New VW Polo GTI "Textbook Engine Downsizing" Yields 25% Reduction Of Fuel Consumption

Paul Niedermeyer
by Paul Niedermeyer
The benefits of gasoline engine downsizing has its latest poster child: the new Polo GTI. It’s a graphic example of why diesel market share in Europe is declining, especially in smaller cars: a 25% reduction on the European mileage standards, without any loss of performance. The GTI’s 1.4 liter TSI produces 177 hp (132kW), exactly the same as its 1.8 liter predecessor. But the combined fuel consumption is 5.9 L/100km (40 mpg US)—equivalent to CO2 emissions of 139 g/km, 25% lower than the outgoing model. Knowing that it also squirts to 100km (62 mph) in 6.9 seconds and comes standard with a 7 speed DSG transmission is only rubbing the wound of knowing it’s not coming to the US with salt. But undoubtedly, tightening CAFE standards will eventually send VW’s pioneering 1.4 and 1.6 TSI engines our way; the question is only in what body.VW’s small TSI engines are to gas engines what it’s also pioneering TDI engines were to the diesel world: a breakthrough in shattering assumptions of what small artificially-aspirated gas engines are capable of, in terms of both performance and economy. Due to its combination of supercharging and turbocharging, an semblance of turbo lag is history. The 177 hp Euro-5 16-valve four-cylinder engine reaches its maximum power at a relatively low (for such a small engine) 6,200 rpm. Maximum torque of 250 N·m (184 lb-ft) arrives at 2,000 rpm and stays at a constantly high level up to 4,500 rpm. The effect is to recreate the feel of a much larger normally aspirated engine without any of the typical detriments.Another graphic example of the narrowing gap of diesel and gas consumption is in the European Golf: two almost identically powered Golf VI versions: 140hp TDI – 5.4L/100km (43.56mpg); 160hp TSI – 6.0L/100km (39.2mpg). That represents a 10% difference. Meanwhile, the US version gas Golf slogs along with its antiquated 2.5 liter five that bumbles through the EPA test with a 26 combined rating.
Paul Niedermeyer
Paul Niedermeyer

More by Paul Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 25 comments
  • Wheatridger Wheatridger on Feb 24, 2010

    The US government is not going to force you to buy a VW or any other car, so drop that fear. But you won't have unlimited choices, either. You never have. It's increasingly hard for me to find cars with manual transmissions, but that's the fault of the market that prefers automatics. "I have found that enemy, and it is us." I'm sure there will be high-powered cars sold by somebody for a long, long time. I'm happy to see them get rarer and more expensive, though. My choice has always been to look for lower-powered models that still have excellent handling and braking. That's why I've done a lot of work on the suspension of my TDI Beetle, but the engine is stock. Hey, if 90 hp.140 lb ft. can pull me up the highest, steepest interstate in Colorado at illegal speeds, that's enough power, thank you. I hope that CAFE regs lead us in that direction. If not, there's millions of used cars out there, of every shape and size.

  • Robbie Robbie on Feb 24, 2010

    The declining share of diesel in Europe has nothing to do with technological development. Europe needs to tax gasoline; it would be unlivable if car use is not restricted in some way; and the way this is done is through gas taxes. Diesel is taxed less, because of the trucking lobby. However the relative price of gas vs. diesel is ultimately a decision of politicians. If everyone starts buying gasoline cars, surely gas taxes will increase up to the point where driving diesel becomes sensible again.

  • Jkross22 When I think about products that I buy that are of the highest quality or are of great value, I have no idea if they are made as a whole or in parts by unionized employees. As a customer, that's really all I care about. When I think about services I receive from unionized and non-unionized employees, it varies from C- to F levels of service. Will unionizing make the cars better or worse?
  • Namesakeone I think it's the age old conundrum: Every company (or industry) wants every other one to pay its workers well; well-paid workers make great customers. But nobody wants to pay their own workers well; that would eat into profits. So instead of what Henry Ford (the first) did over a century ago, we will have a lot of companies copying Nike in the 1980s: third-world employees (with a few highly-paid celebrity athlete endorsers) selling overpriced products to upper-middle-class Americans (with a few urban street youths willing to literally kill for that product), until there are no more upper-middle-class Americans left.
  • ToolGuy I was challenged by Tim's incisive opinion, but thankfully Jeff's multiple vanilla truisms have set me straight. Or something. 😉
  • ChristianWimmer The body kit modifications ruined it for me.
  • ToolGuy "I have my stance -- I won't prejudice the commentariat by sharing it."• Like Tim, I have my opinion and it is perfect and above reproach (as long as I keep it to myself). I would hate to share it with the world and risk having someone critique it. LOL.
Next