Why does the 2.5L get no respect from reviewers?

I recently bought a 2012 VW Golf 2.5L with manual transmission. In researching cars, nearly all of the reviewers tout the TDI over the 2.5 engine. However, I was surprised to find during test rides that the 2.5L was noticeably quicker than the TDI and surprisingly high torque compared to other small cars (altho not as much as the diesel). The engine was also smooth and quiet. The Golf 2.5L was easily the quietest small car that I test drove and cruised nicely at highway speeds.

Admittedly, the TDI gets much higher mileage but that is largely negated by the higher price for diesel fuel (about 75-80 cents/gallon around here). In addition, I couldn't justify the additional cost for TDIs (about $5,000-6,000). I did the math and calculated that it would take me longer than 50 years to recoup the cost difference between the 2.5L and the TDI with the mileage I drive (about 5,000/year). I have averaged 30 mpg actual mileage in my Golf from my first two fill ups, and mileage is supposed to improve after the engine is broken in. That's not in the same league as the TDI, but I can fill up my Golf for only about $35.

Anyway, I am not trying to bash the TDIs. I probably would have bought one if they were close in price to the 2.5Ls. However, I just don't understand why the 2.5L seems to get no love. Perhaps it's just car reviewers, who gravitate toward more expensive cars because they aren't having to pay for them.

Poor fuel economy is one of the main detractors of the 2.5. Power isn't bad, especially for the segment.

The 2.5 engine sounds great with an exhaust, though.

Yes, fuel economy does seem to the 2.5L's weak point. However, it seems that VW rates their mileage estimates more conservatively than most car makers. When you compare actual gas mileage results with EPA estimates, rankings (which you can do at the EPA site as well as fuelly.com), many VW drivers seem to get better mileage than estimates.

As an example, I compared the actual user mileage results with the Ford Focus and most drivers got worse mileage than the EPA estimates. VW, Honda and Toyota drivers in general got actual mileages as good or better than the EPA rankings. A lot depends, of course, on how someone drives and user ratings vary quite a bit even for the exact same cars/engines.

Another point about the 2.5L is it was noticeably quicker than any other small car that I drove, which many drivers would view as an advantage. However, if fuel economy is the overriding concern, then there are better engines/cars.

As far as the 70 extra cents per gallon negating tdi's better mileage, this is not true ... You can get prob anywhere from 250 to 350 per tank in your car while tdi drivers are recording anywhere from like 550 or 6 to like 800 almost... That's at least 2 if not 3 full tanks in your car... On top of that how do you pay only $35 for a full tank?? ... I hope you only put premium in but even if you put that 87 oct dog piss in your car you would still be paying over 40

TDI won't be cheaper in the US...

TDIs come with much better equipment levels, the "base" TDI comes with bluetooth, 17" alloy wheels, multi function wheel, RCD510, fog lights and a lower/firmer suspension.

They also drive very different from the gassers. You make peak torque at 2400. You basically don't have to rev this car above 3k rpms.

The 2.5 gets a bad rap because its relatively fuel inefficient for the class. But aside from that its the most reliable engine VW makes (except for the POS 2.0)

Chef_R_Gamie said:

As far as the 70 extra cents per gallon negating tdi's better mileage, this is not true ... You can get prob anywhere from 250 to 350 per tank in your car while tdi drivers are recording anywhere from like 550 or 6 to like 800 almost... That's at least 2 if not 3 full tanks in your car... On top of that how do you pay only $35 for a full tank?? ... I hope you only put premium in but even if you put that 87 oct dog piss in your car you would still be paying over 40

Click to expand...

2.5 doesn't need premium. So if you use premium you're pissing money away.

maxtdi said:

2.5 doesn't need premium. So if you use premium you're pissing money away.

Click to expand...

Doesn't 87 seem a little low for any decent car these days ? If fit was your car though... Woul you use it?

Chef_R_Gamie said:

Doesn't 87 seem a little low for any decent car these days ? If fit was your car though... Woul you use it?

Click to expand...

Do you not understand how octane ratings work?

If the car is tuned to drive on 87 you will get 0 extra power or anything else for that matter if you use a higher octane.

Its not any "better" for the car and you're just wasting money.

Chef_R_Gamie said:

Doesn't 87 seem a little low for any decent car these days ? If fit was your car though... Woul you use it?

Click to expand...

Not at all. The GTI doesn't even "need" premium; it is just recommended for best power/performance.

VR6Growl said:

Not at all. The GTI doesn't even "need" premium; it is just recommended for best power/performance.

Click to expand...

GTI has forced induction and is tuned for 91... completely different car. And yes even a GTI runs fine on regular. Edmunds did a dyno test on a GTI with 87 and 91 and there was barely any power difference.

Now if your car is "tuned" 91 is pretty much a must.

Yep; I know. My point was just that 91 is really only "necessary" in very few cars these days. :thumbsup:

^ Rabbits/Golf's are designed to use 87, but putting in 91 will give you some more power and better mileage, thats what i noticed anyway.

Like others said, there is no advantage to putting premium gas in an engine designed to run on 87 octane. I have only filled up my car twice, and got 340-380 miles with plenty of gas left in the tank (took 11-12 gals to fill). On the freeway, I could easily go more than 400 miles on a tank of gas.

Do the math. At current prices around here, regular gas costs about $3.29/gal and diesel is $3.99/gal. A 12-gallon fill-up would cost $39.48 for regular and $47.88 for diesel. The higher diesel fuel price largely offsets the savings from better mileage.

The EPA web site has a nice tool that you can use to compare costs for different cars. Entering my parameters (fuel prices and miles driven), it shows that the TDI would save me $28/year in fuel costs or $140 over 5 years.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.shtml

I think it gets a bad wrap because of the car it is.

Some people buy cars that don't care about power but more about fuel economy. They will usually buy a car that has 140 hp or less and get great fuel economy. Then you have people who don't care too much about fuel economy and wants more hp. They will typically buy a car like the GTI with 200+ hp (which isn't hard to come by in today's market).

That leaves our car right in the middle. Not a lot of power (170 hp) and not amazing fuel economy. Its kind of stuck between both categories and not many people will want that. As i said above, usually its either fuel economy or power you look for in a car. Also the more powerful cars usually don't get too horrendous mpg which doesn't help the 2.5l at all.

As mentioned before... TDI is not necessarily about cost savings. Different equipment levels/driving experience.