Passat Estate 1.4TSI

[cochVan]

Hi,

I'm looking to get a new VW Passat Estate, and would prefer to go for a petrol version. This is a cheaper car than the diesel version and for day to day use, makes much more sense to me.

Of course, this gives me some potential problems using it as a tow car, and I wondered if people could comment on its limitations, and what you would suggest is a reasonable higher tow limit.

The specs are as below:
VW Passat GT Estate 1.4TSI ACT 150bhp DSG Auto.
Max Torque: 250Nm at 1500-3500rpm (effectively the same as the 1.6 Diesel, which is 250Nm/1750-3250rpm with only 120bhp)
Unladen weight 1451kg
Braked trailer limit 1600kg
Towbar limit 90kg

In terms of towing limits, it seems to be about 1235kg at the recommended 85%, which severely limits choice of caravan.

So my question is, how close to say a 1350kg caravan could you sensibly go with this car, or is the car type/weight just completely stupid for my towing ambitions. In terms of power, as I mentioned in the specs, it is more powerful than a 1.6tdi version of the car, but weight is still an issue. The more expensive 2.0tdi is only about 50kg heavier, so not a massive jump in weight, but the torque jumps to 340Nm!

I am an experienced and confident driver, but not an experienced caravanner, so I just need a sense check, please!

Thanks.

 

[Plodd]

We used to tow a van at 1355kg with a 1.4tsi Skoda Yeti.
The VW engine is more advanced with the ACT but very similar. The Yeti was manual and 4X4.
It towed really well and averaged 26/28mpg.
It was much more refined in normal day to day use than our current diesel Kodiaq.

 

[cochVan]

Thanks Plodd,

The 1.4tsi in the Yeti is likely pretty similar to the one in the Passat, except for ACT. The Yeti is 50kg heavier (and 1800kg max tow), but good to see that a comparable car can pull that weight..

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello CochVan

Lets get the 85% bit out of the way first. As you clearly state it is a recommendation, and whilst it is a consideration, it should not be seen as a deal breaker provided all other aspects of an outfit come together well. It certainly has no legal implication.

If 1235kg is 85% then 1350kg is 93% And its still within teh legal limit of 1600Kg for the car.

You dont tell us the GVW 9MAM) for the car but I will assume its about 2000Kg and Given the 150BHP that equates to a power to weight ratio of
150 / (2000+1350) = 45 BHP per Tonne, and healthy 250NM of torque suggest it should cope the the caravan reasonably well. It wont be 'fire cracker' performance but it will be more than adequate.

The Passat in virtually all it guises is well rated as a tow car, and as you also point out the 1.4TSI with its turbocharger produces as much power and torque as the 1.6TDI.

The DSG box means the engine will look after its self, it should be a comfortable car. The Towing MPG will of course be down, but then you'll get the benefit of good solo economy.

 

[otherclive]

What’s ACT?

 

[cochVan]

Thanks ProfJohnL for the advice, which makes lots of sense.. GVW is 2050kg, so the power to weight is ok.

I just need to decide if I want to pay £21k for a new 1.4GT or £15k for a 2.5yr old SE Business TDI. Hmmm...

otherclive: ACT stands for Active Cylinder Technology. It just means that the engine switches off two of its four cylinders when cruising, for example. It's not something that would ever likely kick in when towing though!

 

[otherclive]

Thanks ProfJohnL for the advice, which makes lots of sense.. GVW is 2050kg, so the power to weight is ok.

I just need to decide if I want to pay £21k for a new 1.4GT or £15k for a 2.5yr old SE Business TDI. Hmmm...

otherclive: ACT stands for Active Cylinder Technology. It just means that the engine switches off two of its four cylinders when cruising, for example. It's not something that would ever likely kick in when towing though!

Thanks for the info on ACT. Hope VAG make a better job of it than they did with some TSI cam chains and dry clutch DSG boxes. Although I see the latest TSI motors have cambelts, and most DSG will all soon be wet clutch. May wait awhile before committing to a 4 cylinder ACT it’s been around for some while in V8-12 engines though. Guess an Aston might be going too far in a quest for economical motoring

 

[SamandRose]

We have a 2-year old SE Business TDI estate in which we've done 55k miles from new and - aside from a few design niggles including a pointless keyless start system and a CD player tucked away in the glovebox - has been faultless.

