VOX und 9ff versuchen 3Liter Golf zu bauen | Posts 64+

auto motor und sport TV;
vox, Sundays at 5 PM.

How did the story end up? I unfortunately missed the last two episodes.

The car was only completed late, and then the weather was too bad for the final consumption measurement.

Throughout the entire show, they were subjected to torture, and in the end, it was announced that...

"We're going to keep working on this for another 6-8 weeks... there are still quite a few things to do."

I don't want to rush things, but with around 4 liters, I can still drive my everyday car under normal conditions. I turn on the air conditioning when needed, and otherwise, I adopt a very relaxed driving style. I drive briskly, but I don't speed. Definitely, I am not a slow driver.

Mein Weg zum Dienst besteht zu 1/3 aus Stadtverkehr Berlin und 2/3 Landstraßen außerorts. In Berlin habe ich je nach Tageszeit eine Strecke ausgewählt, die möglichst wenige Ampelstops enthält und recht sicher staufrei ist. Der Heimweg heute nacht geht z. B. über eine komplett andere Strecke als der Hinweg. Auf dem Heimweg kann ich bei abgeschalteten Ampeln dank Vorfahrt ohne Halt durchfahren. AußThe speed limit is 90 km/h in some areas.

Der HDi70 éco ist allerdings vom Hersteller schon ziemlich auf sparsames Fahren getrimmt. Viel machen die beim 206 éco über Aerodynamik, Tieferlegung und ein 5-Ganggetriebe mit sehr langem 4. und 5. Gang. Der 1.4 HDi éco ist an sich schon recht geizig mit dem Sprit und mit dem richtigen Fahrverhalten kann man trotzdem noch einiges machen. Einzig ein kleines Detail des Gesamtkunstwerks habe ich zerstört: Wieviel Mehrverbrauch der Austausch der serienmäßigen Stahlräder mit 175er Goodyear ECO-Spritsparreifen gegen Aluräder mit 195er Unvernunftreifen ausmacht kann ich noch nicht sagen. Gut I still have to drive 1200 kilometers before I get a first result.

Although I haven't had the 206 for very long, a look at my fuel consumption tracker is already quite interesting...

I don't want to rush things, but with around 4 liters, my everyday car can still be driven under normal conditions.

Hello hat enthusiasts,

You don't need to provide that information either, because if you tell us the weight of your vehicle, everyone will realize that most of the modifications made to the VOX Golf achieve exactly what you could already buy.

The remaining modifications are designed to save those 'last few precious liters' of fuel over a 100km distance.

The fact that Volkswagen can achieve something similar is demonstrated by the Polo BlueMotion, which consumes roughly the same amount (or a little less) fuel as your Peugeot and is also available for purchase (although with delivery times!).

It's complicated to achieve a fuel consumption that is even slightly lower than what you get with a Polo or your Peugeot. If you want to reach a similar level of efficiency, within +/- 0.5 liters per 100km, it can also be done relatively cheaply, as demonstrated by the A3 1.9 TDI.

Best regards, Jochen.

Jochen_145 wrote:

It's complicated to achieve a fuel consumption that is even slightly lower than what the Golf V achieves; it uses about a liter less than a Polo or your Peugeot. If you want to get close to similar levels, within +/- 0.5 liters per 100km, it can also be done relatively cheaply, as demonstrated by something like an A3 1.9 TDI.

Hi, I completely agree with that.

Before the 307, I also had a 206 with a 2.0-liter engine that was fitted with an upgraded intercooler (originally, it only came with the old, reliable 66kW engine) and produced a respectable 147 horsepower on the Hoffmann dynamometer. Its unladen weight was 1145 kg. I also modified the axle ratio (the standard configuration allowed for 180 km/h at 4000 rpm, after which it could reach 200 km/h).
Now, let's talk about the consumption figures:
The 206 could be driven with a 4.5-liter engine, maintaining a maximum speed of 90 km/h on federal highways and around 30% in towns, resulting in slightly lower consumption. With the same engine in the 307 (but with original LLK and different software), this driving style results in a consumption of at least 5.2 liters. The empty weight is over 1400 kg, and the frontal area also plays a significant role.

