Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

VW Golf



  • Maybe he will opt for a used TDI and wait a couple of years for a higher horsepower.

    Either way, it makes the most sense for his commute.

    I know, it's crazy that he drives his Jeep so fast. He doesn't seem to mind it too much though.

    I understand about your comment. No big deal. But I had to kick one back at you just to be fair ;)
  • alfoxalfox Posts: 716
    Just pullin yer chain (or his...) Good luck with the Golf, or whatever.

  • I went from a 4Runner to a Golf TDI, do I miss the 4Runner? about 4 weekends a year, Do I miss the gas consumption on a daily basis not a chance. Going for the Golf and keeping the Jeep for a weekend use makes a lot of sense. The money saved on gas and repairs to the Jeep may almost cover the payment on the Golf TDI. Now if they could build a 4Runner TDI......
  • "The only downside to the TDI I can think of is the" fact that it costs about $1400 sticker over a 2.0 Golf. Despite the fact that you burn 150 or so less gallons of diesel in 10,000 miles than you do of gas in a 2.0, fuel is so utterly cheap in the U.S. that to even break even on the price difference, you'd have to drive the car something like 70,000 miles.

    Sure, the satisfaction that you just got 50 mpg on a tank feels great, but when you're paying extra to do that, you have to ask yourself is it worth it.

  • There is certainly a concern with diesel for engine power vs. money saved in gas vs. mileage per gallon etc. Although diesel is available just about at every gas station, the savings difference may not prove worthy and the extra power would be the reward.
  • alfoxalfox Posts: 716
    Not a good comparison. While the HP is better, the performance of the 2.0L is dismal compared to the TDI. Compare it to the 1.8T and it comes out better.

    If you're looking only at fuel savings the extra cost is a consideration. But it will pay eventually, and the TDI is a much more durable motor in the long haul. Also, given a potential oil crunch, you are much more likely to always find diesel more available than gasoline, since trucks and busses will always need it.
  • Not having driven an MkIV 2.0 or TDI, I can't really comment on either, but from what I know, the TDI is slower on acceleration, right? It may be torquier and have a nice turbo rush, but the low redline and turbo lag don't help cars in the area of get-up-and-go. I look forward to a test drive in both.

    Most of the time, whenever the TDI is mentioned, it's always "fuel economy" this and "fuel economy" that. I'm just trying to play a little devil's advocate here.

  • In my "comparison" if you will, I was trying to say that the extra cost of the TDI may not balance out in the savings on gas and missed HP. To some, performance is what matters, then comes cost of ownership. With something like the TDI, cost of ownership is probably going to be the priority to the buyer. Why else would someone want a 90hp diesel vehicle. Besides longevity, what performance is lacking with the 2.0L? The 1.8T is a better performer then he 2.0L? I would rather have the extra power then save a few dollars. But that's just me.
  • alfoxalfox Posts: 716
    is a MUCH better performer than the 2.0, and the TDI accelerates as well or better than the 2.0 because most of the available torque in a diesel is at the bottom. The 90 hp is made possible by the turbocharger, and comes into play higher in the rpm band.

    The problem is that the 2.0 is an outdated and anaemic performer. The 1.8t has more hp and torque.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    I have a 1.8T Jetta, and it flies compared to the TDI. The TDI doesn't have more absolute go power than the 2.0 (slower 0-60O), but it does feel more powerful. Also, the 1.8T accelerates almost twice as fast as the TDI does (14.5 seconds for TDI to 60 with automatic, 8 with 1.8T and automatic).

    My 1.8T averages something like 25mpg with the bunch of highway driving I do. But I am heavy on the gas too. :)
  • Personally, I always felt a false sense of raw power with wound up turbo 4cyl motors. Or any 4cyl motor for that matter. If you had a manual 6cyl, you would get the low end power that a 4cyl turbo gives. My 6cyl auto could certainly use some low end kick, but I like it fine. All I have to do is step on the gas to go :)
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    my old 88 Camry V6 (5-speed manual) didn't really have power until 3000 rpms.

    Compared to the 2.0L...the TDI will blow it away "in gear"...30-50 mph, 50-70 mph... etc, without downshifting.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    The power of my turbo kicks in around 1950rpm, it almost pushes you back in the seat.

    I have driven a 2001 V6 Passat automatic, and mine definitely feels faster to me.
  • trlykatrlyka Posts: 82
    I'm not saying a turbo doesn't have quickness, I just think it's a different kind of power then a 6 or 8cyl. Of course a manual turbo will feel and be quicker then some automatics. Controlling the amount of time you wait to shift will provide you with that feeling of quickness which gives you a feeling of power. However, I would much rather drive my 8cyl '72 automatic Stingray Corvette then any turbo. It's like pep vs. muscle. Horray for someone who may of beat me off the line, but here I come with plenty to spare. Careful not to blow out your turbo trying to catch me :) He-He
  • johnxyzjohnxyz Posts: 94
    Would you comment on the similarities and differences. Huge price difference just for the styling? Thanks, John
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    KKK K04 turbo on the TT versus the smaller (yet gives a nice flat torque curve) K03 on the GTI 1.8T. APR upgrade to the K04 is $4000 plus install charges


    $50 shift linkage

    Audi luxury features and its firmer suspension....
  • adg44adg44 Posts: 385
    A K04 upgrade is roughly $1600 bucks. An APR Stage III upgrade is $3000.
  • zhdzhd Posts: 18
    I have '02 Golf with 2.0L gas engine and 5-spd stick shift. Now it has 10k on odo. Every 5000 miles it loses 3/4 to 1 quarter of engine oil. The service guy with the dealer insisted that's normal. This engine supposes to last 10k miles between oil changes, how could that be normal. Anyone here has the same experience with Golf? What should I do to get it fixed?

    Thanks in advance.
  • alfoxalfox Posts: 716
    I've ever owned, since the early 60's, has used between half and a full quart of oil every 5,000 miles. I would call that normal.

    What I wouldn't call normal on any motor (except maybe a diesel) is 10,000 between oil changes. I don't care what the manual says, I change my oil between 3,ooo and 5,000 miles. That way I never need to add the quart it lost. That's what I would recommend, and I think you'll find that the preponderance of mechanics will agree. Remember, car manufacturers franchise dealers, and dealers are in the business of rebuilding motors aftre the warranty expires. The incentives arethere for them to recommend longer than ideal between oil changes.

    FWIW, there has been an on-going debate between the Big 3 and consumers for years, in and out of court. All three have a policy for the mileage at which consumption of a quart of oil is "normal." The policies (last time I read them) vary from 950 miles to 1,150 miles!! And those were the policies for motors with 7,500 mile recommended oil changes!!

    Sounds like VW's "a quart in 5,000 miles is normal" statement is very conservative in comparison.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    Thers's a TSB on this, where they will monitor the oil usage (weekly checks)....

    Repair to correct it is a rebuilt consisting of thicker pistons rings.
Sign In or Register to comment.