Howdy, Stranger!

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





VW Golf

14344454648

Comments

  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    >The Golf starts at the equivalent of $22,500...and that's with a 79 HP, 1.4L engine.

    I don't even mention this totally underpowered version as there is close to zero chance such a model would sell in the US. And base trim may not even include aircon.
    The most ridiculous is that people still buy this...

    Is the 160HP 1.4 TSI version selling in the US ? This is both a potent and fuel saving engine. Much better than the V5
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    on the German Autobild magazine.

    http://www.autobild.de/artikel/der-grosse-auto-bild-wintertest-1032041.html

    In this winter test, the Golf wins a comparison with the Opel Astra and the Prius (in German).

    Basically burns as little diesel as the Prius burns gas but outhandles the prius by a wide margin.
    Also outhandles the heavier and thirstier astra.
  • puffin1puffin1 Posts: 276
    where are you in France? :shades:
  • puffin1puffin1 Posts: 276
    How can a VW polo with a 1.4 liter compete with the fiesta, or any other 1.6 liter ? It seems under powered.
    :shades: TY
  • 73837383 Posts: 1
    Am close to purchase of 2011 Golf 2.5 6A 4dr with sunroof and bluetooth. This would replace 2004 Acura TSX which has served well. Vehicle is used for daily commute of 80 miles of twisty mountain roads. Test drives of Golf suggest that (with standard tires/wheels) it is much smoother and quieter than the TSX, and that the handling, while not as sharp, is very acceptable. We have driven and considered the TDI and like it, but want vehicle that uses regular 87 octane gasoline. Am interested in observations of those on this forum who have experience with the Golf 2.5 vehicle and engine, particularly with respect to real world fuel economy and reliability over the 130K miles we normally retain our vehicles. (The TSX averages 28.5 on 91 octane. We are hoping for significantly better economy with the VW on 87 octane, but may be dreaming.) Any and all input on this vehicle is welcome and thanks.
  • Since you have such a long daily commute, you would most likely benefit from the much better fuel economy with the Golf TDI. TDIs also retain more of their value, in case you decide to trade after 130k miles or so; but they are also more reliable in the long term, in case you decide to keep it for 300k or 400k miles.

    From what I've heard, typical fuel economy for the 2.5-liter gas engine is in the 25-28 mpg range. Fuel economy with the current 2.0-liter TDI engine can be in the 38-42 mpg range. So with the gasser. about 350-400 gallons of fuel every 10k miles; with the TDI, somewhere around 250 gallons. Do the calculations yourself, using AAA fuel price numbers for your state; or make an estimate of what you think will happen to fuel prices in the future.

    The more you drive, the more sense a TDI makes. The higher fuel prices go, the more sense a TDI makes. Also, if fuel prices go higher, then TDI resale and trade-in values will go higher.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited January 2011
    I agree with jbaustian. I would also add that in hilly mountainous terrain, the TDI has a lot more torque than the 2.5 and will come closer to providing the better economy rated firgures than the 2.5. If lived in the mountains and drove that many miles every day, this would be a no contest. The TDI would decidely win out by a huge margin. I know it isn't what you wanted to hear tho..

    If you would consider the TDI, I highly recommend taking both on the very route you plan to drive everyday. You will see that the TDI will hill climb and have a lot more torque for passing on a hill also. If you haven't tried one, you will be totally amazed. If your concern is no handy diesel refueling stns close by, I would simply keep one or two 5 gal jerry cans of fuel at home. Just one can would let you make over 3 daily commutes.
    The TDI would give over 50! mpg on flatter terrain and in the summer. So fort hills and including the winter fuel differences, I'd say you would still get real world of over 40 mpg easily. Keep in mind too that in A/C weather, again the torque of the TDI will not fall prey to the load on the engine with A/C nearly as much as with the gas engine.

