Volkswagen to Premiere New Generation of Polo, Golf and Passat BlueMotion Models; Consumption As Low As 3.3 L/100km (71.3 mpg US)
02 September 2009
| Volkswagen Passat BlueMotion, Polo BlueMotion and Golf BlueMotion. Click to enlarge. |
Volkswagen will introduce the new generation of the Polo BlueMotion, Golf BlueMotion and Passat BlueMotion at the International Motor Show (IAA) in Frankfurt in two weeks.
All three Volkswagens are the most fuel-efficient models in their respective size classes, according to VW; all three are celebrating world premieres as production versions at the IAA; and all three can be ordered later this fall.
The new Polo BlueMotion (55 kW / 74 hp) diesel offers average fuel consumption of 3.3 L/100km (71.3 mpg US), equivalent to 87 g/km CO2/km. Compared to a conventional 55 kW Polo TDI, CO2 emissions were reduced 20%, and fuel consumption was reduced by 0.9 liter per 100 kilometers, due to BlueMotion Technologies that include a new high-tech 1.2-liter TDI.
The 45-liter tank of the Polo BlueMotion leverages a theoretical range of 1,363 kilometers (847 miles). The Polo BlueMotion, with a top speed of 173 km/h (108 mph), makes its market debut in 2010.
The new Golf BlueMotion (77 kW / 103 hp) diesel offers fuel consumption of 3.8 L/100km (61.8 mpg US), with 99 g CO2/km. Its theoretical range is 1,447 kilometers (899 miles) on a 55-liter tank.
The Golf BlueMotion accelerates to 100 km/h in 11.3 seconds, with a top speed of 190 km/h (118 mph). The new Golf BlueMotion will first arrive at European dealers in late fall of this year.
The new Passat BlueMotion offers average fuel consumption of 4.4 L/100km (53.5 mpg US) with 114 g/km CO2. Theoretical range is 1,591 kilometers (989 miles) on a 70-liter tank.
The Passat shares its 77 kW common rail TDI with the Golf BlueMotion. Top speed is 193 km/h (120 mph) and acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h takes 12.5 seconds.
TDI + Start-Stop + Regeneration. The enabling BlueMotion Technologies are a set of diverse high-tech components and detailed solutions. The foundations for the extremely low fuel consumption and emission values are the new common rail TDI engines with modified engine management software and reduced idling speed.
Power transfer is handled by five-speed gearboxes with longer gear ratios. A gear-shift indicator integrated in the instruments ensures that the BlueMotion models are always driven at the gear stage that is optimal for fuel economy.
Other BlueMotion features include:
- Energy recovery (regenerative braking);
- Start-Stop system;
- Low rolling resistance tires;
- Especially lightweight low-drag wheels;
- Improved fine tuning of body aerodynamics; and
- Lower chassis (Polo and Golf).
A Passat doing 53.5 mpg cannot be allowed in USA nor Canada in 2010/11?
What would happen to our 35 mpg up to date CAFE standards for 2016 ?
Posted by: HarveyD | 02 September 2009 at 06:38 PM
35 mpg gasoline is about right compared to 53.5 mpg diesel specialy with the crap we call gasoline in the us.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 02 September 2009 at 08:03 PM
.
Incredible mileage! They finally got past my 30 year old diesel VW rabbit pickup truck's 50 mpg highway mileage!
Now lets watch Obama/Reid/Pelosi try to BAN these great, clean, efficient cars from coming to the U.S. Can't have efficient, clean, vehicles her now, can we. Obama/Reid/Pelosi already banned the new, clean, Honda diesel. Available everywhere else in the world, of course.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 02 September 2009 at 08:16 PM
We have what are, in effect, corporate average CO2-maximums, in the form of corporate average fuel economy minimums.
We should therefore, also have corporate average nitrogen oxide maximums too, in addition to whatever limits on particulates are necessary for the protection of our health. That way, we can find the optimum mix of Diesel vs. spark-ignition engined vehicles.
In any event, instead of automatically banning those super fuel efficient European Diesel cars, we should seek laws that serve the practical needs of the public - not the ego needs of people like Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 03 September 2009 at 02:58 AM
I'll assume those ranting are unaware of the health issues surrounding particulate matter in diesel exhaust;
http://www.alaw.org/air_quality/outdoor_air_quality/particulate_matter_air_pollution.html
Particulate Matter and Lung Disease
Posted by: Will S | 03 September 2009 at 06:26 AM
I'll assume those ranting are unaware of the health issues...
