


I'm curious about your tolerance for discomfort in the name of someone else's convenience: so, at what frequency and cost of convenience-related malfunctions would you again desire a 'bare-bones' car (only the things that can also be done manually, like elFH, central locking, and electric mirror adjustment)?

Oh, if it didn't break down every year... and it doesn't... and the components I mentioned are in use daily.

'But so far, I've only had to replace one electric window lifter in the workshop. However, I've already replaced five manual window lifters and three manual mirror adjustments (the cable mechanism from VW is really something).'
and a colleague at work, while it was raining heavily, the window fell into the door. Seat Ibiza, with a hand crank .

'Ulf, that stuff isn't nearly as fragile as you might think... We recently had to replace the window lifter mechanism on a Golf 4, and it was a mechanical one. The reason was that the guides were broken, the same problem as with the electric ones...'

And you still don't want any air conditioning? Ugh... with this weather...

CU Gremlin.

Gremlin wrote:

but so far, I've only had to replace one electric front door handle in the workshop. However, I've already replaced 5 manual front door handles and 3 manual mirror adjustments (the cable mechanism from VW is really great). and a colleague at work, during very bad weather, had the window fall into the door. It's a Seat Ibiza, with a hand crank

.
You're completely shaking up my entire worldview ... well, partially.

I still believe that.
Our vehicles today are already complicated and prone to failure enough, so I want to keep the rest as simple as possible -> Reliability is key; for example, I haven't had a single (crank) window lifter break down yet .

I've already witnessed situations where the windows of a Ford Galaxy would automatically lower when locking, and then become impossible to close.
Reason: Break and short circuit in the comfort locking contact set located on the driver's door lock cylinder.
So, it was a purely comfort-related malfunction that simply cannot occur with components that are operated manually, just like in Jörg's experience.

And, as far as I know, there has never been a series of failures like the one described in the Ibiza forum with power windows.

Quote:

and you still don't want an air conditioner? Ugh... with this weather...

Well, I guess this is my "sour pickle" time now.
For this, I am happy for 10 months of the year with the simple and reliable heating system (which always does what I want, instead of sometimes heating and sometimes cooling depending on interfering bits - I can post a link) and the better power-to-weight ratio along with the consumption advantage.

Cost advantage

However, it has been repeatedly disproven... combined with better aerodynamics and including all the 'comfort features'...
Unfortunately, you didn't follow my tips regarding aerodynamic improvements for your car, so I suggest a complete and uncompromising overhaul of the Polo's interior, since the 'power-to-weight ratio' likely exerts an irresistible appeal on you.

by the way
My 1991 Golf2 GTs also had central locking, 5 doors, power windows, and power mirrors... and it never broke down despite being used heavily for 260,000 km.
And the car could really be called light: 960kg, just like it stood there!

ulf wrote:

...for example, I haven't had a single (crank) window lifter break yet...

In every car, at least one... and with the Jetta, I'd rather not count (I had the first one for 5 years, and I've already had the current one for 13 years).

Hi,

Regarding the energy efficiency benefit:

On Saturday, I drove 2 km in the city and then 30 km on the city highway, maintaining a constant speed of approximately 60-100 km/h, and ended up with an average fuel consumption of 4.1 liters per 100 km, with the air conditioning running the entire time.

I then achieved a fuel consumption of 7.5 liters per 100 km after a subsequent test drive of 60 km with 3 people on board, the air conditioning on, a caravan attached, and a speed of approximately 100 km/h, with an outside temperature of 30 degrees Celsius and an oil temperature of 120 degrees.

Best regards,

Jan.

Julian wrote:

ulf wrote: Cost advantage However, it has been repeatedly disproven... combined with better aerodynamics and including all the "comfort features"...

Hi Julian and Jan,

if you can prove that two identical cars with engines at the same power level and in the same break-in state, where only one has air conditioning and the other has no air conditioning at all, consume exactly the same amount of fuel in identical driving cycles, then you have found a heat pump that...

a) weightless (-> acceleration work dependent on weight)

b) No power required.

Let me know, so I can keep the date for the Physics Nobel Prize ceremony free . . .