    The ONLY caution I have with the new 'clean diesels' are the measures they have taken to get them to pass the enviro regs here. They are laden down with more electronics and pre and after burner type tech that someday will cost money to fix. Give me a 2006 TDI anyday.
    I still think if i did your miles, I'd still go with the TDI and plan to keep the car for 200k mi or even a bit more. Say 10 years? They have among the best rust corrosion resistance so I think that if you maintained the car with proper oil changes etc (and if you live a top a hill, I would idle the turbo down for about one minute before shutting off) I think you could surpass your 130k mi tradein interval by a fair bit. I am almost inclined to say you could probably dbl it. And the fuel savings over 260k mi would be approx 3800 gallons fewer that you would burn. I used 42 on the TDI and 26 on the 2.5. I penalized the FE of the 2.5 cuz of the hills and A/C in the hills. Fact is, over 260k mi. I actually think you would avg more than 42 with the TDI. My friend averaged 56 mpg with his old 86 Jetta TDsl over the LIFE of the car. (over 300k mi when he traded it on a new 2011 Golf wgn). He never required turbo work. Never had any internal engine parts replaced except for timing belts and waterpumps. Replaced the glowplugs only once. It did have a bad diesel injector pump leak which was the deciding factor to finally retire the car. He also hadn't fixed the A/C for the last few years and really missed that in the summer. He regularly got 65 mpg hwy and 50 strictly city, in the summer using A/C with a manual tran. No mountains tho, but lots of city stop and go. So subtract 20% cuz if u are in the USA, your gal is smaller.

    Owners who would be best to shy away from owning a diesel would be ones who live in town and only drive a few miles to work or the store. Short trips, especially in the winter, is what will prematurely kill a diesel. You guys tho are excellent candidates if you ask me.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I'd not expect significantly better mpg, maybe 1-2 mpg better, based on EPA ratings and CR tests for the 2004 TSX and the 2010/2011 Golf.
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    I Live 20 miles south of Paris. Office is in Paris center
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    >How can a VW polo with a 1.4 liter compete with the fiesta, or any other 1.6 liter ?

    I would rather see the 105HP 1.2 TSI compete with non turbocharged 1.6 engines. Thanks to this little wonder, the Polo can go around 9.5 sec 0-62mph with the DSG. I think the Honda Fit, the Fiesta and the Yaris will need above 10sec for the same run.

    And VW announce good fuel mileage figures.
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    I could not comment much on the 2.5 engine, but I would recommand the 2.0 TFSI which gets much better mileage and low-end torque.

    While smooth-running, the 2.5 is not known for good fuel efficiency. It has been dropped from the catalog in many European countries (in France at least)

    Regarding reliablility, VW gas engines are pretty much without trouble. Our company had several Passats and we have yet to see issues with electronics.

    VW reputation for reliability is average here. Looking at Autobild articles is pretty interesting as they test a lot of vehicules in the long-term over 62.000 miles. Regretfully only in German.
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    edited January 2011
    Just got a call from the dealership. Our purchase will be delivered next week. We will make the T/T as soon as we get the invoice. Actually, this will be the right last day of the promised schedule.

    I added rubber floor mats and cargo bay mat for an extra $90 and reminded them to remove any kind of logo and stickers.

    Here is a rendering of the chosen color
    image

    I realize this is the very first time I ordered such an expensive car and that I never test drove any such model, nor was I passenger in any beforehand. Basically, I chose upon brand reputation, specs sheet data and car magazine test reports. Hope I made a sensible choice.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    It's a great looking ride. But why did you not test drive? Sometimes the simplest of things can be a deal breaker. Like realizing that when you have your winter boots on, there isn't proper room for your feet. Or there is a whistle or road noise higher than you want, or that the headlights don't shine far enough up the road on low beam. Stuff like that, which often doesn't come out in reporting.
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    >But why did you not test drive?

    Well, I always do it for used cars, naturally. But for this, it was not possible to quickly find a model with this combination of motor and transmission. Moreover, I won't be the only one driving it. As we had a good driving experience with the Passat, I speculated it wouldn't be much worse with the Golf.
    You are right with the details that may not show up in a test report, but I wouldn't be able to test at night time and couldn't go very far/quick in traffic jammed Paris. Getting a good picture of the car would have been difficult anyhow.

    My purchasing experience wasn't great all in all. Sales rep was either busy with other customers or on the phone and had little education on services that surround the car (and maybe the car itself). We did some talk through email and my threats to cancel the order if deadlines were not met were just enough to avoid moss gathering on the stone. In short I wanted to reduce interaction with sales rep to the strict necessary.
    Dealer was near company office and we couldn't afford to go any far when servicing the car.

    I plan to subscribe to a warranty extension to 6 years. This has to be done with third party companies as VW extension goes to max 5 years and 100K miles (160K Km) . Kia offers 7 year /150K km warranty on its new models.
    I feel VW and many European brands are too complacent and don't seriously encompass where the real competition is going from
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    I took delivery of the car this morning, drove the car back to office, then to home tonight.

