Find Reviews by Make:
“The work that Crispin did was memorable and award-winning, but they have to sell cars. They’re not going to leave any stone unturned,” an unnamed marketing expert tells Automotive News [sub]. Except, of course, for the stone that has VW’s high-tech European engines under it. The big news is that a TDI Golf will be available in 2010, but if the unlovable 2.5 is the only the only gas engine on offer, VW will remain in the wilderness for some time.
34 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: 2.5 Is Alive Edition...”
Read all comments
Such a logical opportunity to introduce better engines (even the Euro-spec 2.0L) … lost.
Do we know how much more the 1.4L would add to price vs. the 2.5L?
Yikes – that cast iron block 5 does nothing for either the handling or fuel economy of this car.
So it’s a $4500 premium between the 2 door gas and 2 door TDI versions. Minus the $1300 U.S. tax credit = a $3200 price difference. Not bad for a much more efficient and fun to drive engine. Plus if you ever decide to sell it, you’ll make that price difference back with the TDI.
VW really should be offering the 1.4 TSI for the Golf in North America. It looks like they’re not offering it because it needs 95 octane gas, and Americans associate small engines as economy cars, so they won’t want to put premium in it even if they can tune it to run on North American fuel.
I imagine they might also be hesitant because of the turbo and supercharger. I can see one or both of those potentially failing if a dealer decides to use the wrong oil in the engine. TDI owners know very well that VW dealers typically don’t have a clue what oil to put in different VW group engines. So I imagine the 2.5 might be here to stay. Maybe VW can at least fix it so it’s not so thirsty.
Dear Volkswagen – if you make the Passat wagon available in the US with a TDI (esp if you use the one from the Q7/Toureg and not the four from the Jetta), I will be at your showroom looking at one tomorrow!
KTHXBAI
PS – Daimler, are you listening? You have an E Class wagon with my name on it if you beat VAG to the punch.
jmo: A base 1.4 Golf in Germany costs 16,650 Euros or about $24k USD (per VW’s global website). Not that it’s in any way apples-to-apples (cars are all expensive in Europe), but yeah, VW’s latest engines would probably add to the cost. On the other hand, economies of scale might help with that.
16,650 – 19% VAT gets us to 13,991 x 1.4 ERU/$= 19,587 USD. But, the Golf is made in Mexico so basically it’s impossible to guess what the price would be in USD. Though I’m guessing the base Golf in Germany has no ac, no radio, roll up windows etc.
That being said, I’d be willing to bet the supercharger/turbo plus all the extra computational power ads at least $1500. Maybe they figured Americans just don’t care enough to warrant the hassle of selling the more efficient but more expensive engine.
(deleted, server/commenting issues caused double post)
It looks like they’re not offering it because it needs 95 octane gas, and Americans associate small engines as economy cars, so they won’t want to put premium in it even if they can tune it to run on North American fuel.
Agree with the difficulty of making sure consumers put premium in a non-luxury/sport marque, but are you sure it isn’t 95 RON octane gas, which would only be 91 octane by North American standards? (RON+MON)/2 = AKI European and Australian gas uses the higher RON numbers; you have to subtract off 4-5 octane for North American equivalent.
91 octane is still premium of course, but I don’t think that they’d have to retune it.
It looks like they’re not offering it because it needs 95 octane gas, and Americans associate small engines as economy cars, so they won’t want to put premium in it even if they can tune it to run on North American fuel.
Agree with the difficulty of making sure consumers put premium in a non-luxury/sport marque, but are you sure it isn’t 95 RON octane gas, which would only be 91 octane by North American standards? (RON+MON)/2 = AKI
91 octane is still premium of course, but I don’t think that they’d have to retune it.
One has to keep in mind that German prices include 19% VAT. OTOH, the basic models are really that. Basic.
A standard Golf Comfortline (The cheapest trim available with the 1.4 TSI) 118 Kw (160 HP) with the new 7 speed DSG transmission retails for € 24.250. Subtract a not-unusual 10% discount, as well as the 19% VAT, and you end up with US$ 26.500 at current rates.
The 2.5L is more or less a requirement in North America. No matter how much pistonheads wish it were otherwise, other engine choices would go over like a lead balloon.
