Ateca

[AndyB123]

Hi all, I've recently bought my first ateca in white, new shape 21 reg.
Car history
1993 Toyota carolla
S13 Nissan 200 owned 2 years
S14a Nissan 200 green 1998 reg (s)
S14a Nissan 200 maroon
Mazda 3 mps mk1 57 reg owned 6 years
Mazda 3 mps mk2 62 reg owned 12 months
Golf r mk7 owned 2 years 64 reg
Nissan juke rs nismo edition
Golf r mk7.5 owned 2 years 19 reg
Seat ateca 190tsi 4drive owned 6 months
Cupra ateca 21 reg just bought

 

[Seastormer]

Welcome to SCN, some nice cars there, how does the Ateca perform compared to the Golf R,s you had.

 

[AndyB123]

Hi Seastormer, the mk7 golf was amazing to be honest, I didn't realise how good it was until after I sold it. DSG farts, super quick when you floor it. With dcc, sunroof, dyno audio. The ateca is a bit more refined, it's got alot of extra weight.
Very practical mind. The golf is very agile and great for corners in the wet.
I've not really had the opportunity to test the ateca round bends yet.

 

[motormadmarc]

@AndyB123. Hiya, and a belated welcome to the forum

 

[AndyB123]

Cheers Marc,
Are you based in the uk, what do you drive as a daily

 

[KarlW300]

Hi Seastormer, the mk7 golf was amazing to be honest, I didn't realise how good it was until after I sold it. DSG farts, super quick when you floor it. With dcc, sunroof, dyno audio. The ateca is a bit more refined, it's got alot of extra weight.
Very practical mind. The golf is very agile and great for corners in the wet.
I've not really had the opportunity to test the ateca round bends yet.

Hi AndyB123
Welcome to the club.
How are finding the Cupra compared to the golf r 7.5 now you have had the Cupra for a while?
The reason I ask is because I was really set on a Lapiz blue golf r mk 7.5.
I even had reserved two at VW dealers but both were not clean enough even though they were advertised as excellent examples.
More used unapproved than approved.
Do you miss the golf or are you happy with the Cupra?
Is the golf much quicker and better sounding as well as being less thirsty?
Suppose the golf r is more of a theft risk than the Cupra depending where you live?

Cheers Karl

 

[AndyB123]

Hi Karl, if you get a 17 or 18 plate golf with the 310bhp, it's more economical than the 19 plate 7.5, the 310bhp is high 30s mpg. The 296bhp is very low 30s,which is the same as the ateca.
I do very short journeys to work and back, I'm not quite at the end of the tank yet, but I've not covered 200 miles in this full tank, also there was no super at the time, so the car burns more fuel.
If you want a hot hatch that's good on fuel, the x drive m135i, is high 30s mpg, and still 300bhp.
To be honest, if I didn't buy the cupra, I might have bought one, 2,people in work have one, one of them has a 22 reg with 19" rims, the ride is super stiff! 21 reg with 18" rims is the way to go, as the suspension is firmer on the 22 plate.
Yes I do miss the golf, but the 7.5 I had was missing the dsg farts. The mark 7 was better on fuel, about 40mpg combined.
I've tried making dsg noises in the cupra, but no success yet.
Yeah I miss the golf, but I needed to carry more stuff, plus the cupra has dcc. Which makes for a softer ride.
If I don't hit 200 miles in my first full tank, I would be surprised.
I found a golf r at a Derby main dealer, with about 13k on the clock, in grey with 19s on. Parksway vw. I bought my mark 7.5 from there.
I have to admit it looks good, it's just under £30k.

 

[AndyB123]

It's 40mpg combined.
Also it's main dealer, I wouldn't buy from a non main dealer. As no warranty. In my Mark 7 I had a new infotainment system installed under warranty, and my mark 7.5 I had a new battery.

