The Arteon... Performance and efficiency...

[aSteve]

A decade ago, I walked past a VW dealership in Cambridge next-door to an Aston Martin dealership. I mused that, if I suddenly found myself very rich, I would not want the £150K forecourt Aston - but I did like the look of either of the £15K VW Passat CCs next door. I walked on - thinking nothing more about it... I had a Japanese car - and those last forever... I thought. A year later and my Japanese car was no-longer invincible... I realised I couldn't put up with its foibles. The Passat CC was the obvious choice... I test drove two... First... a manual 3-year-old with a 2.0 Diesel 150BHP... I loved the exterior and interior... but found it under-powered... and disliked the combination of 6-gears and manual around town. Second... a 1-year-old with a 2.0 Diesel 170BHP and DSG auto... which was perfect, but too expensive. I spent a few months searching, and eventually bought a ~2 year old Passat CC 2.0 GT with a DSG (£14K @ ~20K miles). I've now done ~100K miles in it... and kept it 2 or 3 years longer than I intended when I bought it. I still like its exterior appearance; still really like the interior... am satisfied with performance and absolutely love that it does ~50mpg - giving me a range of 600-700 miles on a full tank.
While "sport-mode" sounded good before I bought - I now know it just makes more noise without improving performance... I really like that 'normal' mode is sedately quick enough... perhaps a consequence of diesel torque - I don't need/want to use 'sport' in my car. By contrast, I once drove a more recent (much more powerful) Bi-Turbo Passat... I didn't prefer it... It was sluggish when wanting to accelerate moderately quickly - if you were 'on-it'... it was quicker - but only while noisy and, then, driving required much more concentration... I liked neither the noise nor the demand on my attention. I know it's not rational, but range is what I like most about my car... range (far more than frugality) remains exceptionally important to me - despite needing that range very infrequently. Second to range is comfort and third is performance. The non-essential features I don't have, but find appealing are: 4-wheel drive... (The front-wheel-drive CC hasn't let me down in the snow - but it came close); adaptive cruise control (my Mum's 1.6 Golf has this... not essential... but I like using the feature); A sun-roof (I've always liked them... I especially liked the ones in the style found in 1990s cars... though, I accept, times move on.)

Today, I like the appearance of the Arteon... (the only improvement would be if it had only 2 doors... I felt the same about the CC). Obvious alternatives include a C-Class, A4, 5 or 6... or a 3, 4 or 5 series. I can't quite bring myself to want a Seat or Skoda - despite knowing this is irrational. I note that, unlike the Passat-CC, I don't have to have an inefficient 3.5L petrol engine to get 4-motion... and (I'm assuming) I'd still find the 150BHP 2.0 diesel under-powered. While a manual petrol might be OK - I expect I want DSG... I love the one I've got... I love that's it makes the car quick (in ordinary road situations) without requiring I demonstrate even the slightest skill.

When I browse Arteons, on Autotrader, I have been a bit bemused by the stats. Ignoring the 1.5 (as I can't imagine liking that option) and ignoring manual... I'm trying to distinguish between different 2.0 engine configurations. Stated power ranges from ~150BHP to ~315BHP... and stated fuel economy goes from ~30mpg to ~60mpg. I assume the fuel tank is the same in every model - though the stats don't say. I'm not sure I understand why the stated figures vary so widely - and I'm not sure I believe they're the truth. My Passat-CC promised ~60mpg - according to stats - and, in practise, I get ~50mpg for my journeys, as I drive. If I act like fuel economy is the only objective, with long runs only, I can get upper 50s figures (though it probably isn't worth the care - my time is also valuable.)

This leads me to want to crowd-source your expertise... :-) I'd like to know:

• What is the stated and real-world fuel consumption for your 2.0 Arteon DSG (and which year/spec is it)?
• How many miles do you typically get... from full-tank to 'warning light comes on' (and does town-vs-motorway make a big difference)?
• What's the BHP for these stats... can you tell me how subjective performance would compare with my 2010 2.0-170 Tdi Pasat CC?
• Is 4-motion a significant negative for range/fuel-efficiency... and... am I right in thinking it would be much better than front-wheel drive in snow? (I'll never take it on a rally stage or depend upon more traction to get-all-the-power-down... :-) )
• Thinking only about range... is the Arteon going to be a good option relative to comparable recent make/model alternatives?
• Do Diesel Arteons need Ad-Blue (my Passat-CC doesn't... this seems to be an advantage).
• How should I expect maintenance/servicing to compare with my Passt-CC and/or Arteon competitors?
• Should I expect similar (worse, or better) reliability?

Edited by aSteve on Thursday 6th October 01:55

[SteBrown91]

You are getting yourself a bit confused here.

