By on September 5, 2012

Volkswagen launched its seventh generation Golf to high acclaim yesterday, but there are people who think it is not good enough. Greenpeace picketed its premiere in Berlin last night, “accusing the German carmaker of doing too little to reduce fuel consumption and tarnishing the most important model launch in the group’s calendar,” as Reuters writes .

The new Golf is 100 kg lighter and up to 23 per cent more fuel efficient that the predecessor, but that’s not good enough for Greenpeace. Says its transportation expert Wolfgang Lohbeck:

 “The Golf is the car that distinguishes the segment it’s in for the next 10 years worldwide and all carmakers benchmark themselves against it.”

A base version of the Golf needs only 4.9 liter gasoline for 100 kilometers, according to a definitely non-EPA conversion, that would be 48 mpg. “It’s lame, it’s disappointing,” Lohbeck complains. Greenpeace wants 3 liter / 100km, or 78 mpg.

Have we got the car for you, says Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn. The upcoming Golf Blue Motion consumes only 3.2 liters of diesel for 100 km.

For years, Greenpeace has been targeting Volkswagen in what many see as an attempt at greenmail. They won’t let a high profile event such as the Golf 7 launch go by unpicketed.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

46 Comments on “New Golf Not Good Enough For Greenpeace...”


  • avatar
    Strippo

    Greenpeace does for the environment what Westboro Baptist does for religion.

  • avatar

    Greenpeace have turned into a load of attention-whoring, extortion artists in recent years. It’s just shameful and damned wrong, I’m a liberal and believe in doing what’s right by Mother Earth, but targeting Volkswagen out of all people is just flat out dumb.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      +1 to this, and to Strippo too. F*** Greenpeace; they do as much to damage the cause of environmentalism as any extremist gasbag on TV does to either political party.

      • 0 avatar
        Viquitor

        A few years ago those Greenpeace geniuses decided it was a good idea to get a helicopter and a bunch of mindless teenagers and simply stop the traffic at the Rio-Niteroi bridge. On a monday morning. At the rush hour.

        To protest against global warming and cars, they stopped the morning commute of over 15 thousand cars, in one of the world’s longest bridges, in a over 10 million people metropolitan area.

        Can you imagine the traffic jams?… And what about all those cars at idle, engines and aircon running?

        To this date I’m yet to learn a better definition of the word STUPID. I was a supporter before that.

      • 0 avatar

        Those types of protests are why fully-automatic assault weapons should be legal the world over…

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        “Those types of protests are why fully-automatic assault weapons should be legal the world over…”

        -1 Seriously bro, gotta work on some better responses.

  • avatar

    What the hell does greenpeace want? Volkswagen to rewrite the laws of physics?

  • avatar
    Freddy M

    Love the shot of the stereotypical hippie with the beard.

  • avatar
    Junebug

    I loved this, “Greenpeace does for the environment what Westboro Baptist does for religion.”
    Thank God I’m a Deist.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    Where I come from, them Greenpeace fellers are good for one thing.

    Target practice.

    /sarcasm off

  • avatar
    raph

    The old man had a saying; ”You can f*** somebody with a golden p**** and they would still b****”

    Man I miss that guy, he always had a colorful response for every situation ( one of the benefits I think of having been a merchant marine and career soldier in the army).

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    The goal of the UN’s sustainability agenda is to rid the world of between 4 and 5 billion people. As such, anyone advocating environmentalism is really an aspiring genocidal lunatic. They should be greeted as such.

    • 0 avatar
      SV

      …and just like that, Greenpeace looks sane again.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

        Read the whole thing as well as the links to affiliated authorities and get back to me. Notice that it is on the UN’s own website, so I’m not relying on a dismissible source to tell me what the UN wants to do when it talks about sustainability.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        That response was so, so….. Perfect.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        We all know you didn’t wade through several hundred pages of 19 year old, intentionally vague, feel-good environmentalese so you could come up with your “conclusion,” so there’s no need to be disingenuous about it. But anyway, I might as well through out a quote from the statement of principles:

        “Principle 2: States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”

        Hell, with a little massaging, you could work that into the Republican party platform.

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      Do you read the words you write before you hit the submit button?

    • 0 avatar
      PintoFan

      If you want to know why Greenpeace and groups like it are increasing in support (especially amongst the younger generation) then you need to look in a mirror.

    • 0 avatar
      chaparral

      CJ,

      I just spent a fairly long time reading through Agenda 21 and related documents. I did not find a single reference advocating genocide or war to reduce population.

      What I did find was programs aimed at stabilizing and reducing birth rates.

      If that is genocide, then I am a minor functionary in a Stalinist purge. I spend my Friday and Saturday nights working on my thesis, working on cars, or playing video games rather than trying to knock-up whatever drunk bitch I can get my arms and legs around.

      There are two ways to reduce a population: increase the death rate or decrease the birth rate. We’re mortal, so we know the second one will work, and it’s certainly a much fairer and more decent method.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I suppose the sustainability types are counting on people like you, people that can’t figure out what the result of removing 80% of arable land from food production will be. By all means, I agree with your stance on not reproducing. Life has been too achievable for too long. You, SV, Chicago Dude, Mea Culpa, and PintoFan are living proof.