I'll assume those ranting are unaware of the health issues with regard to DiHydrogen Monixide. DiHydrogen Monoxide KILLS thousands every year. Brutal, suffocating, deaths. BAN DiHydrogen Monoxide NOW!!!
Praise be to Algore...
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 03 September 2009 at 08:02 AM
Hey Goracle, that's really funny. You have unwittingly shown that CO2 can be bad for people and the planet. Just like water, although naturally occurring, generally harmless, and absolutely necessary for life can kill, CO2, which is also naturally occurring, generally harmless and and absolutely necessary for life can also be harmful in excess.
Praise be to Al Gore (no sarcasm).
Posted by: Peter9909 | 03 September 2009 at 08:59 AM
Will S. Hi Will, what about to use more Your brain and less info on internet???
Posted by: Peter | 03 September 2009 at 12:02 PM
The Goracle: Do You think that all staff will understand? DiHydrogen Monoxide... Very funny... Very dangerous chemical substance... (-:
Posted by: Peter | 03 September 2009 at 12:04 PM
Italics... away!
Of course, diesel particulate filters and NOx reduction catalysts deal with most of the emissions that everyone is worried about. Well, except for the DHMO, though I suppose that you could eliminate that with a law mandating silica-gel filters stuck up the tailpipe. We could call them DHMO Protection Suppositories.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 03 September 2009 at 01:07 PM
Let's try that again. Italics... away!
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 03 September 2009 at 01:08 PM
Peter, it professional practice to back statements up with references. Perhaps I've written too many journal articles, but I don't see the problem you're complaining about.
EP, which DPF's do you see to be able to remove most of the PM-10 and PM-2.5, cost effective, and durable for auto use in the US?
Posted by: Will S | 03 September 2009 at 04:23 PM
I think there's a chance that the Golf BlueMotion could make it to the USA. Because of the relatively small size of the engine, making it meet EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions shouldn't be that hard, and the US version will likely use the 7-speed DSG dual-clutch gearbox as its only transmission choice.
Posted by: RaymondC | 03 September 2009 at 05:48 PM
I'm not up on the detailed specs of DPFs, but if HEPA filters can pull the stuff out for measurement I don't see why a ceramic version couldn't catch it for cleanup.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 03 September 2009 at 06:52 PM
The Euro mpgs need to be converted to numbers that are relevant in the US. AS it was done here, they FE numbers are way overstated. GCC does the math and converts the NEDC cycle consumption per 100km to mile per US gallon. What is not done is the de-rating that is associated with all US test numbers. Take every number derived this way and multiply by 0.7 - 0.8 to get the US label numbers. So the 53.5 mpg is really more in the territory of a US 37 - 43 mpg label.
GCC is the best of the auto blogs, but still gets this critical piece of insight wrong, and stirs up the usual manufactured outrage and mythology about super efficient European diesel engines.
Another item normally lost in translation is the poor NOX and Particulate matter emissions form diesel engines that are tolerated in Europe. Several have caught on to that; "clean diesel" is relative term. If diesel emissions are clean, the gasoline engine emission are health food. I would rather take a deep breath of 100% CO2 than PM at 10 ppm.
Posted by: frankbank | 03 September 2009 at 07:16 PM
Those new EPA mileage estimates are bupkis. We have a 2002 pontiac sunfire, EPA 24 (NEW). I get 35-40mpg. Have a 2009 scion XD, EPA 29. It gets 42mpg avg. 39 w/max AC.
Posted by: Erevesto | 03 September 2009 at 07:54 PM
frankbank: everything is relative - if clean diesel is relative term, what about "zero" emission" cars a called, now joking - EV, MEV, MIEV, HV, HEV, PHEV, UV, DUV, CUV, GUV, PUV, AV, IV, LV, SV, TV and even much more categorries... (-:
Posted by: Peter | 03 September 2009 at 09:57 PM
Will S - Proffesional study shows, that petrol cars in US emit similar numbers of particles like diesel cars. Some people were thinking that all particle come just from heavy trucks (available in US only) - so they measured days with heavy trucks and days without them and found very similar number of particles. You can read this study showing that cold gasoline engines and weared gasoline emit more particles than diesels here on this web.