You can get the arteon in the following 2.0 engines:

-2.0 TDI 150PS
-2.0 TDI 190PS (which became the 200PS when the later "EVO" engines started being fitted)
-2.0 TSI 190PS
-2.0 TSI 320PS (this is the Arteon "R")

This is why you are seeing such a variance in spec and MPG.

The diesels will likely to mid 40s real world, higher on a run.
The petrol 190 will likely do mid-high 30s real world, with 40s on a run.
The R will probably do around 30-32mpg in the real world i'd expect.
Diesels need adblue.

[Mark V GTD]

SteBrown91 said:

The petrol 190 will likely do mid-high 30s real world, with 40s on a run.

I averaged over 50mpg in 27,000 miles in mine (2020 SE spec - petrol, 2.0 litre 190PS). Regularly got 60 plus on a steady run in summer without traffic.

Edited by Mark V GTD on Thursday 6th October 11:00

[aSteve]

Mark V GTD said:

I averaged over 50mpg in 27,000 miles in mine (2020 SE spec - petrol, 2.0 litre 190PS). Regularly got 60 plus on a steady run in summer without traffic.

Very interesting - essentially the same efficiency for you in your 2020-petrol-190-Arteon as I get in my 2010-diesel-170-CC.

I'm assuming that this is manual and without 4-motion?

Google says my Passatt-CC has a 18.5 gallon fuel tank... which is 84 litres. Google reckons the Arteon only has a 66 litre one... which suggests a 20% reduced range... assuming similar efficiency. Do things work out like this in practise... with a maximum typical range of ~500 miles before a fuel warning light?

A crazy question would be... if you were to drive the Arteon-R... in a similar style... would you get the ~30mpg predicted... or is that only suffered by people who drive with a 'Race' mindset?

[aSteve]

SteBrown91 said:

You can get the arteon in the following 2.0 engines:
-2.0 TDI 150PS
-2.0 TDI 190PS (which became the 200PS when the later "EVO" engines started being fitted)
-2.0 TSI 190PS
-2.0 TSI 320PS (this is the Arteon "R")
This is why you are seeing such a variance in spec and MPG.

This one reckons it has a 2.0 petrol with 268 BHP.

[SteBrown91]

aSteve said:

This one reckons it has a 2.0 petrol with 268 BHP.

Ah yes I forgot about that - I think that was the top spec engine pre-R. A slightly detuned Golf R engine (same as in the Superb). Don’t think that’s available anymore in the Arteon.

[aSteve]

SteBrown91 said:

Ah yes I forgot about that - I think that was the top spec engine pre-R. A slightly detuned Golf R engine (same as in the Superb). Don’t think that’s available anymore in the Arteon.

I'm not intending to buy a brand new car... and I don't have to make a move on any replacement quickly. Waiting years longer might be the best bet... but it isn't my only option... so every model made is an option for me to consider. My preference would be to buy a nicely specified car at 3 or 4 years old - then use it for a decade.

I'm struggling to work out exactly what I want... Huge range, 50mpg, torquey 170 (usable) bhp and DSG represents a high bar to be matched. :-)

[Mark V GTD]

Yea mine was DSG. I drive smoothly and keep it under 70 on the motorways and duals so that will doubtless assist my figures. Most of my drives were around 55 miles throughout the lockdown period with lower than normal traffic levels so that would also help.

[Chilly for June]

Really late to the party on this one.

I have a 2019 Arteon with the slightly detuned Golf R engine which I'm sure is stated as having 280hp from the factory.

If fuel economy is your priority I would avoid it. Realistically I'm seeing 25mpg around town (sometimes worse) and the best I have achieved driving with an egg under my foot and in eco mode was 41mpg on a longer run.

However you do get 5.6 seconds to 60, 4motion and launch control start so you have to way the fun against the cost I guess.

[Swervin_Mervin]

The only direct equivalent from the VAG stable is the Superb. They're essentially the same car, but the Skoda has better access into the rear seats. That topped out with the 280/272 though. I'm not sure why anyone these days wouldn't look at all the VAG variants tbh - seems strange to me to not want to look at Seat or Skoda.

ETA: Our Superb 272 will regularly return very high 30s in urban use and over 40 on a cruise (at 80+).

Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Wednesday 12th October 14:43

[aSteve]

Swervin_Mervin said:

I'm not sure why anyone these days wouldn't look at all the VAG variants tbh - seems strange to me to not want to look at Seat or Skoda.
...
ETA: Our Superb 272 will regularly return very high 30s in urban use and over 40 on a cruise (at 80+).

