Howdy, Stranger!

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





2005 VW GOLF V

24

Comments

  • Not sure about your comments on Mazda, I like the new Mazda 3 interior better than the MKIV golf. Exterior wise, I think the Golf is a very good looking car, but I like the 3 better than the Jetta, and the 6 better than the Passat.

    And as far as the MPV (which I don't really care about either way), I think it (and any other minivan out there) look better than the Eurovan.

    What the Golf has that Mazda doesn't is a 3 door hatch - which is getting pretty rare these days. Looking forward to part 5.
  • revdrluvrevdrluv Posts: 417
    Agreed, I went and sat in several Mazda3s a couple of weeks ago and found the interior to be fantastic. Definitely equal to, if not better than all of the MKIV Golfs I have been in. The Mazda also has infinitely superior steering and shifting feel to any current VW product.

    That said I am looking foward to seeing what kind of job VW did with this new Golf, especially the GTi.
  • With all this hybrid Toyota stuff seems a hybrid VW diesel could win the MPG prize big time.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "Not sure about your comments on Mazda, I like the new Mazda 3 interior better than the MKIV golf."

    Even w/ the "6-star" interior, the VW Phaeton is a disappointing car when comes to ride comfort & steering/handling.

    The plush-interior Golf/Jetta IV has a telescopic steering wheel that's still too far away as if VW wanted to preserve the air-cool Beetle's tradition. I'll rather give up the VW's padded dashboard & go for Mazda's good driving position, even the past models w/o the telescopic adjustment. What Mazda loses is the noise level, especially when cruising on the concrete fwy.

    This is getting exciting, the Euro Focus has spawned all those suspension pieces to make these new cars competitive to each other -- Golf/Jetta/Passat, Mazda3, S40/V50, & even the Mondeo-based Jaguar X-Type. Then throw in the similarly roomy 3-series & TSX...
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "And as far as the MPV (which I don't really care about either way), I think it (and any other minivan out there) look better than the Eurovan."

    I like the Euro VW Sharan minivan's looks better than the Mazda MPV.

    & next year's Honda Odyssey? The smaller Japanese (4-cyl?)version sure looks way better than the "giant" one we're gonna get.
  • s0i0ds0i0d Posts: 3
    I have been holding out for the new Golf for many months now; hoping it would be here this fall. But now I see Edmunds has marked it 2006 Golf V. What's wrong with VW?

    Is it true that even if BMW-1 series coes to the US, it will only be the Sedan and not the hatchback? Any chances of Audi A3 coming to USA?

    All I want is a dependable hatchback with good mileage - preferably diesel / hybrid. Toyota Prius - they said they have a 12-month waiting list. Maybe Mazda 3 or Scion?
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Posts: 865
    While, you are describing some more expensive cars, you may want to look at a VW R32, you might want to try a Civic Si.
  • bretaabretaa Posts: 130
    ... Note that the A3 is indeed coming to the U.S. and actually shouldn't be priced that much higher than the Golf, given what the A4 goes for...

    - Bret
  • s0i0ds0i0d Posts: 3
    That would be great... but I see nothing on edmunds.com or on audiusa.com. Where did you find this info? Thanks!
  • dennisvwdennisvw Posts: 2
    I'm new to this board and have a long background of working with VW's (since 82) and currently work in a VW dealership as a service advisor. Here's what we've been told thus far about the new Golf.
      We will probably get the existing engine range to start, though, the diesel at this point is still up in the air. Diesels, if they come, will not be sold in California as they cannot meet the emmissions requirements there. Prices will be probably be higher than current models, but we don't know how much. As it is currently, the Passat is less expensive in the USA than in Europe (I was there last year and compared prices in a dealership over there, to ours).
       I have been told by a VW corporate person that the aim of VW is not to be a mass merchandiser of vehicles, but to move the brand up market; I took this to mean that the vehicle will be a fair percentage higher than our current model and that the vehicle will not be sold in the US until they think they have it right! (Given the issues of coils and window regulators, that's probably a smart thing). dennis
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    VW overexpanded in the US without adding adequate service bays or, in the San Francisco area, realistic service hours for working families. They need better service. I can deal with a car that breaks down more than a commodity car like a Toyota, but why can I get my Toyota serviced on MY schedule, while the VW was agony to get serviced?
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    If the new Golf is heavier (just a guess, new generations usually are) won't the current base engine make it really slow for a car at its price?
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    The car magazines have all stated the new base engine will be a 5 cylinder engine with about 150 hp. The optional 2.0 turbo four cylinder will have 200 hp. If the 5 cylinder doesn't make it, I would expect to see a nonturbo version of the new 2.0 multivalve engine. The accepted word has been that the current 2.0 will be dropped. I don't think VW wants to continue to embarrass itself by installing such a low tech engine in an all new car.
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    The reports I have read are that, in Europe, there is a normally aspirated 4 cylinder 1.6 that makes 115 hp (same as existing North American 2.0) and a normally aspirated 4 cylinder 2.0 that makes 150...so the 150 hp sounds right...but I haven't read anything about a 5 cylinder engine - is that brand new?

