Why Small Turbo Engines Get Lousy Mileage

[The Fed]

If you actually drive your "performance car" like it is one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aO2vC_iMTI

 

[adam1991]

gee, you mean life is full of tradeoffs?

Who'd'a thunk it.

You might as well title the thread, "Why Small Turbo Engines Get Great Mileage" and show the same video.

And it seems to me that if you drive your Corolla or Sonic like you stole it, you'd also get lousy mileage....

 

[The Fed]

gee, you mean life is full of tradeoffs?

Who'd'a thunk it.

You might as well title the thread, "Why Small Turbo Engines Get Great Mileage" and show the same video.

And it seems to me that if you drive your Corolla or Sonic like you stole it, you'd also get lousy mileage....

What does a NA engine have to do with the subject? Their operation has little in common with TSC engines. You really need to form cogent thoughts before you post.

The video is meant for noobies who don't understand, not for smart-ass trolls.

 

[GTI Jake]

They did a mileage test once with a Prius vs a 911 (or something like that, maybe an M3?)

Anyway they did laps around a track and all the faster car had to do was keep up with the Prius which got single digit mpg...the sports car got mid 20s or something like that

Moral of the story is if you’re driving habits are gonna crush the economy of an economy vehicle there’s no point in driving one. Get what fits you and your driving style

I regularly get over 30mpg in my gti and have plenty of fun, zero highway most tanks

 

[NMGGolf]

I suppose allot comes down to what someone defines as lousy mileage. I've run 7 tanks of gas through my 1.8 5 speed, and I'm averaging a touch over 30 MPG in mixed driving. Best tank was a bit over 32, worst was 28.5. I drive pretty conservatively for the most part. I don't think that's lousy mileage.

The thing I like about the 1.8 and the 2.0, is the torque band and the fact that you can baby it and get good mileage. If you need more power though, you just have to use your right foot and it's there. You might get better mileage with a conventional 4 cylinder engine, but there's also a good chance that you won't have that extra power if you want it.

I think it comes down to a choice. Maximize mileage, or take a bit of a hit in the mileage department for better (IMO) overall drivability.

 

[The Fed]

They did a mileage test once with a Prius vs a 911 (or something like that, maybe an M3?)

Anyway they did laps around a track and all the faster car had to do was keep up with the Prius which got single digit mpg...the sports car got mid 20s or something like that

Moral of the story is if you’re driving habits are gonna crush the economy of an economy vehicle there’s no point in driving one. Get what fits you and your driving style

I regularly get over 30mpg in my gti and have plenty of fun, zero highway most tanks

I rarely drive on highways, and never average 30 unless I granny. It doesn't help that I can give it more gas and not worry about spinning the wheels. When I had my Stage 1 GTI it would spin at the slightest provocation.

 

[adam1991]

What does a NA engine have to do with the subject?

Well, your entire post was "your small turbo engine will get lousy mileage if you drive your "performance car" like it is one".

Same with NA engine. Drive it like you stole it, you get lousy mileage.

Small turbo engine: drive it gently, you get great mileage.

 

[Strange Mud]

he's right...epa is 24 city 34 hwy with a combined of 28. I don't get close to that......


I get 35 combined.

 

[The Fed]

I suppose allot comes down to what someone defines as lousy mileage. I've run 7 tanks of gas through my 1.8 5 speed, and I'm averaging a touch over 30 MPG in mixed driving. Best tank was a bit over 32, worst was 28.5. I drive pretty conservatively for the most part. I don't think that's lousy mileage.

The thing I like about the 1.8 and the 2.0, is the torque band and the fact that you can baby it and get good mileage. If you need more power though, you just have to use your right foot and it's there. You might get better mileage with a conventional 4 cylinder engine, but there's also a good chance that you won't have that extra power if you want it.

I think it comes down to a choice. Maximize mileage, or take a bit of a hit in the mileage department for better (IMO) overall drivability.

I figure you have a similar national MPG test, so the carmakers can game the system just as well. There are no max acceleration phases in our tests, which I'm pretty sure the carmakers sold our EPA.

 

[Strange Mud]

I read a bit on the usa tests.....the acceleration is real slow. I do know they are supposed to follow certain parameters. I can't imagine VW gaming the system, can you?!


poor impulse control

 

[bayarea7]

I like that guy

 

[SugarMouth]

The great thing about our cars is because they are 2L we can have the benefit of feeding it very little fuel while cruising (off boost) then with boost pressure feed it a bunch more fuel than you would be able to normally aspirated and have the power. Best of both worlds!

 

[NMGGolf]

I figure you have a similar national MPG test, so the carmakers can game the system just as well. There are no max acceleration phases in our tests, which I'm pretty sure the carmakers sold our EPA.

Very likely. The last time I looked they seemed very conservative. Not allot of stop and go, not super cold or super hot, cruising at relatively low highway speeds, etc.

I would hazard a guess that most people won't see those consumption figures, but then again, allot pf people drive like maniacs and do themselves no favours when it comes to trying to get reasonable fuel economy.

Since going back to a manual, it's amazing how many times I've noticed almost being rear ended by people who go WOT from stoplight to stoplight without paying attention to the traffic around them, LOL.

 

[golfdave]

I get 38mpg (UK) on a long back country drive (2hrs & 80miles) when rallying the car....

I get 52mpg (UK) on a main 60 & 70mph motor way long drive.....

All within what is quoted & what I expect....

The person in the video has not mentioned numerous mechanical factors which manufactures use to get around certain problems...

I have a 1.4lt 140PS/250Nm (actually produces 167PS/267Nm)….& it also has variable camshafts...50deg on the inlet & 40deg on the exhaust..

Plus you have the electronic waste gate control servo which means the engine can tell the wastegate to open/close etc when a conventional one would be unable...

Here is the page from the ERWIN documents on the EA211 small engines (mine) & it talks about how it uses less fuel at full load....& not what he was stating...

Also he doesn't realise how complex & efficient the cooling systems are which keeps the cylinder temps down...two circuits, one for the head & one for block, each with their own thermostat set at different temps...which mean less knock...plus I only use Super unleaded (99 Ron UK)

He's not that good a teacher....& doesn't understand small engines & what the manufacturers have done...mind you over there in USA you don't get the small engines we get....as you are still governed by "there ain't no substitute for cubic inches".....& he obviously feels the need to "big up" the bigger engines....

 

[Faceman]

He's not that good a teacher....& doesn't understand small engines & what the manufacturers have done...mind you over there in USA you don't get the small engines we get....as you are still governed by "there ain't no substitute for cubic inches".....& he obviously feels the need to "big up" the bigger engines....

Next year, the Golf and FWD GSW receive your 1.4L.


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk