# Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion



## [email protected] (Feb 16, 1999)

*FULL STORY...*


----------



## Decahedron (Mar 22, 2006)

not going to happen stateside :-/


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion ([email protected])*

I like the concept where the BlueMotion package is available on any trim level, with any engine, as an additional option.
For example, I would want to have more of the equipment running electrically, have regenerative braking and start/stop, and the aerodynamic package. But I don't want a 75hp engine, and the low-resistance tires/ skinny wheels would be easy to swap out.








Is start/stop available on any of the turboed engines?


----------



## vesvw (Sep 5, 2001)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (feels_road)*

woopty doo. Vw would clean house against hybrids with this car in the US but oh well


----------



## 85GTI (Dec 19, 2000)

Unfortunately this car and others like it have a better chance of coming to the US when gas prices are crazy high. I just wish VW would bring it here now so I can get one before gas prices go back up. Rest assured, they will. A lot.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (vesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vesvw* »_woopty doo. Vw would clean house against hybrids with this car in the US but oh well

Not really - the Polo is one to three classes smaller than the hybrids available in the US. Different market segment.
Where are the BlueMotion Golf, Jetta sedan/wagen and Passat?


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (vesvw)*

The unfortunate reality for really small compact cars and entry-level product like this is that the margins are lousy and you would need to move significant volume in units to make it worthwhile. Even Honda struggles with the Fit in terms of profit margins.
We'll see if the Polo makes it here.


----------



## antichristonwheels (Jun 14, 2001)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion ([email protected])*

OH Pleeze VW, we are so tired of the cars you refuse to send here...
Thankfully we can buy a Prius, they are so sporting.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_We'll see if the Polo makes it here.

Jamie, with VW brass _almost_ announcing publicly that it will come here, I had hoped you could say more than that.








At one point, it was stated that the Polo would likely be built at Puebla, alongside the new-platform-based "Jetta" (in addition to European production). In fact, I would have thought the Puebla plant expansion and tooling should soon be finished. Any news on that? Or is VW taking it slowly, given the current sales environment?
PS - I agree that there would not be enough volume for a _BlueMotion_ Polo, initially. But at least give us the regular one! And not with 100hp engines. Americans don't like "small" (i.e., underpowered) engines...


----------



## Air and water do mix (Aug 5, 2004)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (feels_road)*


_Quote, originally posted by *article* »_As the driver approaches a red stop light in the Polo BlueMotion concept car, he or she applies the brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop, shifts into neutral (which should be standard practice with a conventional car) and takes his or her foot off the clutch. This shuts off the engine momentarily. A "Start Stop" message now appears in the multifunctional display. As soon as the traffic light turns green again, the driver fully depresses the clutch, the engine starts, the "Start Stop" message disappears, and the driver puts the car back in gear and resumes driving.

This is my favorite part. This is exactly what I would want. Fortunately for me, I understand that I'm an anomaly and this car, in it's current iteration, probably wouldn't sell well enough here. I know people say it all the time, but if it were affordable, I'd buy one of these.







(I don't think I've actually said that before)


----------



## Peter_Rabbit (Aug 9, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion ([email protected])*

THIS IS GREAT!! I am very pleased to see that a manual transmission can work with the leading technology of start/stop. This paves the way for hybrid (gas) with manual transmission, and opens the possibility for deisel-hybrids with manual transmissions. The technology - if it works as discussed - is awesome. Future looks bright for us and vW.


----------



## FlyBy (May 27, 2004)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (Peter_Rabbit)*

Something needs to happen in this country and soon. There is no reason that cars like these BlueMotion models can't come to the states. Evey new car is going to have a hard time selling here, but you know what's kept me from buying a hybrid? (besides the fact they're all Toyota's and Hondas, and I don't even consider the American BS attempt in SUV's) is the battery packs, and they're all automatics.
Can you imagine the cost of replacing all of those batteries? And the fact that they're all regular gasoline, and the BlueMotion cars are already taking great diesel mileage and taking it to another level, along with super low emissions.
I say, redesign the bumpers for US/CAN regulations (can't be hard, Hyundai Accent's are street legal







) and bring them over here. I'd for sure take out a loan and have a car payment again to own one. And I already drive a 2.0 mkIV Wagon, so the 75hp motor would feel just fine to me.
So VWoA, get VWgmBH to bring the BlueMotion vehicles over here this time!


----------



## scidanw (May 11, 2007)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (FlyBy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *FlyBy* »_And I already drive a 2.0 mkIV Wagon, so the 75hp motor would feel just fine to me.
So VWoA, get VWgmBH to bring the BlueMotion vehicles over here this time!

I agree with you. 75 hp in a 2,380 pound car can't be much worse than what I already have (90 hp in a 3,999 pound Jetta). If it meant I could play with getting even higher fuel efficiency (personal best avg of 58 mpg), I would sell off all three of our current VW's and take on a car payment.


----------



## benocehcap (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion ([email protected])*

one ugly little car


----------



## .:3513 (Feb 12, 2009)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (benocehcap)*

Looks too similar to the GTi.


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (feels_road)*

Hey in regards to the Polo Blue Motion beeing underpowered. Drive the 2006 Polo Blue Motion and you'll see if it's underpowered or not. The car runs good and fast but consumes little amounts of fuel. I've driven one and the car would perfectly serve it's purpose of hauling us Humans arround. If you wanna go racing or speeding you can always keep an R32 on the side.







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (VWMaster1)*

At least in my opinion, even the regular Polo would be a total flop in the US if it came with a 75hp or even 100hp engine. Car journalists would brand it as _unsafe to reach any speed,_ enthusiasts would blast it, and it would be the laughing stock of other economy car manufacturers and their marketing departments that offer higher-powered engines.
It would be used as an example of what's wrong with the industry, that they can't bring a frugal car to the market that still drives like a car. 
While, with a 120-140hp Diesel or 140-160hp gas engine, this car would be exactly the opposite: an example that small and frugal does not mean you have to give up anything to be part of the new world. And don't think that those engines would automatically translate into higher fuel consumption. For example, the 170hp TDI uses less fuel than the 140hp version. Also, Toyota's new upcoming hybrid has larger displacement (and thus more power) so that it safes more fuel. 
(By the way, I grew up with 30-50hp Beetles, Fiat 500s, and Renault 4s - so I know what it feels like to drive small underpowered cars







)


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (Air and water do mix)*

In regards to affordability of a Polo Blue Motion: The problem is the protectionist politics of America. For a foreign car producer, it's very very hard to get cars legal for import onto the US market. Especially if you don't build factories within the US and invest hundreds of millions of Dollars into the US.
Some might say that is good becuse it protects our local manufacturers from beeing blown away by foreigners and that it protects the jobs in the US. Well those argumentations can be taken into consideration but the fact is, it's 100% unfair. 
You can import any American car into Germany with literally no costs. Any Mustang, any Charger, any SUV any car any Motorcycle. All you pay are customs fees and the sales tax. For a new Mustang GT, importing costs are arround 2800 $ USD. If I was to import my 2002 B5 Audi RS4 into the US, ontop of having to pay customs and sales tax, I'd have to to pay 25000$, yes you read right, 25000$ USD to give my car to some shady private Registered Importer and for him to mess arround on my car for 3 Months untill I can finally drive it within the US.
My conclusion: American Importation regulations are completey bogus, ridiculous, unfair, protectionist, over expensive and unjustyfied. With all that not beeing enough, shady, greedy Registered Importers would perform the importation of your car with noone limiting the amounts they charge to do it, noone observing them and their work to make sure they don't swap good parts in your car for bad and used parts that they have sitting arround. There have been meany cases where that happened, meany dissatisfied people wanting to import their European dream cars, meany of those people lost huge amounts of money and the Government doesn't do crap about it. 
The Government just finishes you of with the statement: "Well we are sorry but that's part of the risk of importing a car."
The Fact is, if we want to import cars the Goverment forces us to import them through these shady, ripp off RI's ( Registered Importers ).
So, as long as the government doesn't open up the market like Germany did and make it fair for German, European Manufacturers and other Countries to import their cars, you guys will never see all the available models within the US. 
How can that be changed ? I pretty much believe that only a huge flood of complaint letters and e-mails, from americans to the american Government could maybe give the government something to think about. Other than that you guys will just have to accept the fact.


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (feels_road)*

Somethings not really making sence here: You say americans would make fun of it and never buy it and so forth and talk about the american market...... A Chevy Cavalier, a GMC Jimmy, a Toyota Prius, a Nissan Altima and hundreds of other Models on the US market will not reach the 62 mile barrier in less than 10 -11 seconds, probably even 12 seconds. The Polos on the other hand all reach the 62 miles per hour in arround 10 -11 seconds and have a top speed of 120-135 miles per hour. That's more than enough for an average, every day driver, a commuter car. 
In regards to it beeing safe: The car is more than safe. It handles good, has ASR or ESP, Airbags, crash impact safety zones and much much more. It can easily compete with any of the compact cars on the US market, if not even beat them. Especially GM's cars.
In regards to larger engines in the Polo:
There will be a Polo GTI with a minimum 1.6 FSI engine and a Polo GTI TDI with atleast a 140 TDI engine so no need to worry about larger engines not showing up in the Polo.


_Modified by VWMaster1 at 2:55 AM 3-5-2009_


----------



## MKV.RABBIT (Jun 18, 2007)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_*FULL STORY...*









71mpg!







I'll take it! This car will rule the U.S. market with the highest mpg numbers.
(VWOA: Please offer it with a manual transmission)


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

_Modified by VWMaster1 at 9:03 AM 3-5-2009_


----------



## Buran (Apr 21, 2000)

Maybe instead of blasting anything with a small engine as "doesn't drive like a car", you need to realize that not everything needs to be ridiculously overpowered and "drives like a car" is not a synonym for "has 500 horsepower". Get those heads out of the sand.


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

word. 
One thing is for sure, if the US had more cars like these and the people would use them as much as possible and would do carpooling more, for example neighbours or friends can go buy groceries together instead everyone going alone, then the US could put itself into a much better, much more independant position. Obama sais he wants to boost the energy independance progress. Well cars like these are part of it. Diesel cars are part of it. Diesel can be produced forever. Even if oil reserves vanish, Diesel still can be produced by plant material. Diesel can even be produced out of plant rests like wood chips, straw, hay and so forth. Matter of fact, that diesel even burns better, cleaner and more efficient than diesel made from mineral oil. VW made the first transparent combustion chamber for doing better research on combustion. It allows them to film the combustion process from all angles and see how fuels react. They found out and filmed how the synthetic diesel burns better than the diesel made from mineral oil.


_Modified by VWMaster1 at 11:42 AM 3-5-2009_


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (Buran)*

Hey rocket girl and master of VW's,
You have to distinguish between what I would buy, and what you would buy, from what the American public is ready for, in sufficiently large numbers. The above was my assessment of the latter. You may disagree, but buying habits in the US indicate to me I am right.
And as I mentioned: engine size and hp are *not* always positively related to fuel consumption. Keep that in mind. You are asking people to give up hp without much, if any, benefit. Europeans buy some of these small engines because they are cheaper, even though they often use more gas and have higher CO_2 emissions. BlueMotion models obviously excluded - but they have more going for them than a small engine, to save fuel.










_Modified by feels_road at 1:31 PM 3-5-2009_


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: (feels_road)*

Not only the Blue Motion models save fuel. There's a 90 HP A2 TDI. The car does about 55-58 miles per Gallon and reaches 135 mph top speed. 0- 62 MPH in 10 seconds. That was a standard TDI engine in the standard A2.
It's the same with all the other smaller engines. As long as a car does 0- 62 in 10-12 seconds it is sufficiantly powered. What a discussion anyways. Thousands of people bought the Prius car although the TDI's could beat the prius by far. Especially TDI Hybrids. 
All in all any small engine, atleast the ones from European manufacturers, perform well and save gas. 
So which ones are the cars with small engines, poor performances and higher fuel consumption? Can you name any examples? Which ones have you driven? Exact Models and engines please.
With the aprox. 42 million cars on German roads and the Autobahns with no speed limits, the Germans still manage to average a total of 36 miles per gallon per car, that is with all SUV's; Porsche Cayennes, BMW X5, Mercedes ML'S, GL's, VW Touaregs, Porsche sport cars and so forth combined. They still average 36 miles per gallon. The US is below 20. 
That should give the US to think.










