Leerlaufverbrauch | Posts 32+

no matter how little fuel a car consumes compared to another car,
5.5 liters is, of course, 2.5 liters more than 3.
almost 100%.
No matter how you drive the 3L, whether fast, economical, or normally,
another car, regardless of the model, consumes more.

Hello.
So, my Golf 3 Afn only uses 5.5 liters per 100 kilometers under normal driving conditions (not aggressive driving).
And it's also true that the 3L Lupo consumes more than 3 liters per 100 kilometers when driven at higher speeds. This has been tested many times. Only the fastest driving style with the 3L Lupo is still considerably slower than my normal driving style.
Perhaps, instead of just considering the weight, one should also take into account the required performance. A Volkswagen Golf 1 diesel didn't use much more than 3 liters either!
The Lupo is really just a showpiece car. It really doesn't make sense to buy it, especially considering the purchase price.
You should probably opt for a regular passenger car for this calculation.
In my opinion, the discussion is complete nonsense. People who slow down 800 meters before the exit disrupt the smooth flow of traffic (as do elderly drivers) and encourage dangerous overtaking maneuvers. And honestly, what's the point of saving that tiny amount of fuel? Are you all so poor that you're haggling over such a small amount? Please. But then running the heater for hours just so you can sit in a warm car in the morning?
Let's leave the discussion about fuel consumption to Volkswagen; they've actually done a pretty good job with it so far, unlike some of their competitors.

'@Sound Lupo 3L: Does your car also run on biodiesel or RME?'

I've been driving this car (SDI model) for 3 years now. Although it's said that the fuel consumption increases. I cannot confirm that, or it falls within my measurement tolerance.

Of course, the 3L engine needs more than 3 liters of fuel when driving fast.
But even then, he needs less than anyone else.
I don't know why you're driving a diesel car.
'But I drive 50,000 kilometers per year.'
There's no car cheaper than this one.
A standard Lupo could cost half as much, and even then, the 3L model would still be cheaper.


I'm not saying that the 3L Lupo might not be cheaper than a Golf 4 with 150 horsepower.
I just wanted to say that the 3.0-liter Lupo isn't really that great in terms of fuel consumption; it's just marketed that way. If you look closely, the car isn't really any better than a Golf 4 with 90 horsepower.
Furthermore, I want to emphasize that this car, which is optimized for fuel efficiency, is not an adequate basis for the (absurd) calculations in this thread. Most people probably drive a larger and likely better-equipped car. And that would already make the calculations deviate from the average. Okay, if we're already calculating things here, then let's please use data that is likely to be applicable to most people.

@Golfmann

Okay, let's compare fuel consumption: for a Passat 35i, I'm seeing a consumption of 6.5 liters of diesel per 100 km versus 5.2 liters of diesel per 100 km. That says a lot about whether it's worth it or not. My father drives up to the town limit sign at 100 km/h and then brakes down to 50 km/h. I, on the other hand, let the car coast up to the town limit sign and maintain 50 km/h without braking. Anyone who thinks they need to overtake me clearly has a screw loose (there's no other way to put it).

Best regards, WarLord.

And you're now telling me that you only save 1.3 liters per 100 kilometers by letting the car coast? I guess that means your father probably has a slightly more aggressive driving style than you do.

I don't want to cause any trouble here, but we really need to have a more realistic perspective on these discussions about consumption, don't you think? You are two people, and you most likely don't have the same driving style, except for the habit of braking at the town sign.

I don't think it's about 'running out of gas,' but rather about 'pressing the gas pedal' that makes the biggest difference in fuel consumption. Based on my experience, my TDI only consumes significantly more fuel when driven at high RPMs. For example, when fully shifting gears and using a lot of full throttle on the highway.

Okay, let's calculate it. And please conduct a 1000 km test with both versions, using a car that's representative of the average, such as a Passat 35i 1Z.
Same driver, same car, same route.

Okay, I have to admit that I'm not exactly a slow driver, and discussions about tiny amounts of fuel aren't really my thing. I drive a diesel because it has good power and doesn't consume much fuel. I also drive about 50,000 km per year. So, if I want to save fuel, I simply drive slower. That probably saves me about half a liter. But it sounds like you're all already driving very conservatively. And then, lifting off the gas early? If you don't drive at all, you'll likely use an average of 6 liters less fuel.

Sorry again for chiming in here, this really isn't my area of expertise. I'll mostly stick to technical topics from now on! Sorry.

I would be cautious about using 'Pöl' (likely referring to a specific type of fuel or biofuel) in such a high-tech engine. Whoever manages to convert their 3-liter engine to run on 'Pöl' and grease is truly driving for free. It's definitely more worthwhile for continuous operation.

Hi,
The 3L also weighs 930 kg.

Bitte gib den Text, den du übersetzt haben möchtest.