    At first sight, I wasn't much impressed. After all, other makes (Renault, Opel, Peugeot, Ford, even Fiat..) improved their interior styling and material quality to the point of being pretty competitive with VW.

    However, after fiddling with the buttons, starting to use basic functions, things look pretty well sorted out. Openings open in a damped and silent fashion, devices look like well screwed together.
    The dash, while remaining very conventional (or we could say bland) is pretty functional.

    I paired my mobile phone through Bluetooth without a sweat, which is not so bad as it is my first time using bluetooth on a phone and on a car.

    image
    The NAV system looks like nice and well integrated, but I didn't use it yet.

    On the road back home, the car is riding in a mich firmer manner than my previous soft sprung Citroen C3. Road noise is well kept in check, while the engine roar is very muted. It wouldn't be easy form me to guess I was driving a diesel.

    The DSG changes speeds in a very seamless fashion. If I don't look at RPM or gear number, I just can't feel which gear I am driving. The feeling is pretty close to that of a CVT (I had a Honda fit with CVT before)
    the box basically keeps engine RPM between 1200 and 1600 RPM, when driving smoothly. It is like just going above tickover.

    All this induce me into thinking I am going slowly, which is not the case.
    As I don't feel the speed, much less than my previous car, it is very easy to go over the speed limits without noticing.

    On my short trip with 1/3rd downtown, 1/3rd urban highways, 1/3rd 2-lane roads, the computer displayed an average fuel consumption of 4.8 L/100KM (49 mpg) which is allegedly lower than my previous (smaller, lighter and 35HP less powerful) C3. I will keep a careful monitor on the fuel mileages.

    image
    My first stop for Fueling. Filled 47 liters (12.4 USGal) for a total price of Eur 65 (about USD90) , yes, that is nearly $2 a liter...

    image
    Back home..
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited February 2011
    Interesting review. It's a looker for sure. VW does do muting of NVH on their diesels (and gas jobs FTM) well. I am not a fan of all the red dash lighting, especially when the symbols are as small as they are in VW. This is something that a young person with young eyes won't understand until they age. I would like to be able to turn the light intensity down on most of those without affecting speedo/tach. I also don't know why they don't offer a light colour choice as it is so easy with LED. And it wouldn't cost them but pennies per car if that.
    My confidence in damped openings starts after they are about 4 or 5 years old and when it is -30 out. Still though, is encouraging when they start out nice and fluid and strong.

    I empathize with your pain at the pumps. In Canada, though we are not near $2/litre yet. But we did have $1.40 in places 2 years ago during a lot of storm activity/damage. Today with the higher oil prices of late we are $1.15+ gas. Diesel, add 10 to 15 cents.

    Your mileage isn't that bad given it is brand new and tight. What size is it over there? We get the 2.0 here now. Up from the 1.9 earlier TDI's. Seems to me they went 2 litre when they went "green or clean diesels" when they started with the urea routine. Do they do that there? In gas jobs they offer the old iron block 8 valve 2.0 and the 2.5 five cylinder and 2.0 turbo in some trims or models. I am not totally up to speed with the 2011 Golf and Jetta lineup here.
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    > This is something that a young person with young eyes won't understand until they age

    I am happy to be still considered young , as I did not much get annoyed by the red color. For some reason, I even found the red somewhat soothing to the eye.
    I agree though switching colors would be nice to fit all tastes.

    >My confidence in damped openings starts after they are about 4 or 5 years old

    Of course, time will tell.

    >Today with the higher oil prices of late we are $1.15+ gas. Diesel, add 10 to 15 cents.

    Oil barrel is only about $100 a barrel. There is no reason prices would not reach the levels of summer 2008 and even above, as I firmly believe this is a durable trend. The crisis just interrupted this trend, but not anymore imho.
    I expect a liter to raise up to Eur 2. China car market is still a double digit increase, and Russia/Brazil/India are doing strong

    >What size is it over there?
    I guess you are talking about engine size, right ? this is the recent 1.6 Liter TDI. while much more silent than the 1.9 and despite having the same torque and HP on paper, this engine is not considered as powerful as the old one.
    If you were thinking about tire size, ours are 205X16R55. More than enough for this

    The version I have is called Bluemotion. It comes with automatic start stop and a few rolling friction reduction measures to increase fuel mileage (by about 10% on paper). CO2 emissions are 109g/km on the European -and unrealistic- benchmark.

    image

    Start/stop is working quite well in fact. When engine is hot enough (and some other criteria are met) , it just switches off 2 seconds after I depress the brake pedal. I restarts as soon as I release the pedal. the process seems pretty straightforward and the slight delay is acceptable when the traffic lights turns green .

