Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Seat Ibiza- contemplating an ID.3
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've just noticed that the lower power motor (145PS) has become listed on VW.co.uk

This brings the starting price of a Life down to £28,670, or £1,320 less than a car with the 204PS motor.

Seems to be available on the Life, Business, and Family.
 

·
Registered
Nissan LEAF30
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
That's a big saving for a marginally smaller motor. Are there any other differences?
 

·
Registered
Seat Ibiza- contemplating an ID.3
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I don't think so- my understanding is that it's purely a change in the peak output from the motor. Range is listed as the same.

The 0-62 time is listed as 9.6 seconds, compared to 7.3 seconds for the 204PS motor.
 

·
Registered
Nissan LEAF30
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
Interesting. That's still a quick car by Golf standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Think that the lower-power motors came out over here a couple of months ago. Germany just had the 45kWh battery appear on the configurator a couple of weeks ago. "Pure"= basic, "City"= 45kWh Life, plus "Style". That last one is odd. They seem to have removed the 58kWh Style models and "Style" is now basically a 45kWh Family minus the panorama roof.
 

·
Registered
Renault Zoe 50
Joined
·
20,780 Posts
9.6 seconds isn't quick, but is perfectly acceptable for most people. A regular 1.5 TSI 130PS Golf does 0-62 in 9.2 seconds. The 110PS 1.0 TSI does 0-62 in 10.2 seconds.
It also depends how it gets to 60.

EVs generally feel quicker because the accelerate harder up to 30 and then back off a bit up to 60.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
By Golf standards was the comment. R, GTI, GTD are all easily quicker.

So by Golf standards, it's not quick. It's still there with the rest of the snore boxes ticking the box for people going to the shops once a week.
 

·
Registered
Nissan LEAF30
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
By Golf standards was the comment. R, GTI, GTD are all easily quicker.
Those are not the big selling models even if you prefer them, and as suggested above in everyday driving they are nothing like as quick as the figures suggest.

To me the purpose of an EV is to reduce consumption and pollution, hence my criticisms of things like Audi e-tron which are missing the point. Driving at anything like the potential of a Golf GTi is likewise missing the point, particularly when people discuss irrelevances such as top speed and standing start acceleration times. If that's what floats your boat then stick with Top Gear.
 

·
Registered
ID3 1st Edition in Glacier White
Joined
·
445 Posts
By Golf standards was the comment. R, GTI, GTD are all easily quicker.

So by Golf standards, it's not quick. It's still there with the rest of the snore boxes ticking the box for people going to the shops once a week.
Now do it with how many sales of each type of golf🙄 9 odd secs is decent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
It's barely acceptable.

It's not about sales numbers, it's the range of Golf's as a whole and 9 seconds is not quick for a Golf. My 29 year old GTI is still quicker...
 

·
Registered
Seat Ibiza- contemplating an ID.3
Joined
·
146 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
For 90% of people who buy Golfs it's perfectly fine. Which is the whole point. It's a lower power variant for those who aren't fussed by stuff like 0-60 times. Just like a 1.0 TSI Golf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Perfectly acceptable 0-60. It's quicker than my 1.0 Ecoboost Focus and about the same as my E-Golf. If it performs the same way as the E-Golf then overtaking etc is still nice and quick. Not everyone needs a fast car and its good to offer choice at a lower price point.
 

·
Registered
ID3 1st & e-Golf
Joined
·
5,849 Posts
Back to the topic, I thought the lower output motor was being paired with the smaller battery.
I can't find it on the VW website to see if I'm wrong or not but I expected the samller battery to be cheaper than that.
Less power would be OK, the e-Golf is fast enough for most of us, but if that's the only difference I would be surprised.
 

·
Registered
iD.3 Family, Moonstone Grey. (On order)
Joined
·
192 Posts
Back to the topic, I thought the lower output motor was being paired with the smaller battery.
I can't find it on the VW website to see if I'm wrong or not but I expected the samller battery to be cheaper than that.
Less power would be OK, the e-Golf is fast enough for most of us, but if that's the only difference I would be surprised.
That's what I would have thought, smaller battery, smaller motor. The price differential doesn't seem like enough to make me go for a smaller battery version. I really thought that the difference would be more like £3000. Would you really hamper the range for that cost?
 

·
Premium Member
VW ID.3 Worst Edition & Tesla M3 LR
Joined
·
6,593 Posts
I wonder if the lower power output is down to a different motor or software?
 

·
Registered
ZE40 R110
Joined
·
560 Posts
It also depends how it gets to 60.

EVs generally feel quicker because the accelerate harder up to 30 and then back off a bit up to 60.
Yeah, my Zoe R110 seems to do 0-30mph in about 3 secs, 0-50 mph in about 6 secs but 0-60 mph is 11secs!!!
 

·
Registered
KIA Soul EV 64kWh
Joined
·
418 Posts
It's barely acceptable.

It's not about sales numbers, it's the range of Golf's as a whole and 9 seconds is not quick for a Golf. My 29 year old GTI is still quicker...
It's highly unlikely that a 29yr old ICE could win against any modern EV in a traffic lights "race" 😁.
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top