When driving at a constant speed of 90 km/h, I believe the frontal area and the drag coefficient will contribute the most to fuel consumption, while those few kilograms only make up a small percentage.

Okay, let's get back to the topic .

Hello,

Did anyone happen to watch AMS TV yesterday? I unfortunately missed the beginning and only heard from a friend that they were suddenly talking about the "4-liter Golf." Does anyone know why the project didn't achieve its goal?

Bye.
peace

I would also be very interested in that. I also missed the beginning .

According to my information so far, the value obtained is 4.1 liters.

pax wrote:

Hello, Did anyone happen to watch AMS TV yesterday? I unfortunately missed the beginning and only heard from a friend that they were suddenly talking about the "4-liter Golf." Does anyone know why the project didn't achieve its goal?

Yes, I happened to see it.
The Golf achieved a standard fuel consumption of 4.1 liters per 100 kilometers on the road test according to the EU cycle.
Some functions are not yet implemented. For example, the automatic start-stop system is not yet operational. Also, the ABS (Anti-lock Braking System) has not been activated. Further fine-tuning is planned.

I consider the project to be fundamentally flawed. The excessively elaborate construction of many prototype components is completely impractical for me. Furthermore, it's not suitable for production at all.
It is claimed, above all, that the crash safety has not been compromised. Unfortunately, while the materials used are lighter, they are also more brittle and do not absorb as much energy in a collision as sheet metal. I would like to see some real-world evidence of this. I would also be interested in seeing how the custom-designed front axle performs in a crash.
Then I would like to see the vehicle in desert and Arctic testing conditions. Have fun...

"Yes, they managed to achieve a normal consumption of 4.1 liters, but I hated this whole process. They ripped out the original engine and replaced it with the Lupo's engine-transmission combination, even though everyone knows that transmission isn't reliable. I would have been happy if it had broken down on the dynamometer. And they lost the carbon fiber roof due to its poor quality, even on the highway. Now, another manufacturer has supplied a carbon fiber roof again, and when I see those energy-saving tires, a 40-ton truck should have a shorter braking distance... In my opinion, it's a completely pointless project."

"It was great... The broadcast time was fully utilized, providing free advertising for companies. A groundbreaking engine for the intercooler was removed, a custom-made axle was installed, and high-tech brakes were fitted with fuel-efficient tires..."

"This way, we can all see that it's not as easy as people think to build a well-designed car..."

That way, we can all see that it's not actually that easy to build a decent car...

Yes, that must be the consensus reached from the episodes.

4.1 liters per 100 kilometers is a disaster!

My Seat is supposed to achieve a fuel consumption of 4.2 liters per 100 kilometers at a constant speed of 80 km/h.
There are probably some Polo/Lupo/Ibiza drivers out there who can achieve even better results.
My technology is from 1995!

Looking at the fuel consumption figures for Bertil's Polo BlueMotion, it clearly shows that the surface area (aerodynamics) is probably even more important than the weight. Also, Martin's Passat has a quite good average fuel consumption compared to the 3-liter Golf, especially when considering its weight.
Here's how it should actually be done, as demonstrated by Audi with the TDI e. For an additional €150, you get an average fuel consumption of 4.5 L/100km .

I know what VOX did wrong:
They would have had to 'top-shop' the golf additionally.

Best regards, Jochen.