To whit:
American drivers like easy torque, and they do not like manual transmissions. The NA 2.5L, 1.4 TSFI and 2.0 TDI are the only engines that will “work” given that kind of requirement
The 1.4 TSFI would require premium fuel and synthetic oil, both non-starters in the economy-car market, and it would require revving the bejeezus out of it on a regular basis. Oh, and it’s a turbocharged Volkswagen gas engine. Those four words should give anyone who isn’t leasing pause.
Going with a smaller, naturally-aspirated engine would result in the kind of criticism the Astra, Civic and Corolla get for their 1.8L powerplants, only worse because VW cannot make a car of that size that isn’t several hundred pounds heavier.
The 2.5L really isn’t that bad, not next to everyone else’s >2.2L four. A large part of the fuel economy and performance issue isn’t the engine but the pavement-cracking mass of the cars VW hooks it up to. The Jetta can easily outweigh an Accord (think about that: the so-called “bloated”, full-size Accord tips the scales at less than the compact Jetta) and comes in around five hundred pounds more than the Corolla or Civic.
comes in around five hundred pounds more than the Corolla or Civic.
That’s a feature not a bug at least when it comes to crash performance.
Also, and it would require revving the bejeezus out of it on a regular basis.
As I understand it the reason for it having both a supercharger and a turbo is so you don’t need to rev it as it has ample low end torque.
A large part of the fuel economy and performance issue isn’t the engine but the pavement-cracking mass of the cars VW hooks it up to. The Jetta can easily outweigh an Accord (think about that: the so-called “bloated”, full-size Accord tips the scales at less than the compact Jetta) and comes in around five hundred pounds more than the Corolla or Civic.
Our 2006 Jetta TDI is a solidly built car. It’s heavy because it uses more metal than the competition. The doors close solidly. Road and engine noise are kept in check and every seam is sealed. It’s a beautifully made vehicle compared to the “tinny” Honda CRV we replaced.
jmo: As I understand it the reason for it having both a supercharger and a turbo is so you don’t need to rev it as it has ample low end torque.
Bingo.
That’s a feature not a bug at least when it comes to crash performance.
Ok, so what do we want, fuel economy or crash performance? Because the Civic crashes pretty well and the Corolla only marginally worse. The Accord and Camry are certainly crashworthy, and larger, and statistically more reliable. And they cost about the same, too.
There’s “solidly built” and then there’s heavy. We lambaste the Koreans for making porkers and the Japanese for “bloating” their cars but somehow VW gets a free pass and the same thing called “solidity”.
It’s a beautifully made vehicle compared to the “tinny” Honda CRV we replaced.
“Tinny” means nothing when it comes to quality. It may feel like quality, but it’s Stein Liekanger has an interesting article that touched on perceived versus actual quality.
Personally, I don’t care how the doors sound or the dash feels. I want the engine to start, the windows to work, and lights to turn on. How much foam and how thick the steel in the doors is does not matter a whole lot. Making thick steel and spraying foam between panels is easy; making a body computer, ignition system or wiring harness that doesn’t flake out after four years is harder.
psarhjinian,
I cross shopped a Accord Coupe and the GTI and I went with the GTI. Why? Well, a man doesn’t live by bread alone and a the sum total of a car is more than just how reliable it is. It’s certainly a big part of it, but not all of it.
If they start selling Alfas in the US and they are as great as Clarkson says – would you at least consider getting one even if the reliability is poor?
Make it more dependable than a Corolla and ditch the 2.5L farm implement engine.
Make it more dependable than a Corolla
So, here is the question no one seems able to answer. A Jetta has an independent rear suspension while the Corolla has a torsion beam rear suspension. How much of the reliability gap is due to VW going with less reliable electronics but an independent suspension, while Toyota engineers went with high quality electronics but a simple suspension design.
How much of the reliability gap is due to VW going with less reliable electronics but an independent suspension
None of it.
The MkIV Jetta and Golf had a torsion beam and it still sucked, certainly much more than the MkV. The Passat has a less sophisticated suspension than the Accord or Mazda6 and it sucks. It’s not as simple as “the car is nicer, therefore they had to take money out of quality”.
VW’s (heck, most Europeans’) quality problem has two sources:
* VW does not engineer for durability at priority. They build durability in at the end-stages of design, or worse, at assembly. They pay too much attention to theory and elegance and not enough to simplicity and real-world use.
