VW Polo TDI: Is it worth buying?

Hello everyone,

I have a question about "diesel engine technology." Unfortunately, it's not covered as often anymore, because practical problems usually take center stage.

Does anyone here know the engine differences between the Polo 1.4l 59kW DPF TDI Blue Motion and the standard Polo 1.4l 59kW DPF TDI?

I'm getting conflicting information here. I think I know the differences in terms of the transmission and vehicle itself. (Specifically, the rear hatch edge, aerodynamic package, alloy wheels with low rolling resistance tires, transmission gear ratios 2-5 are longer, and adjusted standard equipment - no air conditioning or driver assistance systems are included as standard).

But what about the engine? Are there any hardware changes, specifically regarding port designs or combustion processes (piston bowl/cylinder head geometry), EGR coolers, ATL (Advanced Thermal Management) or LL (Long Life) components? What about the MSG data set (ECU part number)? Does it have a different meaning? And what about exhaust aftertreatment (coating of the DPF, monolith structure/geometry, sensors)?

Is there anything different here compared to the non-Blue Motion version?

I can't really imagine that the BlueMotion version received any special treatment here (due to cost considerations), but with VW, you never know.

Is the MKB the same?

I would greatly appreciate any well-founded information, even if sent as a private message.

I would also be interested in your opinions on the VW BlueMotion concept, which is intended to mark the beginning of a "sustainability initiative."
The term itself should remain unmentioned for now, but could you become familiar with this concept, which is technologically rather modest, relatively inexpensive, readily available, and has proven itself despite being new, and whose effects are also modest – or is this just a marketing gimmick in your opinion?
If you were to buy a new car in this category today, would the Blue Motion be a contender?

Best regards,

Hello Bafische,

Regarding your question about the engine, I am currently unable to provide any information, as we have not yet worked with this particular engine in our workshop.

My opinion on the BlueMotion concept:

'Finally, someone has made Ulf's Polo ready for the market.'

No, I'm serious. I think there will be demand for these vehicles. The demand for reduced fuel consumption is significant. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have taken the wrong approach here and prioritized comfort over environmental concerns.
It's important to add that we, the consumers, blindly followed this trend. Because hardly anyone asked for vehicles that were lightweight and offered with minimal equipment. Ulf's Polo is the best example of how this concept isn't new, as you already mentioned.

Building a vehicle optimized for fuel efficiency wouldn't have been a problem if it had truly been a priority. And I'm not even talking about the 3-liter Lupo.
A Golf3 with an ASV engine, even with minimal equipment, could have achieved an IMA (Instantaneous Mileage Average) of 4 liters per 100 km in 1998 if the driver was skilled enough. And this would have been a relatively inexpensive way to achieve it.

The general problem is the cost.
The 3L Lupo was so expensive overall that the reduced fuel consumption wasn't a compelling reason to buy it.
The BlueMotion is also €1000 more expensive than the cheapest Polo with 80 horsepower and a DPF. When you compare the fuel consumption figures of both vehicles, the BlueMotion's fuel savings aren't significant enough to justify the price difference. Therefore, based on calculations, it's still more sensible to opt for the 'basic Polo.'
Here's the translation:

'That's why I still believe that this car will be more successful than the 3L model.'
The advertising and the current debate about gasoline prices make him seem better, thanks to his supposedly lower fuel consumption. His reduced equipment is now being presented as a 'feature.'
And it's not actually that much more expensive.

Personally, I'm a pragmatist and I'm not easily swayed by buzzwords. Furthermore, I don't really like the 3-cylinder diesel engine. I know of alternatives, like Ulf's Polo, which are much more fun.
No, even as someone who drives a lot, I won't buy this Polo.

Best regards, Jochen.

Now, I also don't have a specific answer to the question.
According to VW, the BlueMotion's curb weight is 1084 kg. The standard Polo with 80 hp and a DPF weighs 1091 kg.