_Modified by VWMaster1 at 1:50 PM 3-5-2009_


----------



## Hydrokool (Nov 8, 2000)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (feels_road)*


_Quote, originally posted by *feels_road* »_
Not really - the Polo is one to three classes smaller than the hybrids available in the US. Different market segment.
Where are the BlueMotion Golf, Jetta sedan/wagen and Passat?

Have you been in a Prius?


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (Hydrokool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Hydrokool* »_Have you been in a Prius?

Yes, I have. Also, the EPA rates the Prius as a mid-size car, not a compact, and not a sub-compact like the Polo. It is much bigger than a Rabbit, which in itself is one class up from the Polo. Most other hybrids sold in the US are mid-size cars or SUVs. So, yes, certainly, as I stated, hybrids in the US are one to three classes larger than the Polo.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (VWMaster1)*

Here is a power-to-weight comparison of 5-door hatches available in the US. Many of these don't sell very well, but some of them, like for example the Prius and the Fit, _do_ sell in respectable numbers. 
Model______power_____weight____power/weight
Suzk. SX4 143hp __ 2,701lbs __ 0.053
Scion XD _ 128hp __ 2,668lbs __ 0.048
Honda Fit 117hp __ 2,489lbs __ 0.047
2010 Prius 134hp __ 2,900lbs __ 0.046*
Yaris 5-d _ 106hp __ 2,340lbs __ 0.045
Versa 5-d 122hp __ 2,693lbs __ 0.045
Kia Rio 5 _ 110hp __ 2,438lbs __ 0.045
Che. Aveo 107hp __ 2,546lbs __ 0.040
2010 Polo 100hp __ 2,500lbs __ 0.040
2010 Polo _75hp __ 2,500lbs __ 0.030
As you can see, almost all currently available hatches have ~50% better power-to-weight ratio than a 75hp Polo would have. Even if you bump the power to 100hp, the Polo would reside at the absolute bottom of the pack. Is that a place to be for a semi-premium hatch from Germany, that (for all the know reasons) likely starts several $1,000 higher than the competition? I think not, and I think there would be no business case for it. Given that a 120-140hp model would not consume any more fuel (or at least not significantly), it is absolutely clear to me that if VW wants to sell such a car in the US with any success, it needs to be _there_ - it would be a better car, and still plenty green.

Polo: previous model weight was reduced by 7.5% as to VW press release. Previous 75hp TDI model weight in Germany was 1,157kg. Typically, US weights (calculated differently, plus some additional weight for bumpers etc.) is 200lbs more than German/Euro specs. Adding just 150lbs and rounding down, I get 2500lbs - which seems reasonable, given the competition's weight.
*I have added the Prius, although it is one to two sizes larger, because it is the most popular hybrid, and still a 5-door hatch.
All data are from Edmunds, all base models used.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (VWMaster1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWMaster1* »_So which ones are the cars with *small engines*, poor performances *and higher fuel consumption?* Can you name any examples? Exact Models and engines please.
 

Here you go:
2010 MkVI Golf / Euro ratings, all manual transmissions
engine _ CO_2 g/km
====== =========
gasoline:
_80hp __ 149
102hp __ 166
122hp __ 144
160hp __ 145