* This is the important one. VW management is arrogant. They don’t believe they can do wrong, or that their product is inferior. This sense of self-assuredness lets them rationalize away just about anything.
Dealing with durability includes thinking about all the ways you could make a mistake, or have made mistakes, and addiressing them. When you don’t think you’ve made mistakes in the first place, you can’t begin to work to fix them.
The NMS and MkVI cars should scare anyone who has any love for VW because the intent of those products is to reduce cost** more than anything else. Cost-cutting has proven problematic for Toyota and Honda; do you really think VW can come to grips with it painlessly?
Look, I like the products—they really are very good—but I despise the parent company’s attitude and the unwillingness of the fan base to call them on it. Saying things like “they’re nicer cars and therefore they had to cut somewhere” is denial at it’s finest.
** By comparison, improved durability was a goal of the MkV and it’s panned out, more or less.
Both cars are moving in opposing directions, in the rear suspension matter
The Corolla used to have a rear independent suspension. After 2002, they switched to the torsion beam system.
VW has done the opposite, from torsion beam to independent.
Test-drove the 2.5 Jetta once – hated it mostly for the rough, lumpy engine.
Five-cylinder engines should be banned for the disharmony they bring to motoring. I’ll take a 4-cylinder any day over a 5. Yuk.
And yes, I say this to Audi, Volvo, Land Rover, M-B, and GM, too.
psarhjinian,
But you didn’t answer the most important question. When they start selling Alfas here, and if they are as good as Clarkson says, would you ever consider buying one?
If you want a small Toyota with an IRS, you can always get a Matrix XRS or Scion tc.
Okay, I’ll defend the 2.5 Rabbit. My 2008 came in Hatchback at a time last year when the Honda dealers were making appointments to show a Fit. The handling is fine, regardless of the cat iron engine, and will probably add to its reliability. It handles better than my 2005 Accord, IMO.
It was cheaper out the door than the 2008 Accord I looked at and came with disk brakes all around.
Try as I might, I can’t reconcile the “rough sounding engine” comments with my 2008 model. Earlier ones, sure, but this one sounds fine.
No timing belts for this VW – it’s a timing chain – and while that might be causing some of the noise others hear, I’m willing to go along with it, since it isn’t bad to me, and I might get a couple of hundred thousand miles out of it.
The spark plugs are right up front where I can get to them, and that’s important to me after spending five hours changing plugs on my Explorer.
Hey, I’m no VW apologist, having been owned by a VW and two Audis in the 1980s, and swore I’d never own another. Just goes to show what you’ll do when someone rear-ends your Honda and need to replace it. I’ve got 15,000 miles on it now and smelled hot brakes on it once, but that’s about it for repairs.
Will it go as many miles as my 1983 Volvo 240? No, and I don’t think any cars ever will again. Times have changed, and manufacturers are no longer making repairable cars. I can’t see myself trying to squeeze another 10,000 miles out of this Rabbit at 400,000 miles, for instance, when the car itself is worth less than the replacement transmission that would go in it.
Is the VW Rabbit 2.5 perfect? No, of course not, but it’s a fine car, so far, and looks to me to be built for the long haul rather than for people who want the newest buzzword tech. Give it break with all the agricultural engine comments until you’ve actually driven one.
I’ve got an ’06 Jetta 2.5. Not sure why people say the engine is rough, or agricultural-like. I’ve driven a Ford tractor, and know the difference. You can hear the motor during acceleration, but this is a function of sound proofing the engine compartment, and I suspect it is what people are mostly referring to when they say it is rough.
Mileage/cost is probably not any different than the 4, since the 2.5 uses regular. It’s not rough at idle, accelerates smoothly, and I’ve not had any experiences that made me think I was driving anything but a sedan. I owned an old Audi 90, and its 5 cylinder was rough–shook the car at idle. Jedi are not sports cars, but handle well, and in its class I’ve not driven any Japanese car I’d trade for.
In my search for a possible replacement I recently drove the Volvo C30; a similar 2.5L 5 cyl engine. It’s motor was also quite capable–more powerful than the Jetta, however it’s got a turbo under the hood. The C is a nice little hatch, but apparently overpriced, and expensive to option. My example was an entry level car, spartan cloth interior, and no sunroof–the sticker was 26K. Who knows if they would deal–I was just “looking.” I’m guessing the GTI would be the way to go in the small hatch department.