5.5 liters is, of course, 2.5 liters more than 3.
almost 100%.
No matter how you drive the 3L, whether fast, economical, or normally,
Another car, regardless of the model, will consume more fuel.
greetings

Look at the vehicle. Yes.

But from a technological perspective: NO.

The Octavia weighs 1460 kg and has a continuously variable transmission (CVT). It is driven normally (not off-road).
and then runs with 5.5 liters.

Okay, let's see how it performs on your Lupo. Then you'll realize that the Lupo isn't exactly a fuel-efficient car.
By the way, we used to have a Golf 1 diesel. With the way we drove it, it consumed less than 4 liters per 100 kilometers, without any modifications.
Therefore, I believe the 3L is a marketing gimmick.

@golfman
Pre-heating with a standing heater, incidentally, saves fuel. It saves less with diesel, but significantly more with gasoline engines. This has been proven.
(I'm talking about winter operation here!)

By the way, I don't care if the engine now consumes 5.5 or 6.5 liters. I was previously burning 11 liters of gasoline. After the third tank of diesel, it even pays off the additional tax burden.

CU Gremlin.

The Octavia weighs 1460kg and has a continuously variable transmission (CVT). It is driven normally (not off-road).
and then runs with 5.5 liters.

Okay, let's see how it performs on your Lupo. Then you'll realize that the Lupo isn't exactly a fuel-efficient car.
By the way, we used to have a Golf 1 diesel. With the way we drove it, it consumed less than 4 liters per 100 kilometers, without any modifications.
therefore, I believe the 3L is a marketing gimmick.

That's my opinion too. And I've had that same experience with the Golf 1.

By the way, I don't care if the engine now consumes 5.5 or 6.5 liters. I was previously burning 11 liters of gasoline. After the third tank of diesel, it even pays off the additional tax...


That's exactly why I drive a diesel car. I used to drive a gas-guzzler before this one too. And the TDI version performs even better.

@golfman
Pre-heating with a standing heater actually saves fuel. It saves less with diesel engines, but significantly more with gasoline engines. This has been proven.
(I'm talking about winter operation here!)


It might be. It's also better for the engine. That was just an example I mentioned where I hadn't thought it through. Let's just take the air conditioning or a high-end stereo system, everything is electric. Ultimately, all of that requires more fuel. Perhaps one should consider saving on that if one is already haggling over an increased fuel consumption of 0.1-0.5 liters per 100 kilometers.

@3L Lupo:
I think that someone who doesn't really prioritize the size of the car or the level of comfort will be quite happy with the 3L Lupo, and can also save quite a bit of money. If you drive 50,000 kilometers a year by car, and that's only for commuting, and you're generally a careful driver, then it could really be a viable alternative.
However, for a first car, I found the car to be a bit too small and too basic.

Comparing the Lupo to a car with a 1.0 diesel engine is really not fair. It's likely that there have been improvements in safety and driving comfort.

Despite everything, the car is a showcase vehicle designed to promote the Volkswagen diesel engine.
The performance of the three-liter Lupo isn't particularly impressive, and without the 'eco' mode, it's not as fuel-efficient as advertised, although this isn't mentioned anywhere. It's always stated that the car consumes 3 liters, but that's not entirely accurate. Nobody talks about the power-saving mode, and most people aren't even aware of it.

just prejudice.
I'm fed up.
The Octavia, with its 1426 kg weight and automatic transmission, is probably the best car available.
I will probably order one tomorrow.

Hey, do you ever actually think about what you're writing?

Apparently not, otherwise we wouldn't hear such statements.

I'll say it again: when you factor in weight, size, and aerodynamic drag, the 3L is just a smokescreen.
Specifically, a standard TDI engine consumes the same amount of fuel as a 3.0-liter engine.
Therefore, for me, a 3L engine is not an advancement but just a marketing gimmick.

and: yes, I know how to drive a 3L. I also know that you can drive it quickly. And I know that when you do, it needs to be in 4L.

CU Gremlin.

@Golfmann: For me, the Lupo 3L isn't really too spartan (except for the lack of power steering), but the price-performance ratio is simply too bad. Compare, for example, the Seat Arosa 1.4 TDI with the 3L. You might have about 1 liter more fuel consumption per 100km, but 2000 euros (am I right?) less in purchase costs. Both vehicles are nearly identical in their design.

Back in the days of the Deutsche Mark, I once calculated the amortization period for a 3L (priced at 27,000 DM) compared to an Arosa SDI (priced at 22,000 DM). I think it came out to be more than 10 years.

Conclusion: Many factors contribute to a fuel-efficient car:
1.) Of course, our fuel costs.
2.) Acquisition costs.
3.) Maintenance costs, breakdown costs.
4.) Maintenance costs.

Everything must be in a reasonable relationship to each other. As an environmental aspect, one could also consider the energy consumption required for the production of this vehicle.

I don't include the depreciation, because that's a factor that doesn't reflect reality. Branded products are sold here.