|
Crazy685 posted:I've heard nothing but terrible things about the 2009+ A5 manual. North America didn't get the DSG either right? The normal auto is pretty good in my opinion, but the CVT isn't.
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Actually I wouldn't be so sure of that: http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2010/03/toyota-not-the-only-automaker-linked-to-unintended-acceleration.html Regardless its not something you need to worry about.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
el topo posted:Meh, these "unintended acceleration" issues tend to crop up in North America (principally in the United States), and ONLY on that continent, even for models that are sold worldwide (see the Audi 5000 saga). Exactly, same deal with Toyota. Which is why you shouldn't worry about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
Corbet posted:I know recommendation threads are frowned upon around here so I figured I'd post in this thread. I've been car shopping for the past month or so and I always seem to come back to the 2011 VW Golf TDI and the 2011 VW GTI. You should really be comparing the TDI with the normal Golf, not the GTI The GTI is the (mainstream) performance version of Golf so has a more aggressive body, wheels, interior etc as well the obviously better performance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
Bovine Delight posted:The Golf TDI and the GTI are really not terribly different. You'll get some different wheels and seats aside from the obvious engine difference, but beyond that it's really the same car. I don't know what you mean that the body is more aggressive because it's practically identical. In that case you could say the GTI is practically identical to the base Golf   The differences are relatively subtle but they do make a big difference Again the suspension may be 'very similar' but the differences result in a significantly different driving experience - the US market TDI is not at all like the GTD available elsewhere
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
I'll concede that maybe the US spec cars are different suspension wise. Yes the differences are only plastic bits but IMO they do combine to make the cars noticeably different to look at. Anyway the point remains - the TDI is more comparable to the normal Golf than the GTI in performance. Its just unfortunate that the non-GTI petrol option is comparatively inefficient.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Fair enough. I still wouldn't be cross shopping a GTI and a TDI though, it'd be the base Golf vs TDI
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
Where I am a lot of people have premature cambelt failure on the 1.8t (even by the revised down replacement interval) I don't know whether this is typical, or something to do with the markets the cars were originally sold in (mostly Japan and Singapore)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:
There are a couple of things wrong with your point of view. First is that VW cars aren't necessarily regarded as higher quality than a Corolla or Camry (I guess Avensis) in the rest of the world. Second is that cars in general are retardedly cheap in North America and it isn't just taxes and duties that cause this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:[citation needed] Yeah seriously. The Polo isn't available in North American, and isn't a particularly well built car anyway - I'd say it sits above a Yaris or Swift but below a Honda Fit. Yes the US Jetta/Passat sufferes from cost cutting, but you could say exactly the same thing about a the US Corolla/Camry vs the European Auris/Avensis, or the US Accord vs the international one - bigger, simpler, cheaper is just how the US car market works.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:Did you read what I said? Yeah I misread that. I still don't think its accurate to say the international Golf is any better than the US market one though - you wouldn't believe how stripped out the basic versions are elsewhere in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
The thing about a Lexus (or Toyota for that matter) interior is it looks kind of crappy/flimsy to start off with but will look exactly the same 15 years down the track. Nothing will break, nothing will wear out. Whereas a VW/Audi interior looks and feels great when new but its all downhill from there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:The cost differences between the gasser Golf and the TDI aren't solely gas vs. diesel. The TDI has several features you do not get on the gasser, and most of the options are also unavailable on the gasser. Also the US market Golf is stuck with that ancient petrol 2.5 right? We get a range of TSIs and it really makes no sense to go for either of the TDIs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
shyguy posted:This might be more of a general question, but I feel as if I'm having buyer's remorse over my '11 GTI. I've had it since June and have put 5K miles on it, and it hasn't skipped a beat. I love it right now, but I feel like a year or two down the line I'm gonna have some soul-crushing and wallet-emptying issue with it. It pretty much means subconsciously you know you've spent more on the car than you really should have.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
TeffaBob posted:So I have to ask, how many miles were on that to make those old lenses look that terrible? It could have been zero miles - UV is what does the most of the damage. Its even worse in New Zealand due to our proximity to the hole in the ozone layer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
meatpimp posted:It depends on how the units perform over time... right now there's no data on how well 10 year old DSGs hold up. Then there's the maintenance variable that will affect value, as well. Its been pretty close to ten years already. From what I've seen the 6 speed in the more powerful cars has held up pretty well (unlike the 7 speed in low end models)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
timb posted:Don't go catless. Everyone behind you at a stoplight or in traffic will want to murder you. It's not good for the environment. It's just a lovely thing to do in general. You're right about the environment, but if the car is otherwise running properly you won't be able to tell if it has a cat or not from sitting behind it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:Who would spend that much money on a Golf when you could get an Audi? Because they're essentially the same car, and the Golf has a more practical body style.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:I'm talking about the 39k Euro Golf R which puts in you in A4 Quattro territory. A lot of people prefer a hatch, at least outside of North America. Besides then the Audi is at a large power disadvantage compared to the Golf R It is a bit cheaper in other markets though (at least comparatively), NZ prices Golf R - $73,500 A4 2.0 TFSI quattro S tronic Sedan - $ 86,900 A4 2.0 TFSI quattro S tronic Sedan S-line - $ 92,900 S3 Sportback 2.0 TFSI quattro S tronic $ 83,700