Finally, I also drove a Lexus IS 250. This car was much more expensive, supposed to be a “sporting” car, was “perfect” in the Japanese way, but completely soul-less. If I can find a Japanese car in the sub 30 range that drives like a VW but doesn’t look like it was designed by the Jet Jaguar team, I may take Japan more seriously.
I bought a 2008 MKV GTI (2.0L Turbo) and a friend bought a 2008 MKV Rabbit with the 2.5L 5 cylinder engine. My cousin bought a 2007 MKV Jetta with the 2.5L 5 cylinder as well.
I expected horrendously bad performance from all the reviews I’ve read about this engine, but honestly, for an entry level car, it wasn’t bad.
Does my 2.0L motor with the DSG perform better? Yes, much better, but I also paid about $7000 more for the GTI over the Rabbit and the Jetta.
Sure, you’ve got to rev the nuts off of the 2.5L motor before it is any fun, but neither the Rabbit or Jetta drivers above will ever do that.
-ted
mpresley,
I looked at the same cars.
The C30 was a great car but at 6’2″ it felt very cramped. The GTI was much more spacious.
The STI was superb but I wanted leather and a sunroof and a 6-speed and they said no.
The IS250… I just wasn’t impressed. I had a C240 Mercedes, Infinity G35, and Jaguar X-Type as a company car and I fell deeply and passionately in love with the C240… the ride quality was exquisite. Driving the C you felt like you were in something special. As for the IS250 – I just didn’t get that feeling.*
* That being said my dad had a ’93 Camry go 400k miles without so much as an oil change – so maybe after 200k miles my appreciation of how special the IS250 is would have grown.
@jmo
Hell yes! But I’m driving a 91 164 now.
mpresley :
August 24th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Finally, I also drove a Lexus IS 250. This car was much more expensive, supposed to be a “sporting” car, was “perfect” in the Japanese way, but completely soul-less. If I can find a Japanese car in the sub 30 range that drives like a VW but doesn’t look like it was designed by the Jet Jaguar team, I may take Japan more seriously.
Mazdaspeed 3 – brilliant car. Not great looking, but then again, it doesn’t look like the stylists at Wolfsburg are exactly burning the midnight oil on the Golf / Jetta either.
Also, if you’re going to check out a Japanese entry luxury car, skip the Lexus IS and go straight to the Infiniti G37 – basically the same money, but the G37’s an amazing car.
psarhjinian :
August 24th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Crash tests into walls do not take into consideration the fact that heavier vehicles in crashes with other vehicles are safer than lighter vehicles. When I was considering a new car one of my requirements was that it weigh 3,000 lbs or more. My Jetta TDI meets that requirement.
Jeez…
I take pleasure in knowing I can drive. anything over 3200lbs.. doesnt have that ability.
Ive missed accidents because I could get out QUICKLY. Ive had pile ups right in front of me and I got out quickly. Ive almost been T boned a coupla times and I got out quickly and FAST.
My current car is 3200, next one is going to be spot on 3000. Weight is bloat.. and thats not what I need.
Current Accord is wayy too damn big = 3600lbs.
Civic is decent.. but the 1.8 is just lacking.
As for charging 17g for a stripper Golf / Rabbit.. thats just crazy.
And when the JETTA is heavier and costs more than an Accord, thats CRAZIER!
And as for as the Passat goes.. ya looking at 25s into the early 30s for one.
Whats wrong with this picture.. is the PEOPLES car doesnt even compete with the lowliest of the low.. Hyun / Kia.
When they start selling Alfas here, and if they are as good as Clarkson says, would you ever consider buying one?
Good question. Based on what my relatives (who live near Turin; one actually works for FIAT) have told me, they’re more or less safe to lease.
That said, they bought an Accord recently and have been suprised at how much more reliable it’s been than the FIATs and Lancias and Alfas they’ve had for years.
FreedMike : Mazdaspeed 3 – brilliant car. Not great looking, but then again, it doesn’t look like the stylists at Wolfsburg are exactly burning the midnight oil on the Golf / Jetta either.
Perhaps, but my God, the Mazda 3 epitomizes the Jet Jaguar school of design that I’ve been talking about. It even sports Jet’s goofy grin. I’d be embarrassed to be seen in it.