    There is very litte shake, although i feel the whole process more than I hear it.

    I am not sure about the urea. I think it may come with new emission standards in 2014
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    I am closing now 900 km (560 miles) with a single tank and I still have 110 miles left according to the board computer. My next diesel stop will tell me if the claimed overall 4.8 L/100 (49 MPG) is real or optimistic. Driving is 1/3rd city, 1/3rd highway, 1/3rd 2-lane roads.

    If such a figure confirm, then the golf would be thriftier than my previous 70hp smaller and lighter Citroen C3, which is good news.

    image

    I noticed a small noise seemingly coming from somewhere in the top of the dashboard

    image

    This noise appears only when engine is maintained between 1100 and 1300 RPM and is pretty low. it looks like something is not properly tighten, which distracts from an overall good quality feel. I will mention this in a next service.

    image

    Inside accomodation is pretty generous for a car this size

    image

    whereas rear boot size is fair with a straightforward shape. I regret there is no full size spare wheel. the tailpipe pollution control system is taking more accomodation in this low-emission model than with non bluemotion models

    I really enjoy the front seats for their comfort and supportiveness. Even in tight turns, my body is firmly kept in place, which strengthens the feeling of safety.

    The steering wheel feels precise and confidence building too. it is covered with a matt and soft leather that feels very good when held. Steering feels qite light, but nothing that gest in the way of the driving pleasure.

    image

    Engine feels strong enough for the task. Thanks to a linear torque curve and tall gearing (35 MPH / 1000 RPM in 7th speed) , it feels a very competent highway cruiser. I don't understand why this engine isn't offered in the US. It isn't any noisier than the 4 cyl 2.0 gas engine of my mothers Nissan station wagon.

    I tried the navigation a few times. It works OK but does not list speedtraps. A dedicated device will be needed, as the impression of speed is so remote that we end up at extra legal speed without even realizing.

    Breaking -in supposedly ends in after about 400 miles. Even during this critical period, I can drive pretty much without concern, as the engine doesn't need to struggle to put this car in motion
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    First tank after 976 km (610 miles) . Refilled 51 liters.
    Overall consumption was 5.22 L per 100 km (45.06 MPG) .
    Boar computer indicated 4.8 L/100 overall (49 MPG ).

    I can not explain the difference. Maybe the engine breaking in is not calculated by the computer. All trips were basically commuting trips of 22 miles with an equal mix of city, highways and smaller roads.

    I also filled the tank to the utmost level. I speculate I put 1/2 or 1 liter more than in the first time I went to the station.

    I haven't been driving slow though, as I routinely go over posted speed limits by 10-15 mph. For a larger and more powerful car than my previous one, getting exactly the same fuel economy figures isn't that bad.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Those seats look like they have my name on them.

    I worked your mpg out to be 54. I guess you used the US 3.78 litre. I'm used to your 4.54609 litre/gal

    Eat your heart out hybrids. And you can drive it like you stole it..
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    the Golf just passed the 1500 km (930 mi) mark which ends the breaking in period. I allowed myself to press the right pedal a bit more on the highway back to home today. Reaching 75 mph uphill proved effortless and, although acceleration was felt, the gearbox did not drop any gear, using the good part of the 250 Nm (180 Lbf ) delivered from 1600 RPM upwards.

    Overall fuel consumption is showing 4.9 L/100 km, which represents about 48 mpg. Hope the real numbers will match this forecasted figure.
  • Please forgive the novice-type question, but I haven't driven VW in 30 years!

    I'm considering a 2-dr, 2.5, auto, but am annoyed at the paucity of available options.....and as little as I drive, it would take forever to recoup the premium on the TDI (not even counting higher financing costs).

    I read one post on another site where an owner had the dealer install the 17" Goal alloy wheels, which would be nice, but I'm more interested in leatherette seats.