 

[AndyB123]

I had a ghost and scorpion tracker in my golf r. I've also got the same in the cupra

 

[KarlW300]

Hi Karl, if you get a 17 or 18 plate golf with the 310bhp, it's more economical than the 19 plate 7.5, the 310bhp is high 30s mpg. The 296bhp is very low 30s,which is the same as the ateca.
I do very short journeys to work and back, I'm not quite at the end of the tank yet, but I've not covered 200 miles in this full tank, also there was no super at the time, so the car burns more fuel.
If you want a hot hatch that's good on fuel, the x drive m135i, is high 30s mpg, and still 300bhp.
To be honest, if I didn't buy the cupra, I might have bought one, 2,people in work have one, one of them has a 22 reg with 19" rims, the ride is super stiff! 21 reg with 18" rims is the way to go, as the suspension is firmer on the 22 plate.
Yes I do miss the golf, but the 7.5 I had was missing the dsg farts. The mark 7 was better on fuel, about 40mpg combined.
I've tried making dsg noises in the cupra, but no success yet.
Yeah I miss the golf, but I needed to carry more stuff, plus the cupra has dcc. Which makes for a softer ride.
If I don't hit 200 miles in my first full tank, I would be surprised.
I found a golf r at a Derby main dealer, with about 13k on the clock, in grey with 19s on. Parksway vw. I bought my mark 7.5 from there.
I have to admit it looks good, it's just under £30k.

Hi Andy

Thanks for the detailed response.
Strange how the 310bhp models are more economical than the 296 bhp later models considering they are older and have almost 15 bhp more?
Pity our Cupras's don't have the earlier engine if its better as in more power and less thirst.
Mine gives a few pops and bangs when in sport or Cupra mode but I think they are quieter than the golf r or S3.
I do like the fact they are more low key although people say mine stands out due to the energy blue colour.
Its definitely thirsty though.
I use an old skool disklock on mine as I want the visual deterrent which hopefully they would pass on as the ghost is good but they could still probably try getting the keys first before finding out it wont start!
How was the VW after service with the warranty claims you made?
Did they just do it with no messing?

 

[AndyB123]

Hi Karl, new regulations came in to play for the golf in 2019 unfortunately, something to do with a particulate filter, that's what I heard anyway. So less, power, no dsg farts and mpg same as the ateca, crap.
I used Inchcape who did all my warranty work, no quibble as I bought from another vw dealer in Derby. Each car had 2 years warranty, even though they were older than 1 year. Same with my ateca it's 18 months old ish, but bought from main dealer so 2 years warranty.
Mine is in the garage every night, ghost system is good for other things like if someone decides to pull you out of your car. It cuts out the engine after a few mins. Also stops having to mess about with a disc lock everytime you park somewhere.
2 guys in work use a, stop lock.
Sometimes I look at the car thinking it needs higher depth on the tyres. Like 245/50, would fill the arches a bit more.
I've still not got to 200miles yet from my fill up, got about 3 bars left. All my journeys are really low though.

 

[BigJase88]

Hi Andy

Thanks for the detailed response.
Strange how the 310bhp models are more economical than the 296 bhp later models considering they are older and have almost 15 bhp more?
Pity our Cupras's don't have the earlier engine if its better as in more power and less thirst.
Mine gives a few pops and bangs when in sport or Cupra mode but I think they are quieter than the golf r or S3.
I do like the fact they are more low key although people say mine stands out due to the energy blue colour.
Its definitely thirsty though.
I use an old skool disklock on mine as I want the visual deterrent which hopefully they would pass on as the ghost is good but they could still probably try getting the keys first before finding out it wont start!
How was the VW after service with the warranty claims you made?
Did they just do it with no messing?

It's also to do with WLTP testing regs which came in around 2018. So all newer cars get less mpg book figures as the new test is supposed to be more accurate.

Which it's not.

Real life mpg used to be about 15mpg lower. Now its maybe 5-10mpg lower than book. Just slightly more realistic

 

[SRGTD]

Strange how the 310bhp models are more economical than the 296 bhp later models considering they are older and have almost 15 bhp more?