Rejecting Skoda.. it isn't rational. If the badge was any other combination of letters, I'd be impressed by Skoda cars. I used to think I didn't care about branding... but, today, I do. My preference is 'no discernable brand' - but, if I can't do that... I just look for a brand I don't actively dislike. Skoda, when I was growing up, produced absolute garbage... I know the cars today are only connected by brand name... but I dislike the brand so much that I am biased against the new offerings. I am frustrated with myself for having this bias - but I recognise that I do. With Seat, I looked at them with someone else looking to buy an estate/small-SUV... and I didn't like the finish or style on any Seat at the dealer... Skoda beat Seat hands-down on this score - and Audi, VW and BMW beat Skoda - in my view.

30s-40s mpg (after almost a decade of 'Diesel-power!' - leading me to expect 50-70mpg!) seems poor. I don't actually care all that much about mp£ (i.e. cost to make journeys) - but I really do care about range... the idea that I could go anywhere on British mainland, without having to stop on the way there, with a standard (as-manufactured) car, *really* appeals. I accept that it would (almost certainly) be possible to re-fuel on any long journey... but that's not the point. I've already done far more journeys when the world is "not normal" than I ever expected when I was a teenager... A huge range, and a well-maintained car, provides a lot of confidence... and I like to know that I have all the options that brings (whether or not I actually end up using the car that way.)

[Swervin_Mervin]

Yeah - about the range. Ours will get us the 330mi to the furthest point of Cornwall from Manchester, with more than a 1/4 of a tank left. In fact, when we have weeks down there, we usually only have to fill up the day before we head back. So range is absolutely not an issue, and the bonus is you don't have to suffer the stink or the guilt of killing children

We binned diesels off as always found them utterly disappointing in terms of economy. Maybe that's just the BMWs though.

I still think you'd be mad to not go an look at/drive the Superb. I don't even think it looks obviously Skoda-ey - it looks like a fairly generic VAG product.



We went and looked at the Arteon before committing to the Superb (mainly as I marginally preferred the looks), but I was a little disappointed. Not only is access to the rear seats compromised by that low roofline, more disappointingly the build quality wasn't as good as the Superb. Yes it looked a bit swankier inside, but some of the trim details fitted poorly - the cubby under the dash centre didn't close properly as it kept getting stuck (that's one of the specifics I do recall). Maybe it was just a Friday arvo car.

[aSteve]

Swervin_Mervin said:

I still think you'd be mad to not go an look at/drive the Superb. I don't even think it looks obviously Skoda-ey - it looks like a fairly generic VAG product.

I like almost everything about all the modern Skoda appearances... there's only one thing I don't like: branding as 'SKODA'. If they'd chosen any other manufacturer name for the exact same car, I could take it seriously. I even know that SKODA means they've got something to prove - so the quality will be higher and the price will be kept in check. I know that should make it the rational choice... but, I suppose, as humans, we seldom make genuinely rational choices.

Before my ~50mpg ~700mile range auto diesel Passat CC, I had a ~30mpg ~350 mile range manual petrol Avensis. The VW is better in every way... but the thing that frustrated me most about the Toyota had been that I felt as if I was always going somewhere I otherwise didn't want to visit just to pick-up fuel... or thinking about having to do it soon... a perpetual frustration. It didn't help that my long journeys often involved me travelling late at night - often in emptier parts of Britain, when only the major petrol stations would be open. The big deal for me, with the Toyota (I bought 2 years old in 2004) was the sat-nav... for the first time I didn't need to roll dice to pick a heading at each junction... no longer was the only possibility to rely upon luck to spot my destination as I passed it by serendipitously. The big deal with the VW (2 years old, bought in 2012) was that I still had navigation - but gained range and no-longer needed to afford skill and attention changing gears in order to get-a-wiggle-on. Next, I want to keep Nav and range and automatic gears... and get something better than my 12 year old VW. It is really hard as I can't find many frustrations with my Passat CC... Adaptive cruise would be nice (but is not critical); 4-wheel drive would be nice (but front-wheel drive isn't something I hate); only 2 doors would be nice... (but I don't want something smaller or anything more likely to draw attention.) I keep finding cars that, on balance (with a focus on what I consider especially important) aren't quite as good as what I already have. With that assessment, it's hard to think it's a great idea to hand over 5-digit sums to trade-up.

Is this how old people, so often, come to think that classic cars are anything other than a miserably momentous masochistic mistake? Is this a sign that I, too, will soon acquire impaired automotive judgement... and make like a coffin-dodger lamenting that everything was much better, than it is now, many years ago? I wonder - might it be true - could humanity have passed peek car... and, from now on, options will just get worse every single year?

[Reffro]

Had a 2020 2.0 TSI 190 SE DSG for 2yrs and 25k miles. Ran it with a tuning box on, giving it 240hp and 0-60 circa 6.5secs. Overall it averaged a calculated 42mpg. Worst was 32mpg for a tank commuting in London, best was 57mpg on a run up and down the A1 at 62mph on cruise control. Oh and range was 600 miles a tank give or take, 550miles before the light came on.

Edited by Reffro on Tuesday 22 November 22:57