Posted by: Peter | 03 September 2009 at 10:01 PM
@Will S:
A diesel engine with a DPF emits *way* less PM than a gasoline engine. Read technical literature about ICE and you'll notice when it comes to PM raw emissions, they say gasoline engines are just as bad as diesel engines. It's not about the mass, it's about the number of particles. Obviously smaller particles are even worse for your lungs.
Posted by: randomdude | 03 September 2009 at 11:17 PM
You diesel defenders are simply wrong. Look at the specifications here.
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/123901/page001.html
Then consider that T2B5 is the entry point of allowable emission for cars, ICE or diesel, and in practice the average new car shipped in the US is CARB SULEV to ZEV level and much cleaner, perhaps 200 times as clean as the US entry point T2B5.
The EU New spec allow .9 gpm for Nox. The US T2B5 allows .02 or less. And EU automakers meet these standards, here.
Why would you want or glory in driving a car that pollutes like 400 to 8000 other cars combined?
As regards your particulate concerns, please note that emissions levels of PM for PZEV vehicles? Its listed as less than measurable. Your poor standards stinks here too. Some 62 different models were certified by CARB as some sort of ZEV, in model year 2008, and more since.
Were I not a fairly constant traveler to Europe and within the US, I would not be able to say the moment I deplane, I can smell the diesel stink for several minutes until my nose acclimates. And over the years, it is steadily getting worse. Its like arriving in a third world city where you are momentarily overcome by the "aromas".
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 04 September 2009 at 12:09 PM
Stan,
The moment you deplane, what you smell is Jet-A, not diesel.
Posted by: Arne | 06 September 2009 at 12:43 PM
frankbank,
I would rather take a deep breath of 100% CO2 than PM at 10 ppm.
Are you sure? CO2 becomes deadly at ~20% concentration.
Posted by: Arne | 06 September 2009 at 12:46 PM
There are at least two studies which have shown that the exhaust of diesel engines equipped with DPF have particle number concentrations that are less than that of filtered tunnel air (Czerwinski, "Nanoparticle Emissions from Particle Filter-Equipped Diesel Car.", http://www.dieselnet.com/papers/0209czerwinski/ ; John Storey, et al., ORNL, "Comparison of Direct Exposure of Human Lung Cells to Modern Engine Exhaust Particles." Proceedings of the 2003 DEER Conference). DPF is especially effective in removing the smallest particles (nanoparticles).
EPA recently concluded that they have been underestimating PM mass emissions from gasoline vehicles in their emissions inventories by a factor of 1.6 (60%) based on a study they commissioned in Kansas City (EPA, "Analysis of Particulate Matter Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles in Kansas City." April 2008). Studies by the University of Minnesota have shown that PM number emissions from gasoline vehicles can approach that of uncontrolled diesel engines under some common operating conditions (high speed/load, cold ambient temperatures).
PM from gasoline vehicles comprises a significantly larger percentage of ambient PM2.5 mass levels than diesel sources in many areas (see graphic on second slide of http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2007/poster3/deer07_lawson.pdf).
Posted by: Carl | 06 September 2009 at 06:39 PM
Diesel has become more and more popular in Europe due to sky high fuel prices compared to the 'cheap' price of fuel - i.e. Americans are complaining about prices we paid two decades ago.
Despite diesel being normally higher in price in the UK, it has becomes the people's preference due to eye watering fuel taxes. Yet there's not really the kind of 'third world' smog that was referred to earlier.
If anything it's not cars but so called sustainable transport - buses that generate most of the Diesel soot and stink, especially in town centres compared to the cleaner diesels that are on the road today.
As an aside there is much cleaner synthetic diesel (made from natural gas instead of crude) on the market, although it costs £1.14 per litre ($7.25 per US gallon), including the government's recent fuel duty rise of 15c per gallon (as if prices aren't high enough!). I've filled up our '97 Audi A6 2.5TDi ($130 - ouch!) and it generates much less smoke and soot than normal petro-diesel.
Promoting cleaner disel fuel is an answer and this will happen when synthetic fuels and biofuels become more popular.
Posted by: Scott | 07 September 2009 at 01:02 PM
Bring back horses. They produce piles not particles. I don't know how much NOX, but NOX is good for plants if it gets to the roots. Lightning makes NOX. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 15 September 2009 at 03:02 PM