    Is it possible for a dealer to order as an accessory (or replacement part, whatever works), then replace 2.5 standard cloth seats with leatherette seats? More importantly, perhaps someone with VW experience could tell me if this is even a cost-effective idea.

    Thanks!
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    >> Is it possible for a dealer to order as an accessory (or replacement part, whatever works), then replace 2.5 standard cloth seats with leatherette seats?

    I came across the same problem here in my country

    One way is to find a leather smith (not sure about the exact name in English) who would be able to cover the seats with stitched leather. Good smiths can make the seat look as neat as factory made ones, but the price will be dear (aka 3000 USD for a full set).
    Leatherette would be 20% cheaper as most of the cost is that of workmanship.

    Second way if you mean to replace the full seat is to buy new ones with Recaro. Excellent seats but leaves the problem of the rear bench unanswered.

    I also lament the lack of upholstery choice here. a real shame
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    Now reaching about 2000 miles and just filled the tank.

    Fuel consumption is steady around 5.2 L/100 , which is around 45 mpg
    OBC shows 5.0L /100 so still a bit too optimistic, but the gap shortens.
    I press the right pedal a bit more and reach 80 mph at times.

    I briefly went into triple digit and pressed hard to see how the engine was doing. The growl is special. Not nice nor unpleasant, but just like in between (what I would view as) a typical diesel and a gas engine.
    The torque is present, although not as generously as with the 2.0.

    Overall, a satisfying experience.

    I biefly drove my previous car just before selling it on private ad. At first I thought there was something wrong with it. Engine was noisy, auto trans morbidly slow, suspension soft, generous in NVH... But the buyer did not seemed as shocked as I felt.
    In fact, my old car was normal. I just took the comfort offered by the Golf as granted.
    Calling the difference night and day would be an exaggeration , but not a total lie.
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    >I worked your mpg out to be 54. I guess you used the US 3.78 litre. I'm used to your 4.54609 litre/gal

    I am confused. I tried to express with US measures, while I think 4.54 L a gallon is imperial, right ?

    I wish we all used the same measures to avoid those ridiculous conversions.
  • jbaustianjbaustian Posts: 78
    A dealer is unlikely to swap leather or leatherette seats out of a premium model, to install in a base model, because then he is left with a premium model with cloth seats.

    You might be able to find the seats you want at a salvage yard, as any Golf, Jetta, or GTI from the same A5 platform has the same seat frame dimensions. So you might focus on GTIs or Jetta GLI's in your search for the right seats and trim.
  • lcw1lcw1 Posts: 35
    The Jetta is more spacious, gets same gas mileage so why byu the Golf instead of the Jetta or vice versa?
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    Well, as a European living in an urban area, I value having a smaller car outside, while keeping inside accomodation as bearable as possible. The golf offers a decent compromise already with the praticability of a hatch.

    The new jetta is nearly as big as the previous gen Passat. Imho, It is another class already.

    It is true that buying the Golf is like paying more to get less sheet metal. This may also come because the Golf has a higher perceived image than the Jetta in this country.

    Your question makes sense
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    The Golf went past its 3000 miles mark. It has been used for a 1500-mile trip by our sales manager.
    I drove it myself for a 400-mile return trip to the Futuroscope Theme park, 200 miles south west of Paris. The drive was enjoyable as I borrowed a GPS radar locator which allowed me to be more relaxed with speed limits.
    This is not a detector. it is a GPS device that taps on a database filled by other drivers who press a button every time they come across a mobile speed trap. Works not bad.

    The trip was done with the wife and two small children. This was an enjoyable experience with little drama. The engine goes effortless into triple digit. Most of the time, cruise control was set at 90, but on the stretch back , I followed a flow of cars going faster.
    Despite this, fuel economy remained above 40 mpg which I think is reasonable.

    Wind and road noise remained at reasonable, which made driving enjoyable. The downside is the lack of rear seat reclinment which forced the kids to sleep like in the economy class of an airliner.

    The GPS worked well, although I went across an intersection which was not yet mapped in this 6-month old car.

    This car gets dirty very quickly. Front rims get dark and dust collects quickly. Regretfully, not time to wash it weekly like in the Edmunds' fleet.

    I guess I won't give any update until Fall, because I will mostly use my scooter to commute to work until weather becomes colder. Should anyone have question, pls don't hesitate to ask
Sign In or Register to comment.