The bad news is that it's not for sale

 

[Raywood]

I have towed with several diesel and petrol engined cars over the years. There is no doubt that the diesel does tow better, but the petrol should cope. The real difference is in going up hill. On hills the diesel will sail up often without a gear change, but with the petrol you will usually need to drop one or two gears and lose a bit of speed, which hits the fuel consumption. With an automatic you will not have the work of changing gears and it is easier on the clutch.
If you are happy to accept the higher fuel consumption and slightly slower journey time the petrol should manage 1350 kg, which is where I tow, although our Mazda is 2.0 and in the higher tune with rather more power than the Passat. At the end of the day only about a fifth of my motoring is towing so the solo performance is the most important thing, but the towing has to be adequate.
My previous car was a Mazda diesel and the extra fuel used when towing with the petrol is about 4 mpg, with about the same solo, but the initial cost and insurance for the petrol is less, so it probably balances out but I have never done the figures.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I have towed with several diesel and petrol engined cars over the years. There is no doubt that the diesel does tow better, but the petrol should cope. The real difference is in going up hill. On hills the diesel will sail up often without a gear change, but with the petrol you will usually need to drop one or two gears and lose a bit of speed....

Why?

In the case of the vehicle in question the specification of the engines power seems to exceed the diesel equivalent. and matches its torque from a lower RPM to above that of the diesel. Just as in another recent thread where the vehicles with small cc engines were dismissed without any consideration. You have to consider the power and torque over size of fuel.

This 1.4L Passat is a double whammy for the traditionalists who only look at engine swept volume or fuel type and ignore power and torque.

 

[Icaru5]

I have the Passat Estate, 2.0 TDi, 150PS and find it fine for towing, although as this is our first 'van, I have nothing to compare it with.

Even though it's our first 'van, after much consideration, I took the plunge fully aware that we are above the recommended 85%. The "kerbweight" of the car is 1500KG, and the 'van has an MTPLM of 1505KG.

This was of course my decision, based on the fact then when towing our caravan, in general, there are 4 occupants, 3 bikes on the roof, and a boot full of goodies, and the van is sensibly loaded, and nowhere near its full capacity. Just as a side note, I have of course read countless threads from those who are sticklers when it comes to the 85% rule, and am amazed that none of them mention fuel loading. A full tank of fuel at 65-70KG makes an immediate weight difference of 5% on a car with a "kerbweight" of 1300-1400KG.

As already mentioned, we don't load the van anywhere near it's max payload, and although I've yet to take the train on a day out to the local weighbridge, I estimate the van and contents to weigh in at around 1430'ish.

I am comfortable with the stability of the outfit. At times when it's windy I do occasionally start to feel it through the wheel and just ease off a little. I do however find it necessary to change down into 5th and sometimes even 4th on motorway gradients. Although I haven't studied the power and torque curves for both engines side-by-side, I'm not sure how I would find pulling our van with an engine with approx. 30% less torque, especially when pulling out of junctions, although the OP's van may be significantly lighter than ours.

Hope this helps ...

 

[seth1]

To put a balance on this 250 nm equates to 184 lbs ft of torque.It is not healthy.Maybe 20 years ago but not now,things have moved on.Its being compared to its 1.6 tdi counter part,again no ball of fire.Seriously opt for the 2 litre tdi.

 

[Icaru5]

Just reading through your posts again OP, ignoring for now the towing and performance characteristics, your decision seems to be between a GT and SE Business.

As a general everyday car, the difference between these two is night and day. The GT has a much more premium feel, and in my opinion (and that of many critics) this really does bring the Passat up into the premium class.

Whilst I do appreciate being fortunate enough to have a 2.0TDi GT Estate as a company car, If you absolutely have to choose between those two, and those two only, for an everyday car, it would have to be the 1.4TSI GT. For a towing car, the 2.0TDI SE Business.

Ic.

 

[JonnyG]

To put a balance on this 250 nm equates to 184 lbs ft of torque.It is not healthy.Maybe 20 years ago but not now,things have moved on.Its being compared to its 1.6 tdi counter part,again no ball of fire.Seriously opt for the 2 litre tdi.