Diesel:
110hp __ 128
140hp __ 129
140hp __ 167 Tiguan 4Motion
170hp __ 172 Tiguan 4Motion 
I used the MkVI Golf, because unlike the Polo, all the data are currently available. The 170hp Tiguan used to be rated better than the 140 version. Now, they are rated approximately the same, still supporting my argument that a higher hp modern engine does not equate significantly higher fuel consumption.
Three other examples: the new Audi A4 has about 60lbs-ft more torque than the outgoing one (and thus more power in the rpm range where people drive), is bigger, and yet gets better fuel consumption. Same with the 2010 Prius: larger engine, more power, better fuel consumption. Finally, the 269hp Rav4 is rated 27mpg highway, the 179hp version is rated 28 - almost the same, despite almost 100hp difference!
Any assumed or perceived simple positive correlation between power and fuel consumption is a myth, based on poor engineering understanding. More displacement means higher low-end torque and better possible gearing for better fuel consumption.
And yes, I know that many of the better gas engines require premium gas. However, that is a small price to pay for the environment, and one that is less and less important (fractionally) as gas prices move up.


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: (feels_road)*

1.) Who was talking about more HP consuming more gas my friend ??? 
I am talking about the Polo still performing well even though it only has 75 HP. 
Those power to weight ratios pretty much mean nothing when the cars all still have the same 0 -62 MPH times, which I'm sure they do. So basically this whole discussion is useless and ruining this thread on the Polo Blue Motion. The car is the way cars should be and certainly more cars in the US should be. But what do I care. People will see what will go down in a few years from now. You all certainly wont like it but thats just too damn bad because noones making any changes or willing to take action.
As for the remarks on poor engineering understanding... I'm wondering who you meant and who you're judging with that because one needs to be careful with statements like that. Readin power to weight ratios and C02 outputs of cars in brochures and magazines doesn't qualify one to talk like an engineer. Oh well.....GM's managment and Engineers liked to talk big and act big aswell....now look where they are at......


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: (feels_road)*


_Quote, originally posted by *feels_road* »_
And as I mentioned: engine size and hp are *not* always positively related to fuel consumption. Keep that in mind. You are asking people to give up hp without much, if any, benefit. Europeans buy some of these small engines because they are cheaper, even though they often use more gas and have higher CO_2 emissions. BlueMotion models obviously excluded - but they have more going for them than a small engine, to save fuel.









_Modified by feels_road at 1:31 PM 3-5-2009_

Engine size is definatly related to fuel consumption. If you take a 3.0 Liter FSI and a 2.0 FSI engine with the same technology but just different sizes, the 3.0 will definatly require more fuel. It requires more fuel to supply the larger combined volume of the combustion chambers with power.
We don't need to discuss the benefits of fuel saving engines. The benefits are obvious but some folks just don't get it untill it's too late.
How do you know what Europeans buy or don't buy and what they base their decisions on? These socalled small engines aren't cheaper.
The 3 Liter Lupo which did 75 miles on a gallon was an expensive small sized car. The Polo Blue Motion won't be cheap. The Audi A2 wasn't cheap and TDI'S usually tend to be 1000-2000 $ more than gasoline ones.
Any European manufacturer Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Opel, Audi, VW, Skoda, Seat and so forth don't sell small engines that produce more CO2 and use more gas than their larger ones. Thats a fact.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (VWMaster1)*

Power-to-weight ratio is a good approximation for 0-60 times. Hybrids and Diesels sometimes do _slightly_ better because of their low-end torque, but the ball-park figures are still comparable.
2009 Polo, 0-100km/h (~0-62mph):
85hp gas engine: 12.1s
75hp Diesel engine: 14s
2010 Prius: 9.8s
Suzuki SX4: ~8-10s
Scion XD: ~ 8-9s
Honda Fit: ~9s
I have provided my market and engineering assessment on where I think a frugal, perhaps _BlueMotion_ Polo should be placed in the US, based on a number of arguments and tons of data. I believe it needs to target an audience as wide as possible, and as I explained in detail, IMO neither a 75hp engine nor a 100hp engine (that both appear to have no other benefit) would qualify. If you have your own analysis, you are free to do so.










_Modified by feels_road at 6:10 PM 3-5-2009_


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (VWMaster1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWMaster1* »_Any European manufacturer Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Opel, Audi, VW, Skoda, Seat and so forth don't sell small engines that produce more CO2 and use more gas than their larger ones. Thats a fact. 