    I'd be really surprised if VW invests in a new 5 cylinder, normally aspirated 2.0 engine when they clearly have been pushing turbos as an alternative for those desiring better performance. Since VW has been too cheap to upgrade the normally aspirated 2.0 to multi valves, variable valve timing, and double over head cams, I doubt they will spend the enormous sums required to design, test, and gear up to build a totally new engine.

    In some ways it would be cheaper for VW to come out with a "lower boost" turbo (like with the PT Cruiser, which has a high output, intercooled turbo, and a non-intercooled, lower output turbo) than come up with one extra cylinder and all the hardware to go with it (the valve train etc). This is somewhat feasible, as a marketing tool, since the turbo has risen in power over the past 5 years from its early mediocre output. They could just "niche under" the present turbo.

    I do agree that when I got my 2001 Golf, I was pretty upset that the 2.0 normally aspirated was so low tech, way behind the curve. In reality, it had good freeway punch, because it was geared low - it was running 4000 rpm at 80 mph - I didn't have to throw a down shift to scoot up from 60 to 80, but at the same time, it didn't get rough or particularly noisy if I ran it up to 100 mph. For some reason it didn't run out of steam at the upper rpm range, despite the fact that it peaks torque very low in the rpm range - around 2200 rpm as I recall.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "...but I haven't read anything about a 5 cylinder engine - is that brand new?"

    No, it's just a VR5(a VR6 w/ one cylinder chopped off). One Brit car magazine pointed out that, compare to Audi's 1.8 turbo, this 5-cyl, which was introduced not long after the Audi's 1.8 turbo, costs more, has weaker torque, worse fuel economy, & no better smoothness, but...

    Since the 1.8 turbo has max torque all the way &, therefore, sounds boring(literally) & even feels boring due to lack of torque change for several thousand rpms, you're likely to FEEL more satisfying revving this 5-cyl back & forth, &, therefore, has more character!
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    Well, Europe is used to those small engines. Displacement based tax and all that. I don't know how they do it, everyone driving manual cars on cobblestone roads that are centuries old and aren't at all flat and level... it's impressive.

    Glad to hear the 2.0 won't be offered here though.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    The VR5 is a 2.4 liter engine if my memory serves me correctly. I think they are looking to match other small cars with big motors, like the 2.5 in the Sentra, 2.4 in the Lancer, and 2.3 in the Aerio. The 5 cylinder engine will feel much more powerful off the line then the old 1.8 turbo. No turbo lag to deal with. Fuel economy won't be great though.

    Honestly, I'll be sad to see the old 8 valve engine go. It's the last close tie to my 84 Rabbit GTI which has a bulletproof spunky engine. Over 20 years of service is a testament to the durable design of the engine.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX?viewUserProfile!vuserName=c- - reakid1

    Unfortunately the GEX header kept rubbing my GTI front swaybar(this Jetta didn't have a front swaybar to begin with), so the mechanic tried to move the header & broke it. Now I'm stuck w/ driving my Japanese cars for a while.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Posts: 854
    VW is so arrogant to think that their cars are "premium" and still have all these quality issues. Also, to think that people will sit and wait 6 years for a new design today is ridiculous.

    For the price of a cramped Jetta, one can get a nice roomy true mid sized car.

    They deserve their recent sales dive.
This discussion has been closed.