The demand is there, because delivery times are already around 4 months. I recently had the idea of starting a business offering something like this as an alternative to the 3-cylinder gasoline-powered Polo.

Since the Blue Motion motor delivers exactly the same specifications as the standard Polo, I assume it's just a modified transmission, as you mentioned, and no other engine modifications. VW itself only mentions aerodynamic improvements and minimization of rolling resistance.
The Bluemotion model costs €15,750, while the Trendline model costs €14,950. Now you can compare the details of the equipment and features.
Since we'll mostly be using this car for short trips in the city, where we rarely exceed 70 km/h, I've decided not to get the BlueMotion version. I'm also holding off on getting the regular Polo for now. My partner likes the current, older three-cylinder gasoline car, but I hate it, although I can't really say why, as there's nothing particularly wrong with it.

Okay, maybe someone with more knowledge about the new engine can tell us more. For now, I'll stick to my opinion that the engine is completely identical. Unfortunately, I couldn't see the engine code of the displayed car because it was covered; they probably didn't want to sell that one.

Regarding mechanical changes, the only modification mentioned is a longer gear ratio.
The 3rd to 5th gears, as well as the axle ratio, are a total of 25% longer.

Otherwise, only the front was modified, a rear spoiler was installed (resulting in a Cd of 0.30), and lighter wheels with low-rolling-resistance tires were fitted.
That's why it's only an extra 800 euros.

Source: Gute Fahrt 08/06.

I used to be interested in that device, but it's not worth it; I'm a more demanding user.
I would like to take a test drive sometime. Does anyone happen to have one available? }

I don't understand how the "BM" (presumably a specific car model) can achieve the same acceleration figures as the standard TDI, even though it has a longer gear ratio and the same engine.

And if a slightly cooler grill plastic reduces energy consumption so much, why doesn't every Polo have it?

The Opel Calibra already had a cw value of 0.26, so a value of 0.30 isn't particularly remarkable.

The ADAC (German automobile club) completely tore apart the easily deformable tires of the 3L Lupo in their tire test.

m;

Well, the acceleration is quite strange, as it's specified to be exactly the same. However, the BlueMotion is 2 km/h faster, for those who are interested, going from 174 km/h to 176 km/h.
However, I think a cw value of 0.3 for a Polo/Golf hatchback shape is quite acceptable; the Calibra, in terms of its basic form, had much better aerodynamic properties.

However, the fact is that the BlueMotion concept seems to be well-received, even though there are some things I don't quite understand.

Oh yes, and the magazine "Gute Fahrt" will never write anything negative about a new VW; they always portray them as the best.

It's clear to me that low rolling resistance tires aren't the ultimate solution; somewhere, the effort to minimize rolling resistance must have a negative impact.

But seriously, Ulf's Polo is from the series with the very long gearbox, so it probably doesn't consume much more fuel even when driven gently.

I'm interested in knowing what the benefits are of preheating the grill.

3Llupo and BM have this single-use grill... I think I might close mine up during the winter.

The G3 already has a large hole at the bottom.

m;

'Closing' the grill (which actually functions like a spoiler) creates a more precisely controlled airflow under the hood and, consequently, in the engine compartment.
This reduces the air turbulence under the hood and the underbody, thereby lowering the drag coefficient (Cw).
This would also work with a standard Polo, but it would need to be adjusted in each case to match the amount of waste heat generated by the engines.

By the way, all of the 80 horsepower diesel Polomo engines were modified starting with the 2007 model year.
The torque now kicks in earlier. The BM model essentially just has a different gearbox.

What bothers me about this is that VW could actually offer this gearbox as standard on all Polos, especially since the Polo diesel engines aren't particularly fuel-efficient anyway, and rarely achieve the stated fuel consumption figures.

