206 eco to Golf 5 BLS

Okay, here's the translation:

"Just a bit off-topic: At approximately 2500 RPM, where is the power output located in a BLS engine? And what would the power consumption be on a highway drive with a very light touch on the accelerator pedal at that RPM/speed in 6th gear?" Are you expecting a high rate of consumption?

The BLS is proof that you can make DPF-TDIs fuel-efficient and very powerful, even at low speeds.

Apparently, the BV39 loader is responsible.
While idling, the 1.6 bar absolute boost pressure remains constant, but increases when you press the accelerator!
Speaking: Extremely fast response time despite using FMIC.

"On country roads, it comfortably stays below 4 liters per 100 kilometers. On the highway, I'd say it's around 5-5.6 liters per 100 kilometers (we only have mountains here, and he never drives on the highway normally)."

If it has to be done (my wife "did it"), the speedometer reads 200.

He attracts as much attention as the Passat .


He was allowed to travel approximately 118,000 kilometers on the highway in 20 months - now his life is more serious http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/detailansicht/354700.html.

Are you looking for something bigger than your little French purse?
With 4 doors, it's fantastic - so many nice control units to play around with!

m;

In short: I want to drive at speeds of 110 to 120 km/h with my current fuel consumption. However, I essentially have to get rid of the 206. There's nothing more to be done with it, and in a few years, the available vehicles will be everything except fuel-efficient. Even without luxury features and equipped only with the essentials, a Golf would likely be about 1/3 heavier. Size and weight, which I don't really want to be carrying around unnecessarily just to get my clumsy self to and from work. Therefore, a Polo Bluemotion would actually come quite close to the ideal, but unfortunately, due to the lack of availability, the prices are exorbitant. Considering what I would have to invest and the operating costs I could save from that investment, I could also continue driving my 206 for another 3 to 4 years and then scrap it. In the medium term, I simply won't be able to afford the "Gurkerei" (presumably referring to a specific, expensive car or situation) anymore, and I will have to find a place to live closer to my workplace. Gasoline prices aren't getting any cheaper...

The golf club weighs:

Quote:

Golf 5 4-door (rear windows manually operated). 1.9 TDI DPF BLS 6th gear. Climatronic. FSE Winter Season Package. RNS 300 Steel rims with winter tires. Weight: 1326 kg. 3/4 tank, without driver: 1326 kg

For us, the price was the deciding factor. With almost 120,000 km driven in just 20 months, it's practically just broken in, and it's almost like new, but not nearly as expensive. Besides, I've known the car since it was picked up in WOB; it's been driven by family members. That's why I also knew *how* the first 120,000 km were driven. Because "Langstrecke" can also mean "speeding," but that's not what it was .

m;

Okay, so not much more.

I am offering a vehicle with a measured weight of 1060 kg. It is operational, fully fueled, and without a driver, and the weight was measured on a calibrated truck scale with an accuracy of 20 kg. The 206 eco has a drag coefficient (cw-value) of 0.29 (or 0.31 without the aerodynamic enhancements). Where's the Golf in all of this?! Can it be improved?

In terms of fuel consumption, your Golf is significantly higher than what you would expect based on your driving habits. If I were to maintain my current driving style (highway speed of approximately 95 km/h, largely avoiding overtaking, and consciously using a light foot with constant attention to the instantaneous fuel consumption), what would the fuel consumption of your Golf be then? Your driving style is not comparable to mine, and therefore, the fuel consumption data from Spritmonitor is also not comparable.

I might be able to go out again tonight (the DPF was regenerated yesterday) and drive on the A6 highway using cruise control (but I need to consider the wind today because of the east-west orientation).

The CO2 emissions of a standard Golf 5... hmm, I don't know.

It was available as a BLUEMOTION model (which included the BLS), and it should be possible to tune it in a similar way.

m;

Hutfahrer wrote:

The 206 eco offers a drag coefficient (Cw) of 0.29 (or 0.31 without the aerodynamic enhancements). Where does the Golf stand in comparison?! Can it be improved?

I only know the value of cw as: A: 0.69.

Quote:

In terms of fuel consumption, your Golf is significantly higher than what you would expect based on your driving habits. If I were to maintain my current driving style (highway speed of approximately 95 km/h, largely avoiding overtaking, and consciously using a light touch on the accelerator with constant attention to the instantaneous fuel consumption), where would your Golf then be? Your driving style is not comparable to mine - therefore, the Spritmonitor values are also not comparable.

Even with mine, it's possible to achieve a value of 4 before the decimal point. Sometimes, when the A3 is very congested, I drive at a relaxed 95 km/h in the rightmost lane, staying behind the trucks, rather than battling for every inch of road in the left lane at 105 km/h.