I agree that is a poultry torque figure for a diesel ...the misses little mito is also a 1.6 diesel dating back to 2009 it also came as 120 bhp but had 232ft/Ib of torque 340 nm. .320 available from 1500rpm .lets put it into perspective .the diesel is sub standard for a diesel [pulling power wise] so using the fact the petrol engine is a match for it [pulling power wise is hardly a accolade for its towing prowess,

 

[Icaru5]

Unfortunately, the recent bad press centering around diesels seems to have taken effect ...

If I was considering purchasing a new car, unless I was in the market for a city car or a high-performance racer, my preference would still be a diesel.

If I was considering towing, then without question.

 

[ProfJohnL]

... Just as a side note, I have of course read countless threads from those who are sticklers when it comes to the 85% rule, and am amazed that none of them mention fuel loading. A full tank of fuel at 65-70KG makes an immediate weight difference of 5% on a car with a "kerbweight" of 1300-1400KG.

As already mentioned, we don't load the van anywhere near it's max payload, and although I've yet to take the train on a day out to the local weighbridge, I estimate the van and contents to weigh in at around 1430'ish.

85% is not and never was a "Rule" - It has no authority it is only guidance, By continually misquoting it, it has become an over inflated issue, when arguably other criteria are far more important, but are over shadowed by this usurper.

However when it comes to calculating the towing ratio, for convenience it is always quoted based on the tow vehicles Kerbweight and the trailers MTPLM. These are figures that are generally easily available, and enable a calculation to be made without recourse to a weighbridge. It provides a simplistic method of comparing outfits.

It is a consistent method, and its establishes the worst possible scenario. In practice virtually no car will tow in its Kerbweight condition, so the mechanical ratio will always be better than the calculated standard value.

But there are numerous other items that will also affect the weight of the tow vehicle or caravan; What toilet fluids, The MacDonalds you had for lunch, How much water did you pass? How many books did your better half put in the bag?..... and so on.

Most caravanners are surprised at how heavy the caravan really is when they actually weigh it. Its partly becasue teh under estimate the weights of the knick-knacks that get put in, and whiulst manufacturers may sugegst a unladen weight, caravans can vary quite a lot just due to manufacturing tolerances, so the real MRO may be bigger than quoted. And becasue teh MTPLM is legal limit, the load margin will be squeezed.

I seriously doubt whether any driver could say they know exactly how heavy their outfit is without having used a weighbridge.

Fuel will play a part, but it is part of the vehicles load, and of course it will change as the trip progresses.

The 85% calculation is far from precise which always makes me annoyed when we read of people doing their best to get it exactly 85%

 

[Icaru5]

... Just as a side note, I have of course read countless threads from those who are sticklers when it comes to the 85% rule, and am amazed that none of them mention fuel loading. A full tank of fuel at 65-70KG makes an immediate weight difference of 5% on a car with a "kerbweight" of 1300-1400KG.

As already mentioned, we don't load the van anywhere near it's max payload, and although I've yet to take the train on a day out to the local weighbridge, I estimate the van and contents to weigh in at around 1430'ish.

85% is not and never was a "Rule" - It has no authority it is only guidance, By continually misquoting it, it has become an over inflated issue, when arguably other criteria are far more important, but are over shadowed by this usurper.

However when it comes to calculating the towing ratio, for convenience it is always quoted based on the tow vehicles Kerbweight and the trailers MTPLM. These are figures that are generally easily available, and enable a calculation to be made without recourse to a weighbridge. It provides a simplistic method of comparing outfits.

It is a consistent method, and its establishes the worst possible scenario. In practice virtually no car will tow in its Kerbweight condition, so the mechanical ratio will always be better than the calculated standard value.

But there are numerous other items that will also affect the weight of the tow vehicle or caravan; What toilet fluids, The MacDonalds you had for lunch, How much water did you pass? How many books did your better half put in the bag?..... and so on.