Since your arguments are all over the place and lack the clarity for me to respond, I will only repeat that I already proved your above statement wrong with the table I provided, which clearly shows that more powerful engines in the same car often produce significantly less CO_2, and at worse about the same, when at times having twice the hp rating.


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: (feels_road)*


_Quote, originally posted by *feels_road* »_
Since your arguments are all over the place and lack the clarity for me to respond, I will only repeat that I already proved your above statement wrong with the table I provided, which clearly shows that more powerful engines in the same car often produce significantly less CO_2, and at worse about the same, when at times having twice the hp rating. 

Clarity, your arguments lack clarity







. All over the place?? Maybe they are just too difficult to understand for somone who just focuses on ridiculous HP numbers rather than effciency. Can't beleive this whole bogus discussion. As mentioned before this is a ridiculous discussion. Just go ahead and buy a Pruis and be happy with it. 
You're data lacks depth buddy. If you take a regular aspirated and regular injected 1.6 liter engine with 105 HP and compare it to a 1.6 liter compressor or turbo aspirated FSI with 150 HP, of course the FSI will be able to produce less CO2 and use less gas. Thats what the FSI technology is about. You can't compare aples with oranges and talk about having humungous engineering assesment capabilities. 
Take the 1.6 FSI Turbo and increase it's Horsepower from 150 to 200 and it will produce more CO2. See where your useless chart lacks depth






















Wining arround about the Polo Blue Motion not having enough HP sounds like a pupertal boy who needs to go squeeze some pimples before talking down on more effcient cars which should have been on the face of our planet 20 years ago.

http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (VWMaster1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWMaster1* »_sounds like a pupertal [sic] boy who needs to go squeeze some pimples before talking down on more effcient [sic] cars http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

Yes, when logic and data fail, there is always the escape into colorful language! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: (feels_road)*


_Quote, originally posted by *feels_road* »_
Yes, when logic and data fail, there is always the escape into colorful language! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

So where is your logic then?? Comparing the high tech 1.4 liter 170 HP compressor / turbo engine with the 75 or 80 HP regular aspirated non FSI 1.4 Lite engine??? Is that logic ?? 
The purpose of the Turbo and Compressor FSI engines was to lower fuel consumption and the side effect of that is less CO2 output.
The Polo Blue Motion happens to be a Piezzo Injected TurboDiesel engine.
You're comparing the normal aspirated 80Hp Golf and 102 HP Golf with the 160 HP Twin Charger Injection Golf. They are not comparable.
Like I said aples and oranges. 
Increase the 160 HP of the 1.4 Liter twin charger to 200 HP via chiptuning or just via the engine software and the car will use more fuel and produce more CO2 then leaving it at 160 HP.


_Modified by VWMaster1 at 7:02 PM 3-5-2009_


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

Anyways, sorry didn't want to be a jerk or get down on anyone. Sometimes I get a bit upset about when it comes to people ignoring the problems that the world is facing. Progress is happening way to slow. Changes aren't beeing made fast enough. Everyones talking about ruff times now, the housing crisis, the financial crisis....and so forth..
But remember this: 
"Let there be no doubt. The biggest crisis of them all has yet to come."
Have a good one. Take care.


----------



## Veedubboy75 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: (VWMaster1)*

wow, imagine that, another UGLY vw from the current design team........
that grill is so nasty ugly........the more vw gets closer to being and looking like the toyotas the more pessimistic i get.........

wow........speechless.........
hopefully they'll see the light but i doubt it.......


----------



## VWMaster1 (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: (Veedubboy75)*

The grill is like that because of the aerodynamics. If it was an open grill air would be allowed to flow into the engine bay instead of flowing above the hood and the car. That would cause more drag / resistance and cause the car to run slower and with more fuel consumption. If you look at the regular Polo model or even the GTI version, then they actually look pretty cool to me. Check out the pictures of the red one on the vortex front page.


----------



## mikey_o (Mar 25, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (VWMaster1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWMaster1* »_Hey in regards to the Polo Blue Motion beeing underpowered. Drive the 2006 Polo Blue Motion and you'll see if it's underpowered or not. The car runs good and fast but consumes little amounts of fuel. I've driven one and the car would perfectly serve it's purpose of hauling us Humans arround. If you wanna go racing or speeding you can always keep an R32 on the side.