Someone who compares an old car without air conditioning but with a high fuel consumption due to its generation, to a TDI with air conditioning, might argue that the TDI has a fuel consumption advantage - but such "apples and oranges" comparisons have never been my thing .

Quote:

So, I now suggest a thorough and uncompromising overhaul of the Polo's interior, because the "power-to-weight ratio" likely exerts an irresistible appeal on you.

7 kg of damping rubber layer underneath the carpets have already been removed - without it becoming noticeably louder.

"For example, if I look at the Polo catalog and see the weight ranges, with a difference of about 160 kg (roughly 14% of the curb weight) between a fully equipped model and a bare-bones base model, and I consider the resulting differences in performance with the same engine, then that's essentially 'real-world power-to-weight ratio' in action, isn't it?"

And small animals also make a mess...

Interestingly, I can tell you exactly when I changed my tires (summer/winter) based on my usage data, but not whether the air conditioning was running.

Interestingly, it doesn't seem to have any impact on the overall consumption. I'm also not entirely sure why. I expected to see higher consumption during hotter periods. But even during the record heatwave, everything was within the normal range...

I filled up 930km on the odometer last Friday, but I still would have had a few more kilometers of range. It was 55 liters, as usual. Not a bad value for this comfort cruiser .

Maybe I'll eventually manage to control my foot on the accelerator and drive properly...

I personally believe that emission regulations require a lot more investment than comfort features.

CU Gremlin.

if you can prove that two identical cars with engines at the same power level and in the same break-in state, where only one has air conditioning on and the other has no air conditioning at all, consume exactly the same amount of fuel in identical driving cycles, then you have found a heat pump that...

a) nothing weighs (-> weight-dependent acceleration work)

b) no power required.


It's always said that youth must move the world... once you're creative...

Before Ulf turns into a physics teacher here and I buy a NUK bite ring: It's clear that if two identical 9N helicopters, one with basic equipment and one with full equipment, are compared, the one with full equipment will weigh more. I haven't claimed anything different. The VA-9N will also perform worse (over a longer time interval) at the same acceleration. That's also not a question. As soon as a force acting on the mass causes a change in direction against its own inertia, the higher the inertia, the greater the forces required. Keep in mind...in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball fall to the ground at the same speed. In air, that's not the case...

The only catch is that, if we take our two nearly identical engines and put one in a 9N and one in my A4, my A4 will accelerate better despite the extra weight. You consistently overlook the aerodynamic component, and that's why your power-to-weight ratio is only relevant for a quarter-mile run or the moose test, but completely irrelevant in everyday driving. Q.E.D.


[/sub]

Hi Ulf,

On the same route, I once managed a speed of 3.9 without using adaptive cruise control. However, there was less traffic at that time, so I had to adjust my speed less frequently.

But even if you ignore that... I personally find that the safety benefit is really worth the 0.2 liters per 100 km. When it's pleasantly cool, you can concentrate better, react faster, and therefore drive more safely and relaxed. In my case, there's also the added factor that I can hardly drive with open windows in the summer due to allergies to almost everything – with the AC on, everything passes through the pollen filters anyway.

I didn't want to attack you... it was more of a kind of "counter-compliment" .

Best regards,

Jan.

Julian wrote:

if we take our two almost identical engines, putting one in the 9N and the other in my A4, my A4 will still accelerate better despite the extra weight. You consistently neglect the aerodynamic component, and that's why your power-to-weight ratio is only important for the 1/4 mile or the moose test, but completely irrelevant in everyday driving. q.e.d.

Well, that's not entirely true either.

When operating primarily on highways at speeds above 100 km/h, lower aerodynamic drag offers greater advantages.

On country roads, with speeds around 60-70 km/h, and especially in the city, aerodynamics play a relatively minor role. Instead, performance, fuel consumption, and driving pleasure (if possible) are primarily determined by the engine's power output, gearing, and the vehicle's weight.

But I think we should wrap up this topic slowly, as it's already too much off-topic .

If you have any practical tips on how I can improve the aerodynamics of my little one without adding weight, please send me a private message.