@ dieselmartin: Wind... Yes, that plays a role. With my consistently identical trips, the fuel consumption values (calculated and compared with the onboard computer) fluctuate between 3.9 and 4.4 liters. Driving style as described above. How would the DPF of the BLS behave in that case? I mean, on the one hand, the fuel consumption should be relatively low - and accordingly, the injection amounts. The engine is sufficiently turbocharged, which should result in efficient combustion and, in principle, very low emissions.

Is your BLS at least closed at the bottom? I mean, you really can't do without an underbody protection anymore, can you?


@ Roger: That sounds good! However, a cw value of 0.69 is far from spectacular. In fact, almost anything can achieve that without significant aerodynamic effort – although it would mean foregoing a body like a large panel (e.g., with a large frontal area). Modifications aimed at improving aerodynamics might be sophisticated, but they initially have a rather poor performance as a starting point.

Snip - and he's gone.

The one below is closed.
I've already done some research on the differences between standard parts and BLUEMOTION replacement parts for the 3C model – the 1K will likely be similar.

Thank you!

I need to check, in warmer weather, what's left of my aerodynamic parts on the underbody after this winter. As far as I remember, both the hard impacts and the sliding due to heavy snow were limited last winter. After the issues last spring, some parts have become heavier due to fiberglass mats and synthetic resin. The problem is that, apart from the lower engine cover and the wheel arches, you can't really get any of the body parts for the "eco" model. It was almost a small production run back then, and since 2009, the corresponding part numbers have been listed as "no longer available." Some parts can be taken over from the RC, but the area from the fuel tank to the rear no longer fits due to the different rear axle.

Interestingly, the small spoilers in front of and behind the wheels (both front and rear!) are from a CC Cabriolet and were retrofitted. Unfortunately, one of them (the one on the front right, behind the wheel) is broken again.

Here's the translation:

"For the early 60 horsepower gasoline engines, there's a closed grille insert available (top; on the left and right sides of the lion emblem). I only close the lower air intake in freezing temperatures – to achieve the target temperature of approximately 80 degrees Celsius in the coolant. Would the closed grille from the 60 horsepower engine be worth it?" Used, faded by the sun, available at the recycling center for 5 euros - you can always repaint it.

Ulf was, of course, jealous of my motorcycle's exhaust sound, which now sounds really mature. The handling and driving characteristics improved, and I personally feel that the fuel consumption has also decreased.


Regarding the Golf: My gut feeling is that they've put a great engine into a body that, unfortunately, doesn't quite live up to its potential. It could be more fuel-efficient, or alternatively, it could be faster. Wasn't the BLS engine also used in the Polo? What was its drag coefficient?

Hutfahrer wrote:

A cw value of 0.69, however, is far from spectacular.

According to Wikipedia, the pure cw value is 0.31, but that number doesn't really tell you much without knowing the frontal area.

Aha. What is specified for my "Bummsmurmel"? I only have the values 0.31 for the standard version, 0.30 for the RC, and 0.29 for the eco, as manufacturer specifications. All with the sedan body style. The SW combo is priced at 0.36.

The Golf BMT has a drag coefficient (cw-value) of 0.31.
cw*A = 0.68

But the CW value itself isn't really that interesting.

Because that's just a coefficient. If you want to make an absolute comparison, you also need to consider the projected area.
But I don't think the Golf will perform any better than the 206.

I wouldn't really compare the 206 to a Golf BMT, but rather to a Polo BMT. The empty weights aren't that different either.

P.S. Curb weight of Golf 5 BMT: 1249kg

BTW,

"In my opinion, the unladen weights are absolutely secondary when considering Hutfahrer's driving profile. If I understand correctly, he almost exclusively drives long distances on highways at a moderate speed." Those 100 kg will hardly make a difference whether they go up or down.

At a maximum speed of 95 km/h, air resistance is not that significant.
Purely motor-related measures likely have the most significant impact on fuel consumption.

Does the BMT actually have a switchable alternator like the 1 Series BMW?
That could significantly contribute to reducing rolling resistance.

voodoo wrote:

This could significantly contribute to reducing driving resistance.

As far as I know, the AFAIK (Automatic Fuel Auxiliary) is only disengaged during acceleration, and strong charging is activated instead in cruise mode. I don't expect to see any significant advantages from this in situations involving long periods of driving at a constant speed on a flat surface.

Regarding the Polo:

cw 0.32
Unladen weight starting from 993 kg (without driver, 1.2/51 kW gasoline engine, 3 doors).

However, with "Hutfahrer," you can't purchase a basic model, as those still use the outdated H4 technology. The H7 model is only available starting with the Comfortline trim.

I wouldn't necessarily want to buy a 1.6 TDI. It was derived from the 2.0, and significant cost-cutting measures were implemented in the process. It features, among other things, a stretchable V-belt (Flexi-Belt) without a tensioner, and other "innovations" forced upon designers by cost-cutting measures, such as a fixed unit combining the AGR valve, exhaust cooler, and exhaust flap.