'Diesel do for us'
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1OLF. I've always thought it the lost unlikely of names for a car r a van. Can you imagine BL or ord introducing a new model 31Ied a Football?
But VW's eccentric model aming policy clearly has not roved to be the slightest hinrance to its sales of small cars. o date over 5,550,000 Golfs ave been sold worldwide. What perhaps even more interesting that Volkswagen now claims ) be the world's largest proucer of diesel engines, having lanufactured some 450,000 nits last year.
The Golf diesel has probably one more to improve the opular image of small c i enines than any other, but the UK nporters of VWs, if not the wnufacturer itself, seem to ave been slow to realise its pa)ntial as a light van power unit. was not until 1981 that any iolf van first appeared on the 1K market and by that time the riginal 1,471cc diesel unit had ecome a 1,586cc one.
By increasing the stroke by 6.4mm VW was able to reduce the engine's maximum governed speed by 200rpm, to 4,800rpm, and still achieve a modest power increase, while significantly increasing maximum torque.
Judging by our test results and comparing them with those of a Golf car tested in 1980, the engine's already extraordinarily good fuel economy was also further improved by the 1981 modifications.
VAG currently offers a choice of two engines for the van — a 1.1-litre petrol or the 1.6 diesel. The latter version costs E819 more, a very hefty premium on the face of it but that picture changes when you begin to calculate fuel costs in pence per mile.
Over CM's Thames Valley light van test route, the fully laden diesel Golf averaged 4.991it/100km (56.67mpg). Assuming a fuel consumption figure for the petrol version in similar conditions of 40mpg (and that is probably a charitable assumption as far as the petrol engine is concerned for its DIN figure at 56mph is 42.8mpg) and assuming petrol and diesel prices at the forecourt pump of E1.80 per gallon, then it would • take 63,000 miles before the• extra cost of the diesel van would be amortized.
The worst figure our test van's mpg reached was 46. In comparable conditions, that is a spell in heavy London traffic followed by a dash up the M1 and fuel gulping test procedures at MIRA, a petrol-engined Golf van could not be expected to better 32mpg. With those figures in the calculation the "payback" mileage for the diesel engine is 47,500. It should be borne in mind that all these calculations assume that the full retail price is being paid for derv. For operators who have their own fuel stocks or who can buy diesel at discounted prices, the van with the higher "front end cost" becomes even more attractive in terms of whole life costs.
Why attractive? Because 47,800 miles, or even 63,000 miles is a distance which might easily be covered by a van of this kind in as little as two years. When the other diesel benefits, such as a range of 500 miles, are taken into account, that probably will not be too long for most operators to be prepared to wait to recover their initial outlays.
It is clear that the majority of Golf van buyers in this country are now coming to the same conclusion: of the 551 registered so far this year, 358 are diesels.
But what about the long term reliability and durability of the little VW diesel engine? Is it all that it is clacked up to be?
Commercial Motor's sister journal "Autocar" has a longterm test diesel Golf car which has clocked up 84,000 miles. In its 72,000-mile long-term report, the writer complained, tongue in cheek, of having had no significant problems to write about up to that date. Praise indeed for the Golf, though I understand that, since then, at 80,000 miles, a cracked cylinder head was diagnosed by a local VW dealer and the repair job turned out to be a lengthy and expensive business.
The van derivative of the Golf car, like many other vans of its kind, is quite simply a three-door hatchback with the rear side window apertures panelled in and the rear seats removed. Oh yes, and Volkswagen thoughtfully fits as standard a plywood bulkhead behind the seats.
It should come as no surprise then to find that when unladen the van handles just as well as the Golf car, hugging the road in a manner which quickly gives its driver great confidence in the machine. What is surprising is that the van's handling characteristics hardly change at all when it is fully loaded. There is always a tendency to understeer but that, of course, is never alarming and in the Golf only underlines how well it corners. The ride is definitely on the firm side but that I regard as an advantage in a van. There is no unpleasant pitching or rolling in the Golf.
For those who are still convinced that diesel-engined cars and vans are unavoidably noisy and difficult to start in the cold, a ride in the latest Golf would be enlightening. The characteristic diesel clatter which is certainly noticeable outside the van when the engine is idling is barely discernible inside thanks to the excellent noise insulation job which VW has done.
When cruising at 70mph, which the van does with great ease, the Golf's interior noise level does not rise above 76dB(A) and at a steady 50mph is as low as 70d8(A). In other words, the noise levels are about what you would expect in a conventional petrol engined car.
As far as cold starting is concerned the Golf diesel's behav you've fastened your seat b the engine will be ready to star I can think of a number of c leagues of mine with automa chokes on their petrol-engin cars who would welcome su simple and reliable cold startin
The subject of payload in lic vans is a thorny one. Ma manufacturers including V quote gross figures (includil driver in the payload) in thi .specification sheets and this c be misleading. The payload 350kg quoted in this report is t actual maximum load the v could carry at its plated gvw w a full fuel tank, in normal reac for-the-road condition and w a 75kg driver (me) on board.
That gives the Golf the sar payload capacity as the Fe Fiesta (which CM tested in FE ruary this year) as might be E pected since they are deny from cars in the same class. T Golf's payload is less than if of the Peugeot 305 diesel v (CMwie June 26) because of t French vehicle's greater gvw.
A welcome standard fitme on the latest Golf vans is the re screen wash/wipe system b rearward vision could be ir proved still further by fifth larger exterior rear view mirrc or at least mounting the existil ones further forward.
Two other niggling points criticism on our particular tE were a wildly optimistic 3edometer (reading 12 per it fast) and brakes which oc;ionally stuck on. (If you asme that this had some adrse effect on the fuel nsumption then the results even more astonishing.)
-..'onsistency is the diesel Golf n's keynote. Consistency in matched fuel consumption,
rate performance and handg and, judging by Autocar's kilts a consistently good reliaity record.
The van is pricey, over £200 )re than Bedford's brand new 3sel Astra for example, and the .dford has both a greater yload and a larger usable load lume. Another disadvantage the smallest Volkswagen van its very impractically shaped ad compartment, but in the el economy stakes the Golf is one the others have to beat.