Volkswagen Golf BlueMotion 2011 Review

Price Guide (recommended price before statutory and delivery charges): $28,990
Options fitted (not included in above price): Metallic paint $500
Crash rating: Five-star (Euro NCAP)
Fuel: Diesel
Claimed fuel economy (L/100km): 3.8
CO2 emissions (g/km): 99
Also consider: Ford Fiesta ECOnetic, Honda Insight, Toyota Prius, Volvo C30 DRIVe

Which would you choose? Diesel or hybrid? European car companies tend to prefer diesels and Asian car companies are more likely to go for hybrids. While the future is unclear, hybrid technology is known to be compatible with fuel cells, whereas proposed emissions standards are bound to spell trouble for diesels.

But if the end is nigh for the development and production of diesel-engined cars, that doesn't mean you can't buy them in the meantime. Until hybrids can exploit better battery technology or cheaper fuel cell systems, diesels help spread the load and extend the available fossil fuel resource. They also remain a better alternative to conventional petrol engines and they're more affordable than hybrids — although even that's changing.

Take as one example of affordability the Volkswagen Golf BlueMotion. When it comes to being cost-effective, the Golf really fulfils its brief. At just under $29,000, the purchase price is reasonable and based on the combined-cycle fuel consumption figure of 3.8L/100km, it offers very low running costs also. The Golf is, in fact, very slightly cleaner and more frugal than Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic, which is similar in concept, although the significantly cheaper Fiesta is nominally in the VFACTS light-car segment, whereas the VW is one segment larger, in among the small cars. That said, there's not too much separation in size between the two in practice.

Facing competition from the other direction, the Golf is certainly cheaper than any current petrol/electric hybrid on the market, although it's only just cheaper than Honda's Insight, which offers packaging similar to the Golf's — or even better, if you compare the luggage capacity of the two. Toyota's Prius has been reduced dramatically in price recently, but is still about $6000 costlier than the Golf, although it's also a little roomier in the rear for adults.

What the VW uniquely brings to the eco-conscious buyer is a combination of qualities. It's larger all round than the Ford and engine output is 11kW and 50Nm better — for just a 0.1L/100km penalty in combined-cycle testing. Against the hybrids, it's a nicer drive overall and while we take nothing away from Volkswagen's suspension engineers for that, the Goodyear Excellence 185/65 R15 tyres can stake a significant share of the credit too.

They can be fairly noisy on country roads, but the low-resistance tyres basically shape up well in most other aspects. There's no complaint in regard to ride and handling of the Golf, given it aims to get by on the smell of an oily rag. On first impressions it feels just like any other bread-and-butter Golf, unless you drove it back to back against another variant. The tyres aren't overstressed by power and torque, although once the Golf is on the move it can break traction in the wet, as discovered on the way up a hill one night during our seven-day test. Mostly though, between the traction control, the high gearing and the mild engine performance, the Golf is not likely to get the driver into serious trouble.

When it comes to cornering, the car turns in fairly well and tracks consistently through bends, although our evaluation of its cornering took place in the wet, so perhaps more allowance was made for that. Even so, the grip was impressive and there's a decent level of steering feedback through the wheel.

The BlueMotion is pretty quiet inside and, conversely, the diesel engine sounds sporty if the driver is using all the available performance. For a car priced significantly below the Volvo C30 DRIVe, the Golf BlueMotion is refined and doesn't jar when the auto-start system fires up its 1.6-litre diesel. Nor is there much in the way of turbo lag, but let's say this too: if you do want performance from the fuel-sipper, the engine delivers its best between 2000 and 4500rpm. It will rev as high as 5000rpm, but there's not a lot of point, frankly.

Driven more sedately, the Golf BlueMotion will use fuel at a rate as low as 5.6L/100km in commuter traffic, as we found during school holidays and on arterial runs. As soon as the rain begins to pour and night falls, that figure rises above 6.0 or even 6.5L/100km. Conversely, a freeway trip yielded fuel consumption as low as 4.2L/100km and it was still falling. On that point, the Golf is a good tourer. We often think that econocars are the penalty you pay for blighting the environment or withholding from the oil companies, but the Golf is definitely quiet and comfortable when cruising.