I drove a 3-cylinder diesel car for two weeks. The fuel consumption was 5.5 liters.
0.5 liters larger than what I have in my Golf 4 ALH, which has more displacement and weighs more.

matthiasTDI96 wrote:

But seriously, Ulf's Polo is from the series with the very long gearbox; that one probably wouldn't consume much more, even if driven gently.

Let's say "consistently economical," as long as the urge to accelerate doesn't kick in – on average, I (or rather, the car, "Poldi") consume about 4.5 liters per 100 kilometers.

Quote:

I drove a 3-cylinder diesel car for 2 weeks. The fuel consumption was 5.5 liters. 0.5 liters higher than in my Golf 4 ALH, which has more displacement and more weight.

Which 3-cylinder engine was it?

The 75 hp version actually has a turbocharger with a wastegate that responds very slowly.

Therefore, it likely consumes more for the same reason as the 90 hp engine compared to the 110 hp Golf 3 TDI - in that case, the engines with AFN and VTG were more fuel-efficient.

m;

Here's one more thought about aerodynamics:

Although the VW emblem on the Golf 3 doesn't physically touch the hood, after a long drive in the rain, you can see a prominent, central streak of dirt on the hood. This streak can likely only come from the emblem in the grille, so the idea is probably worth exploring.

m;

But what about the engine? Are there any hardware changes,....

I've reviewed some reports and tests.
Most people also talked about changes in/to the engine.
A few people mentioned something about 'improving charge transfer.'

However, it was not possible to find out the exact details.

"Improved loading/unloading" means how quickly I can get the case of beer out of the trunk!

But why is it then more fuel-efficient?

Okay, if I get to the beer faster, I'll get drunk quickly (hence "bluemotion"?), and I won't be able to drive around the area as much, so I'll consume less diesel.

but that is then the absolute consumption... strange.

m;

The 'closing' of the grill (which actually has a kind of spoiler function) creates a more precisely controlled airflow under the hood and, therefore, in the engine compartment.
This reduces the air turbulence under the hood and the underbody, thereby lowering the drag coefficient (Cw).
This would also work with a standard Polo, but it would need to be adjusted in each case to account for the heat generated by the engines.

Hello.
Whether we can really call this a 'spoiler' function is debatable. To truly be a spoiler, the entire air intake area would need to be aerodynamically adjusted (with air deflectors, etc.), which doesn't happen in production vehicles. The problem here is that these airflow patterns depend on the air speed, which is very difficult to predict in normal driving conditions. Closing it off serves to smooth the body's aerodynamics, which reduces air resistance. However, it doesn't necessarily direct the airflow in a specific way.

From the UTM perspective, closing the front panel at low speeds and high loads means less ventilation is available. This represents a significant area of work for UTM.
To aerodynamically optimize the front of the vehicle, all openings would need to be closed. This would reduce air resistance and lower fuel consumption. As part of the UTM testing, the goal is to find the best compromise between openings for cooling and closing them to save fuel, without overloading the engine thermally.

@dieselmartin:
You can also close the upper part of the cooler in the summer, but in that case, you should not request high loads at low speeds.
So, always drive fast to ensure sufficient cooling .
Don't expect miracles in terms of fuel consumption. The closing mechanism is just one of many factors that need to be considered when trying to reduce fuel consumption, similar to how you should close the windows when driving above 100 km/h to prevent excessive fuel consumption.

Best regards, Jochen.

Hello everyone,

First of all, thank you very much for your feedback and private messages.

Just to potentially save you some unnecessary work, I would like to mention that I have already thoroughly researched all readily available sources, such as press kits, journals, conference proceedings, publications, etc., and have not found sufficient answers to my questions.
I was hoping someone with specific knowledge about the Blue Motion system would be able to help.

The Blue Motion is currently only available new throughout Europe and is no longer available used. (I bought the last one in Belgium today). In Germany, delivery times are 2-4 months. This may be partly due to supply difficulties caused by problems in Pamplona, but also due to a significant demand for this model.

...we welcome helpful suggestions and further comments.

your Bavarian