It's also to do with WLTP testing regs which came in around 2018. So all newer cars get less mpg book figures as the new test is supposed to be more accurate.

Which it's not.

Real life mpg used to be about 15mpg lower. Now its maybe 5-10mpg lower than book. Just slightly more realistic

WLTP from a car manufacturers perspective is highly likely to have been more about CO2 emissions than fuel economy. Changes to engines, transmissions and the addition of a GPF, and possibly reducing the weight of a vehicle (e.g. less or thinner sound insulation, removal of a spare wheel etc.) are the means adopted to help them ‘manage’ emissions and any subsequent emissions-based fines received for not meeting the target figures. Also, with some VW’s I seem to remember reading that certain combinations of extra cost options were removed because of the impact on emissions and to reduce the number of permutations of vehicle spec to be tested under WLTP - other manufacturers were likely to have been in the same position.

IMHO, fuel consumption figures would have been a secondary consideration .

 

[BigJase88]

WLTP from a car manufacturers perspective is highly likely to have been more about CO2 emissions than fuel economy. Changes to engines, transmissions and the addition of a GPF, and possibly reducing the weight of a vehicle (e.g. less or thinner sound insulation, removal of a spare wheel etc.) are the means adopted to help them ‘manage’ emissions and any subsequent emissions-based fines received for not meeting the target figures. Also, with some VW’s I seem to remember reading that certain combinations of extra cost options were removed because of the impact on emissions and to reduce the number of permutations of vehicle spec to be tested under WLTP - other manufacturers were likely to have been in the same position.

IMHO, fuel consumption figures would have been a secondary consideration .

Read this

How new fuel economy regulations are making mpg figures more realistic

Eagle-eyed Motability Scheme customers may have noticed fuel economy figures are lower than they used to be. In this article, motoring journalist Richard Aucock explains all you need to know on this topic.

news.motability.co.uk

Its the whole test so includes MPG

If you buy a pre 2018 car the book figure shows better MPG

When in reality they acheive the same MPG

 

[AndyB123]

Read this

How new fuel economy regulations are making mpg figures more realistic

Eagle-eyed Motability Scheme customers may have noticed fuel economy figures are lower than they used to be. In this article, motoring journalist Richard Aucock explains all you need to know on this topic.

news.motability.co.uk

Its the whole test so includes MPG

If you buy a pre 2018 car the book figure shows better MPG

When in reality they acheive the same MPG

Well I can honestly say the BMW cars get very good mpg, 446 miles from an x drive m135i 55 litre tank. Mostly motorway of course.
I once did 400miles in my mk7 golf r driving all motorway.

Check out the mpg and 0-60 on this car, numbers are incredible

 

[SRGTD]

Read this

How new fuel economy regulations are making mpg figures more realistic

Eagle-eyed Motability Scheme customers may have noticed fuel economy figures are lower than they used to be. In this article, motoring journalist Richard Aucock explains all you need to know on this topic.

news.motability.co.uk

Its the whole test so includes MPG

If you buy a pre 2018 car the book figure shows better MPG

When in reality they acheive the same MPG

Yes, I appreciate revised (more realistic) fuel consumption formed part of WLTP. The point I was trying to make (maybe not particularly well) was that improvements the CO2 emissions figures for a car manufacturer’s fleet of vehicles has financial benefits for them.

Prospective car purchasers will probably be more interested in mpg figures than CO2 emissions (that maybe changing now with the impact of climate change), but unlike CO2 emissions, a revised set of mpg figures probably won’t cost a car manufacturer significant sums of money - maybe some lost sales but all manufacturers are probably guilty of quoting ‘optimistic‘ fuel consumption figures under the old NEDC test.

Exceeding the EU‘s target CO2 emissions could cost a car manufacturer a significant sum, hence my comment in previous post about them being more interested in emissions than mpg. With hindsight, fuel consumption would’ve probably been of equal importance, as without WLTP certified fuel consumption figures or WLTP type approval, manufacturers wouldn’t have been able to sell vehicles (All new non WLTP compliant cars had to be registered by 1 September 2018).