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif









That's exactly what I was planning.







When i saw this on Top Gear (though the grill looked a bit different, could that have been the older Polo Blue Motion?) last week I was like "that will be my next car!" 
I regularly drive between DC, Pittsburgh and Philly, so having a car that is capable of 75 MPG, I'm all for it. I don't care if I look like a sissy or if it's a subcompact....to save my masculinity, I can always make a license plate bracket that says "My other car is an R32"
The simple fact is this car can get 75 MPG, there is no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to buy this car if it's safe enough for our roads. I mean for crying out loud, how many smart cars do I see on the road?


----------



## kjclow (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (Peter_Rabbit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Peter_Rabbit* »_THIS IS GREAT!! I am very pleased to see that a manual transmission can work with the leading technology of start/stop. This paves the way for hybrid (gas) with manual transmission, and opens the possibility for deisel-hybrids with manual transmissions. The technology - if it works as discussed - is awesome. Future looks bright for us and vW.

The Civic hybrid was offered with a standard for the first two years. They did not sell enough and since most people do not release the clutch while sitting at stop lights, the engine did not always shutoff. This resuslted in poorer real world mileage than the automatic. 

The discussion on the HP to mpg is just kind of spining in the sand. Look at the TDI in the bug/jetta/golf. When the boosted the HP from 90 to 100, it lost mpg. Not a lot, but on the sticker the difference was there. 


_Modified by kjclow at 9:55 PM 3-10-2009_


----------



## kjclow (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (VWMaster1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWMaster1* »_You can import any American car into Germany with literally no costs. 

I hate to argue based on second hand details, but one of my german colleges bought a 800 series BMW here in the US. His brother bought the same car in Germany for around twice the price. Both were built just down the road from me in South Carolina.


----------



## kjclow (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (feels_road)*


_Quote, originally posted by *feels_road* »_
Yes, I have. Also, the EPA rates the Prius as a mid-size car, not a compact, and not a sub-compact like the Polo. 

I still have a hard time understanding why the EPA rates the Prius as a mid-size when it is based on the compact Corolla. I have a 2005 Corolla and drove a prius as a rental car last month. I am glad that i did not shell out the extra almost $10K, including the upcharge, for the prius.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (kjclow)*

The rear leg and hip room are much more generous in the Prius. I don't know exactly what the EPA classifications demand, but rear room is clearly one of the deciding distinctions.


----------



## 85GTI (Dec 19, 2000)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (feels_road)*


_Quote, originally posted by *feels_road* »_At least in my opinion, even the regular Polo would be a total flop in the US if it came with a 75hp or even 100hp engine. Car journalists would brand it as _unsafe to reach any speed,_ enthusiasts would blast it, and it would be the laughing stock of other economy car manufacturers and their marketing departments that offer higher-powered engines.
It would be used as an example of what's wrong with the industry, that they can't bring a frugal car to the market that still drives like a car. 
I understand your point, but as we run out of oil we are headed towards big changes in how we do almost everything. Just because we like cars to have zippy acceleration doesn't mean it is a good idea - or a sustainable one. People either have lower their expectations on their own, or wait for the universe to make the change for them. My old 85 GTi only had something like 85 hp and it was fine. Did I want it to have 300? Of course, but that would have been wrong. There is no valid reason for the Polo to have more horsepower other than Americans are horsepower addicted morons. Present company excluded natch!


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: Geneva 2009 - Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (85GTI)*

However, your '85 GTI would be considered completely unsafe by today's standards, and did not weigh 2,500 to 3,500lbs - the typical weight range of sub-compact and compact cars, these days. No wonder you felt 85hp was fine!
At any rate, I feel the need to reiterate that there is a difference between what you and _I_ would buy, and my assessment of how the US public at large would receive a 75hp to 100hp car, these days. 
Finally, it seems I need to re-emphasize that hp does not equal fuel consumption. There are many, many examples of higher hp engines that get the same, or even better mileage (in the same car) than their lower hp counterparts.


----------