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
That's only ever been true in North America. Elsewhere the 3, C and A4 have always been available with four cylinders and in many markets they are the volume sellers By the way have a look at what engines that latest BMW and Mercedes models come with and you'll see if anything VAG is ahead of the curve
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
krooj posted:Hopefully this means the Polo is coming to Canada / US. That 1.4L TDI looks perfect for getting around town. Too bad I just bought a 2.5 last summer. I really don't see the point of the TDI Polo - the 1.2 TSI is still very economical and is much more pleasant to drive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:Have you driven the 140hp current TDI in a Golf? The car has plenty of power for what it costs. It isn't the fastest off the line, but accelerating to pass is a breeze. The TDI is for efficiency in the states, That's only really because you don't get the efficient petrol models - the 118TSI is nearly as efficient as the 103TDI and way nicer to drive (IMO except for the 7 speed DSG which is a disaster)
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:What are you talking about? VW offers a 3yr/36k bumper to bumper and a 5y/60k powertrain warranty. Which, off the top of my head, is the same as Ford, Toyota (& Scion), Subaru, Nissan & Honda. Cars are cheap in the USA so something has got to give. VW warranty where I am:  Of course a GTI starts from around $45k USD
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:The 2.0 engine is probably the slowest engine VW has made since the 36hp air cooled engine in the old bugs. I'll just leave that there for you. Unless you live outside of North America where much slower options were available
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:For now you get a choice between a 1.2L TSI or a 1.4L TSI the latter of which is just slightly less powerful than the 2.0L TDIs we get now. On top of that you get it with a 7 speed DSG if you don't take a 6 speed manual and IIRC the 7-speed isn't very good compared to the 6 speed. I'll bet they do a more powerful 1.4 TSI too, the Mark 6 has a 118kw version available and its probably the best overall compromise. You're right about the 7 speed though (unless its much improved from the old cars)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:If you're talking a gasser Golf vs. the TDI, the TDI also has a lot more standard features than the gas Golf does, so it's not a strictly fuel cost/MPG comparo. Depends on what VW has specced for your market. In markets that use the TSI rather than the old five cylinder there generally isn't any spec differences between the equivalent tier petrol and diesels.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:That's hybrid territory. Which makes me wonder why we don't get diesel hybrids. What would the point be? More weight and more pollution.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
My younger brother and his wife are expecting a child so are shopping for a new(er) and much safer car than their old Integra Type R Current front runner is a - 2006 VW Jetta with the 2l turbo and six speed DSG - 111,000km - Second hand Japanese import (which means no reliable service history) Now I tend to think this is a bad idea in general as its pushing what they can afford and I don't exactly trust that gearbox but I must admit it is an extremely nice car to drive, has a fantastic interior and is one hell of a lot cheaper than a similar age Golf (even a 1.4) Question is is there anything in particular to look for with this model?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:But these designs are a result of the EU's insane fuel consumption testing protocols. And as far as getting a good number to stick on the spec sheet it works great. In the real world not so much, especially with the little 1.2
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Heated windshields are magical. I don't know who else you can get them from other than Land Rover but dammit they work great. My Japanese import Nissan has a heated screen (or at least had one until it got smashed and I replaced it with a regular one). I think its fairly common in their colder areas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Anyone here had experience with the higher output version of the 1.4 TSI you get in late 00s Golfs or the 1.8 TSI in similar age A3s? There seems to be much less information about these online than the 2.0 T
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Diesels are pretty poo poo in small vehicles anyway - you only get very marginally better economy than a modern petrol engine. They make a lot more sense in big executive cars and SUVs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
thatguy posted:Yeah it was terrible getting 48 mpg in my TDI beetle this summer driving the 2000 miles from SC to Idaho. I don't know how to handle how poo poo diesels are in small cars. Makes way more sense to get 35 in a gas. There is way less relative difference than that though provided you are comparing with the more modern VW petrol engines
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
The 2.5 does not count as a modern engine - check the 1.4l TSI vs the 2l TDI
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Rated extra urban 2l TDI 110 - 4l/100km (58.8 mpg) 1.4l TSI 103 - 4.4l/100km (53.5 mpg) Or course neither will get that outside of ideal conditions, but the margin of difference between them is pretty close to real world
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 23:29
|
|
Blasphemer. 50 MPG is not 'marginally better'
|
No, the TSIs are always cheaper than the equivalent diesel
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I didn't say they were more expensive. I said they are more complex. How though? A modern TDI isn't exactly simple either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
I don't see why it should be that expensive to just reflash the ECU on each of the affected cars. What it does to drivability, economy and reliability is going to be a way bigger issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:The argument is if it was this easy then why didn't they do it before? They even had time where the EPA was asking them what the hell was going on and VW kept stalling. Why didn't they re-flash ECUs during that time? Why aren't they doing it right now? Because it's probably going to utterly ruin those cars and they didn't want that fallout.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
8ender posted:and arguably even Audi have made it out of this relatively unscathed. Depends on how far the problem goes internationally - that 2l diesel is in a lot of Audis in Europe (and who knows whether the bigger and smaller diesels are okay at this point)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 07:01
|
|