The 2022 EU emissions target for a car manufacturers’ new car vehicle fleet was 95g CO2/km and they were fined at a rate of €95 per new car registered for each gram of CO2 their fleet average exceeds the target figure by. That could be a significant sum for large car manufacturers, so manufacturers had (and still have) a vested interest to make changes to manage the emissions of their vehicles. I seem to remember that UK vehicle sales are also included in with European sales in the calculation of actual v’s target CO2.

Theoretical example;
2022 Target CO2 emissions; 95g CO2
Car manufacturers fleet average CO2 emissions for new vehicle EU/UK sales in 2022; 115g CO2 (20g in excess of the target)
Number of new EU/UK vehicle sales in 2022; 180,000
Emissions fine; 20 x €95 x 180,000 = £342m

I’m not aware of the total VAG EU and UK sales in 2022, but I dare say their emissions fines run into billions of euros.

 

[BigJase88]

Yes, I appreciate revised (more realistic) fuel consumption formed part of WLTP. The point I was trying to make (maybe not particularly well) was that improvements the CO2 emissions figures for a car manufacturer’s fleet of vehicles has financial benefits for them.

Prospective car purchasers will probably be more interested in mpg figures than CO2 emissions (that maybe changing now with the impact of climate change), but unlike CO2 emissions, a revised set of mpg figures probably won’t cost a car manufacturer significant sums of money - maybe some lost sales but all manufacturers are probably guilty of quoting ‘optimistic‘ fuel consumption figures under the old NEDC test.

Exceeding the EU‘s target CO2 emissions could cost a car manufacturer a significant sum, hence my comment in previous post about them being more interested in emissions than mpg. With hindsight, fuel consumption would’ve probably been of equal importance, as without WLTP certified fuel consumption figures or WLTP type approval, manufacturers wouldn’t have been able to sell vehicles (All new non WLTP compliant cars had to be registered by 1 September 2018).

The 2022 EU emissions target for a car manufacturers’ new car vehicle fleet was 95g CO2/km and they were fined at a rate of €95 per new car registered for each gram of CO2 their fleet average exceeds the target figure by. That could be a significant sum for large car manufacturers, so manufacturers had (and still have) a vested interest to make changes to manage the emissions of their vehicles. I seem to remember that UK vehicle sales are also included in with European sales in the calculation of actual v’s target CO2.

Theoretical example;
2022 Target CO2 emissions; 95g CO2
Car manufacturers fleet average CO2 emissions for new vehicle EU/UK sales in 2022; 115g CO2 (20g in excess of the target)
Number of new EU/UK vehicle sales in 2022; 180,000
Emissions fine; 20 x €95 x 180,000 = £342m

I’m not aware of the total VAG EU and UK sales in 2022, but I dare say their emissions fines run into billions of euros.

I doubt VW pay.

The customer pays hence the price of new cars being completely crazy

I have never once even looked at a cars emissions when considering purchasing it.

I think a minority would care. Your do gooder types mainly. For me it's performance / mpg / tax costs

 

[SRGTD]

I doubt VW pay.

The customer pays hence the price of new cars being completely crazy

I have never once even looked at a cars emissions when considering purchasing it.

I think a minority would care. Your do gooder types mainly. For me it's performance / mpg / tax costs

Agree, it’ll be factored into the price of the car, so those buying new cars will be the ones picking up the emissions fines tab. It’s likely to increase too (unless the mix of vehicles produced moves heavily towards EV’s which would lower a manufacturers overall fleet average emissions), as the emissions target figure is set to reduce over the coming years.

 

[BigJase88]

I do find manufacturers claimed MPG figures hilarious.

My car is early 2018 pre WLTP testing and the claimed MPG is hilarious

Claimed 68.9mpg combined

Reality 36.2mpg combined