Providing those published figures are accurate.
From my experience.
The newer van is no more economical than the previous. If I’m brutally honest. I don’t think the latest vans are anymore fuel efficient than my old 2008 T5 2.5tdi.
My last van had the 80l tank and I really miss not having the same capacity/range in my current T6.
I personally wouldn’t order another van without the 80l tank. On longer trips it’s another 70-100 miles of real world driving or another hour plus before needing to stop to refill.
The old days, I could drive to Devon and back on a tank. With the T6 and the the 70l tank, I always need to refill, which I find most annoying…
I'd guess that if 80 ltr tank was standard and 90 ltr an option some would say 90 ltr was essential.
Depends on the motor. I def want 4 Motion with the 199/204 engine to avoid front wheel spin.4motion and the diff seem a sensible choice.
However, I wonder how often it’s really needed on the California …?
I myself, would probably ditch it for the 80l tank.
The only offset to that is you are carrying an extra 10 kilos of fuel from the outset, which will offset the additional range / mileage slightly.Just gave this another moment's thought and I checked - looks like average UK motorway diesel prices are about 21p/litre higher than supermarket. That's around £15 more per full tank. If having an 80L tank means even just a few fewer m/way fill-ups each year, it would add up to quite a lot over the van lifetime.
Of course, you can arrange almost any trip to avoid a motorway refuel, but in (my) real world, a bit of extra range in hand still makes a lot of sense, now I think about it.
You missed the tongue in cheek point.80l tank has been in the T series for over 20 years.
It wasn’t plunked out of thin air.
The only reason for a 70l tank was to accommodate the pigs wee wee and most lightly emissions targets.
I’m only 250 miles in having driven back home from the dealer (204 4Mo) but adblue range showed 12500 miles on completion; assume it must have been full on collection but that is nearly 3 times as far as I ever saw in my T6 which struggled to get over 4500 miles when brimmed. Fuel consumption showed 32mpg which seemed reasonable having had a trailer on the back for the last 200 miles. Again struggled to get much better than that on the T6 which was FWD. Be intereresting to see how it settles down.It is a bit ironic that theT6.1 4M 204 has a larger Adblue tank and more emission control than the previous 199/204 which may also need more fuel capacity but ends up with less than 2WD models.
Congrats did you drop some photos in another thread yet ?I’m only 250 miles in having driven back home from the dealer (204 4Mo) but adblue range showed 12500 miles on completion; assume it must have been full on collection but that is nearly 3 times as far as I ever saw in my T6 which struggled to get over 4500 miles when brimmed. Fuel consumption showed 32mpg which seemed reasonable having had a trailer on the back for the last 200 miles. Again struggled to get much better than that on the T6 which was FWD. Be intereresting to see how it settles down.
Soon as it stops raining….Congrats did you drop some photos in another thread yet ?
Since the Adblue 'upgrade' 3500 miles seems to be my new max. Sometimes was 6500mls previously. Could use the bigger Adblue Tank more than an 80ltr diesel one, which is probably why VW upped it to 27ltrs.I’m only 250 miles in having driven back home from the dealer (204 4Mo) but adblue range showed 12500 miles on completion; assume it must have been full on collection but that is nearly 3 times as far as I ever saw in my T6 which struggled to get over 4500 miles when brimmed. Fuel consumption showed 32mpg which seemed reasonable having had a trailer on the back for the last 200 miles. Again struggled to get much better than that on the T6 which was FWD. Be intereresting to see how it settles down.
The VW California Club is the worlds largest resource for all owners and enthusiasts of VW California campervans.