Waldfrosch wrote:

That thing on VOX is just a PR stunt. Who actually has the means and money to afford a carbon fiber roof or those ceramic (or was it carbon??) brake discs? What will the technical inspection agency (TÜV) say about these windows? They probably haven't been checked. In addition, they wanted to install a fuel-saving tuning kit on the 1.2 liter TDI engine. It's unlikely that it will have 90 horsepower at the end; instead, it should offer the same driving performance as the previous 90hp TDI, but in relation to its lower weight. I also have an old AMS clock here from 1982. Engineers have modified standard cars (Golf 1 Formula E diesel and W123 200d) to the point where the Golf has a 2.2-liter engine and the Mercedes-Benz has a 2.35-liter engine. And that was 25 years ago, without any modifications to the rear axle for weight reduction. I wonder where the progress is. I once had a Golf Mk1 with a 4-speed gearbox and 54 horsepower. It used to have an engine with a displacement of 4.3 to 4.8 liters and weighed around 900 kg. Finally, it should be mentioned that the fuel consumption of the 3-liter Golf is to be determined on a test bench, according to the vehicle's DIN standard. It doesn't really have much to do with reality. I think it's all just another stupid CO2 joke.

Even though the topic is a bit old, I still want to express some things.
Wie ja schon angeklungen; solche Versuchsfahrzeuge kann man mit heute definitiv nicht vergleichen. Die Worte G1 und Sicherheit passen sicher in der heutigen Zeit nicht mehr zusammen. Weiterhin gibt es ein viel gravierenderes Problem bei den neuen Fahrzeugen: Komfort! Neben dem Wohlstandsspeck und diesen ganzen unsinnigen Zusatzausstattungen werden auch motorische Maßnahmen durchgeführt, welche nicht gerade verbrauchsreduzierend sind (Stichwort Geräusch). Weiterhin hat sich in den 1980er Jahren niemand um Emissionen gescherrt! Wenn dem heute immer noch so wäre und wir beliebig viel Ruß und NOx produzieren könnten (ob das Sinnvoll ist?!) wären Verbräuche von weit unter 200 g/kWh kein Problem -> 2L/100km@100 km/h. WeitIt's important to consider the purpose for which the vehicle is intended."For comparison purposes, the testing and inspection cycles are as follows. The only thing that matters is whether one vehicle consumes more or less fuel than the other. Everything else is essentially irrelevant."

Das Konzept "Leichtbau" beguenstigt Beschleunigungsvermoegen und Handling. Im Stadtverkehr und auf Landstrassen kann man damit - in Abhaenigkeit vom eigenen Fahrprofil - durchaus Einsparungen erzielen. Aerodynamische Eigenschaften sind hier erstmal zweitrangig. Ab ~80 km/h Fahrgeschwindigkeit werden die Widerstandswerte (hauptsaechlich Aerodynamik und Rollwiderstaende) zunehmend bedeutsamer. In einem recht grossen Bereich werden bei gleichfoermigem Fahren die Fahrzeuggewichte weitgehend egal. Global kann man sagen, dass die Reduzierung innermotorischer Verluste und die Effizienzsteigerung im gesamten Antriebsbereich weiteres Einsparpotenzial bieten wuerde. Zum Teil wird das bereits gemacht. On the other hand, fuel is used to power the noise-canceling system.isse, eine nachtraegliche Abgasreinigung oder um geforderte Messzyklen mit den Ergebnissen zu versorgen, die man dort braucht. Das fuehrt zu solchen Stilblueten wie extrem langen Getrieben mit praxisuntauglichen Gangabstufungen in mager motorisierten Klein- und Kompaktwagen und subjektiv viel zu kurzen Getriebeabstimmungen an Motoren, die eigentlich genug Bumms fuer eine lange Uebersetzung haetten. Und schliesslich dieser unsaegliche Fussgaengerschutz, der auf lange Sicht aerodynamisch guenstige Karosserieformen und zum Teil sogar noch praxistaugliche und aerodynamisch vorteilhafte Tieferlegungen fuer irgendwelche Eventualitaeten verhindert. The bulky front ends and, in some cases, the limited ground clearance typical of city cars can be problematic.It dramatically affects the aerodynamics.