The BlueMotion comes with a five-speed manual transmission rather than the seven-speed DSG in the Golf 77TDI Trendline, powered by the same engine. Volkswagen has told motoring.com.au in the past that the choice of the five-speed manual — for the Polo equivalent being discussed at the time — ensures the frugal Golf can be brought in at a landed cost that effectively makes it competitive with Japanese hybrids. It's part of the company's broader philosophy to provide environmental benefits without significant impost for the vehicle buyer.

Given its ratios, the lighter weight of the manual transmission and the other fuel-saving devices in the BlueMotion (including the deeper front airdam, for instance), it's a strategy that plays out for Volkswagen, but drivers may find the manual box less to their liking than the DSG — especially in Australia, where we like our self-shifters. Let's face it too, the sort of buyer attracted by the Golf BlueMotion isn't one to revel in changing gears for the sake of it.

And while the manual box starts off with a relatively low ratio first gear for decent launching, the other ratios are spread far apart, which can blunt acceleration. The Golf probably won't stay with a hard-driven Corolla, as we found. Furthermore, if you use the available revs to shift later the downside is added fuel use, which is the outcome you're trying to avoid by buying a car like this in the first place.

Hills are the Golf BlueMotion's bete noir and the DSG box would cope better in this context than the manual transmission. At times the Golf falls off the pace on hills, simply because the car is approaching the ascent with too few revs in hand and in the wrong gear. It's only the wrong gear because the ratio is so much higher than the gear below it — and the shift indicator light in the instrument binnacle is instructing the driver to shift up, without taking into account the need to hold the current gear on the way up the hill. Obviously, if you know how to drive a manual, you'll soon learn how to overcome this issue. You'll ignore the shift indicator light, for instance, you'll change down to the appropriate gear before the ascent and you'll keep the engine revs above 2000rpm even though it uses more fuel to do so.

Hills are where a hybrid with the extra torque from a supplemental electric motor driving through a CVT might have the advantage. On the other hand, we know from previous experience that petrol/electric hybrids just don't launch with much alacrity if the driver is mindful of saving fuel. The Golf will certainly keep up with traffic well enough, but once the speed rises above 40km/h and you start hitting hills, the hybrids often have the advantage. Credit to the Golf however, the stall characteristics of the 77kW engine are excellent.

During a month of running Toyota's Prius over the same sort of road network, the Toyota was using consistently less fuel than the Golf, as was a Honda Insight we took out for an extended real-world economy run, but there wasn't that much in it between the three of them. So it basically boils down to personal preference on other scores. The Prius remains significantly more expensive than the Golf, but provides more rear-seat legroom. In contrast, the Insight is only marginally more expensive than the Golf and might prove to be the more economical to run. Working against the Honda however, is the driving position, the layout and design of instruments and controls, which some might find a little too much like Tokyo at night to suit their tastes. In the Honda's favour is its 406-litre boot capacity, which is significantly better than the Golf's.

If you like your fuel-saving vehicle to be more conventional and less likely to be picked out in a crowd, the Golf is the better option and, if anything, it looks sporty with the deep front airdam and the high-contrast tail lights. That airdam will scrape over even benign driveways, so it's important to stay back from the kerb when parking nose-in at the local convenience store. Against the two Japanese hybrids, the Golf is the better choice for drivers.

Notwithstanding the Golf's flaws, it remains a Golf. That means it is driveable and comfortable. The seats are really huggy for a car that, in theory, shouldn't be getting thrown around on a racetrack. They're comfortable, supportive and well-located. From the driver's position, the leather-bound steering wheel is a good size and nice to grip, plus the gearshift is light to use and provides a quick, positive action.

While the car's fit and finish are up to the usual standard inside and out, the seat trim (checked blue cloth inserts and black bolstering) looks a little old-fashioned and spartan. In fact, you'll see the same look in a base-grade Holden Astra from 10 years ago.

It's a strange amalgam then, the Golf BlueMotion. You wouldn't criticise it for cornering dynamics and ride quality, it offers most of the virtues that other Golf variants do, including an engine that gets up and goes when pushed — but in the interests of managing the BlueMotion sub brand, has VW stiffed us with the transmission? Couldn't we have a Golf BlueMotion as environmentally friendly, but more driveable?

Read the latest Carsales Network news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at the carsales mobile site