Most caravanners are surprised at how heavy the caravan really is when they actually weigh it. Its partly becasue teh under estimate the weights of the knick-knacks that get put in, and whiulst manufacturers may sugegst a unladen weight, caravans can vary quite a lot just due to manufacturing tolerances, so the real MRO may be bigger than quoted. And becasue teh MTPLM is legal limit, the load margin will be squeezed.

I seriously doubt whether any driver could say they know exactly how heavy their outfit is without having used a weighbridge.

Fuel will play a part, but it is part of the vehicles load, and of course it will change as the trip progresses.

The 85% calculation is far from precise which always makes me annoyed when we read of people doing their best to get it exactly 85%

It doesn’t make me annoyed because what other people choose to do through a lack of understanding is exactly that, their choice, and it certainly isn’t going to spoil my day

 

[otherclive]

I understood that a typical caravan MRO could be +- 5per cent. So you could be looking at up to 60kg variation on a 1200kg MRO van. I agree with Prof John that it is the bits and bobs, come in handies that will lead you to underestimate weight. We've got quite rigorous these days but even so have to cull things out. But we are fortunate that our car is very spacious and has a good weight limit. But even so the roof box has to come out sometimes.

 

[Raywood]

The torque of the petrol engine is very near that of my car. Towing a caravan with an MTPLM of 1350 kg that car is well below a decent diesel figure and it does require a lot more gear changing on the hills. I have not driven the Passat referred to but although its torque figure looks low diesels do always seem to have the edge.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The torque of the petrol engine is very near that of my car. Towing a caravan with an MTPLM of 1350 kg that car is well below a decent diesel figure and it does require a lot more gear changing on the hills. I have not driven the Passat referred to but although its torque figure looks low diesels do always seem to have the edge.

Hello Ray

I can't get my head around your thinking on this.

You appear to be discounting an engine simply on the basis of the fuel it uses! If two engines (for example a 1.6L diesel and a 1.4L) petrol have exactly the same power and torque characteristics then in they will drive and tow in an identical manner. So it is totally illogical to say or infer the diesel is a better engine for towing.

In practice there will some differences but it would seem the petrol has a slightly higher power output, and a wider torque band, which actually suggests it will be a better towing engine than the diesel in this case.

 

[Dustydog]

I think the main point may have been lost here. The VW technology being employed in these small engines bears no comparison to what I and Ray are probably used to. They use a supercharger , belt driven to boost power at very low RPM, as speed increases the Turbo charger kicks in thus delivering high torque and BHP over a very wide power band. Ideal for towing Exactly what the Prof has advocated.
The one issue, if indeed there is one, is the future longevity and cost of the supercharger and turbo
My only reservation may be that VW don't repeat their technical mistake as with the Passat high pressure injection pump of a decade back.

 

[seth1]

The torque output is well below par the the stated size of caravan(180 lbft).The other problem which the figures dont tell and which i have recently found out is when these type of engines are not in the peak of the torque curve they produce very little power or torque.So what this means is when pulling away on the slightest of gradents they either stall or in my case increase the rpm to 1300 rpm and still stall.To me its one very stressful way of towing a caravan.

 

[Raywood]

I do accept what Dusty says in that I have tended to go for larger less stressed engines and do wonder if the more modern ones pushing out far more power from less cc will last the course. At the same time 180 for torque is lower than most tow cars and it will need lower gears and more revs and fuel on the hills at that level and it is really a case of if you are prepared to go with that for the relatively short time it really matters..

 

[otherclive]

It really would be interesting to see if PC or one of the Clubs could test one of these cars, or equivalent, and we could then see how well they do tow. Given the importance of the national debate on petrol v diesel and the fact that people may well delay any purchasing decisions due to their perceived uncertainty, or lack of knowledge, it could be in the car makers interests to offer their smaller engined petrol models for tow tests.

 

[JonnyG]

umm.. even the caravan club with all its experience states that a min of 40bhp per tonnne for towing and that means the diesel should be written off straight away and the petrol is at the bare minimum needed . only a few year passed either PC or the caravan club added what it felt was the necessary bare minimum torque figure ,no doubt somewhere in this forum those figures were reproduced , icannot recall the exact figures but being as i was happy to accept them which given my mannerisms would suggest a figure of over 200 ft/ib or 70 ft/Ib per tonne .