      • 0 avatar
        chaparral

        Then why did Massachusetts’ farmland only decline about 20% over the past 40 years? It’s a terrible place to farm with its cold weather and rocky soil, it’s more friendly to the UN than most US states and plays along with Agenda 21, and we’ve got steadily expanding urbanization that draws in a big share of NH/RI’s population from 8 to 5.

  • avatar
    BrianL

    The EPA rating for the base Golf is 33 mpg highway with a manual or 31 with an automatic, which isn’t exactly lighting it up.

    Honestly, one would think that it could be better. Look at the Elantra, Focus, Cruze, Civic, and Corolla numbers. They are all pushing or over 40 mpg.

    What are those vehicles rated for in Europe? The Golf rating here for 2013 is very disappointing. One item I am not 100% sure of, is the rating you have there the same 2.5L engine in Europe?

    EDIT:
    Just read that it will be a 2014 model in the US. The MPG numbers, if 20 percent better will be in line with 5 year old cars.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      They’ve got engines that do very well on fuel efficiency tests in exchange for high up front costs and fart in the wind long term prospects, Rube Goldberg contraptions like 1.4 liter ‘twin-charger’ engines with both mechanical supercharging and exhaust driven turbocharging so they can perform like naturally aspirated 1.8 liters during their tortured existences.

      • 0 avatar
        BrianL

        I guess you are speaking of the Cruze with the 1.4L turbo engine? Turbos aren’t exactly something too complex, but ok.

        Look at the rest of the list (ehh, maybe not the Corolla), and you will find cars that are pushing this limit already, no turbos required.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        No BrianL. Perhaps if you understood what I wrote, you’d not disagree with me. VW makes the TwinCharger engines, as described.

        Go to you tube and search for Scirocco v Scirocco to see how terrible the Twin-charger is in use.

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      The 2.5 litre engine was designed for North American market only and isn’t even available in Europe. It is also going away when the Golf 7 eventually comes to North America, to be replaced with a new 1.8 TSI engine (which is not available at launch in Europe). It’s also pretty likely (but not certain) that the current 6-speed torque converter automatic will go away, to be replaced with a DSG. If VW does this, the improvement in fuel consumption for the base North American spec Golf with automatic transmission will likely be more than 20%, although it’s anyone’s guess at this point if they would hit the magic 40 mpg US highway figure. It should come close.

      If you want the most efficient Golf, that will remain the TDI.

      I wish VW would make the 1.4 TSI with cylinder de-activation the base engine in North America … that would do the trick for those who don’t want a TDI.

  • avatar
    nvdw

    “The Golf is the car that distinguishes the segment it’s in for the next 10 years worldwide and all carmakers benchmark themselves against it.”

    So basically, Greenpeace is actually generating publicity for the new Golf by saying it’s best in class.

    Greenpeace did try their hand at developing a fuel efficient car themselves years ago (google ‘Greenpeace SMILe’), basically a streamlined Renault Twingo that drove even worse than the car it was based on.

  • avatar
    Verbal

    “Golf” spelled backwards is “flog”. True fact.

  • avatar
    Polar Bear

    Those greenies are all over 50 years old and they have not reproduced. They are a dead end of evolution.

  • avatar
    MeaCulpa

    In VW defense they once called the 1l/100k car “our formula one”, they did introduce the Lupo 3L (3l/100km) and offer CNG cars as well as the bluemotion low fuel options. So go suck a stick green peace (love the Zodiacs thou).

  • avatar
    stuntmonkey

    I don’t think I heard any specific plans for engines at the launch yesterday, but I’ve often felt that one of the things that has held the Golf back is that it doesn’t have/couldn’t use a 2litre class naturally aspirated motor. The 2.5 5-cylinder really should be a luxury option, but it’s not because it makes less power than competitive four cylinder engines, and Golf’s until had more in common with midsize sedans than compact cars, weight-wise.

    However, with the drop in weight, maybe a lot of that will clear up. The Golf in the US isn’t gaining market share for the premium hatchback segment, but there’s a whole nother market down by the Civic/Elantra that VW once occupied.

  • avatar
    stryker1

    I consider myself to be fairly liberal, and I care about the environment as much as the next guy, but Christ.

  • avatar
    Felis Concolor

    The environmentalist movement lost its fulcrum in the 90s, when most of the megacorps not only voluntarily adopted many high efficiency methods and processes but in many cases went further by establishing cleaner standards than had been demanded. The only response the greenies could come up with was to go insane and demand the death of the same corporations which had skilfully unbalanced the movement.

    The next time you encounter someone spouting the current nonsense about CO2 and global warmi – excuse me, the proper term now is “climate change” – politely ask them to answer the following question.

    When will the Holocene end?

    • 0 avatar
      Ron B.

      Exactly, but you did not mention the fact that Green peace is in fact a franchised business (a sort of lunatics mc donalds ) and is run on along franchise lines .So to attack VW is to gain both much needed pulicity for the franchisees and gather up more green minded folks. Many of whom live in urban areas and have never really experience the world outside of cities where the air is cleaner and folks can see the truth for what it is.

    • 0 avatar
      PintoFan

      Nobody could answer that question with certainty. That doesn’t mean the climate isn’t changing.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    @Felis +10!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States