Howdy, Stranger!

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





Volkswagen Jetta 2006+

1272830323347

Comments

  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    How tall and thin this car is in person. It's gotta stand at least 60 inches high! And you feel it massively in the corners as the thing leans and dives like crazy.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 29,243
    Not in love with the wheels, but the overall look is a step up from the base model, IM(not so)HO...

    regards,
    kyfdx

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • dino001dino001 Tampa, FLPosts: 3,505
    But the plastic front looks even more like Corolla... I hate to say it, but here it is even a good thing, cause those chromes are probably the worst feature in the base Jetta.

    2012 BMW 328i wagon, manual and sports package. No. sold in the US: 1. Probably.

  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,896
    We're going to move this discussion to its permanent home on the Sedans board in a day or so. If you are subscribed to it or have it bookmarked, nothing will change for you. If not, now's a good time to do so. You can always locate this discussion using the search tools at the left. Thanks!

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,669
    With all the discussion regarding VW’s “base” 2.5L 5 cylinder producing only 150hp, it is interesting to read the new or “newer” engines coming out.

    A new 1.4L (turbo & supercharged) version produces:
    170 hp / 177 ft/lb (1750 – 4500)
    39-47 mpg on Euro tests, so not really comparable, but even the low end is pretty impressive.

    These stats would make a fine “base” engine.

    Not sure of the cost of this engine when comparing it to the 2.5L. I always thought the development and production of a turbo was more than a larger engine…even with more cylinders, larger cams, valves etc…so I’m not sure if the cost with a super charger AND a turbo charger would be any cheaper than making a 170hp version of the 2.5L (low torque of supercharger is always nice).
  • allhorizonallhorizon Posts: 483
    39-47 mpg on Euro tests

    Those are in imperial gallons, subtract 20% for US gallons. I wished VW would clarify when releasing its material - this practise is just not acceptable.

    At any rate, the 170hp TDI (the other new engine for the Golf GT) is the one I have been talking about. If VW has any sense, they should make it available in the US the day the new Diesel fuel regulations take effect.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,669
    You are correct.

    Mileage should read
    7.2 l/100km ~ 33 mpg
    5.9 l/100km ~ 40 mpg

    And that is the Euro (non EPA) test...
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Makes you wonder why go to hybrids?...Accord hybrid is at 29 mpg / 37 mpg and I understand the (some of the???) hybrids tend to not come close to advertised mpg.
  • jrct9454jrct9454 Posts: 2,363
    ...try to remember that none of these wonderful new drivetrains is planned for the US market - not the intriguing new compound turbo/supercharged gasoline engine, and not the new TDIs, either. VW execs here have already been quoted as believing that for the US, "displacement is king", and are correctly waiting for the American public to quit whining about fuel costs and start actually changing their behavior and buying preferences....though there is a chicken-egg thing that happens there: if you don't offer the option, and the market doesn't even know the engines exist [which most Americans won't], how do you develop demand?
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,669
    While I agree with you regarding hybrids (waste of money), the Accord has a higher output than the engines listed above (if that’s your thing). I don’t think hybrid mileage fairs as well as a diesel if driven even moderately aggressive (oxymoron ?).

    Perhaps hybrids wont be a “waste of money” once gas tops $5 a gallon.

    I read, somewhere, that VW will be bringing hybrids as well…but I won’t hold my breath.

    Personally I would pay the equivalent of $5 a gallon for an alternative to oil/crude/gas …just to give the middle east the big middle finger…
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    I thought of VW Jettas as sporty and more fun than a Civic or what not, but now VW makes the new Jetta about as cool as a Toyota Corolla.
  • allhorizonallhorizon Posts: 483
    The twin-charged small-displacement gasser could make sense if VW ever re-introduced a smaller vehicle (like the Polo) in the US, or perhaps in the New Beetle, or in cabriolets. Most safe cars weigh too much these days for people to get excited about 170hp, details of low-end torque get lost unless it is a low-consumption Diesel.

    Personally, I could envision buying a Golf in a 1.6 to 2 liter version of the twin-charged engine. And of course, it could be an upgrade path for the 2.0TFSI, if the technology proves itself and is not too costly/heavy.

    The 170hp 2.0TDI, on the other hand, I could easily see in a bunch of VW/Audi cars in the US. Don't see why it wouldn't be introduced at some point with the upcoming new Diesel regulations. What bothers me is that in the past, VW has quite regularly been late and behind in the US market even when they owned some technological advantage.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Most safe cars weigh too much these days for people to get excited about 170hp, details of low-end torque get lost

    Probably true, despite the fact that the majority of drivers seem to be afraid that they will break their car if they go over about 3000 rpm.

    Selling based gas mileage may become more effective than selling based on HP numbers, if gas prices stay high.
  • ...Most safe cars weigh too much these days for people to get excited about 170hp, details of low-end torque get lost...

    Probably true, despite the fact that the majority of drivers seem to be afraid that they will break their car if they go over about 3000 rpm.


    Crazy, but so true, isn't it? The sad part is that after introducing the 2.5 as a base engine, VW has made it really hard for themselves to put anything like these new developments as a base engine. What would they call it? A bargain-basement economy engine that happens to cost a little more than the base engine? Tough sale even if you can laud its low-end torque. Plus, on their own account their sales numbers for most models are too low to offer many engine models. I'd say, bite the bullet of higher assembly-line production costs and offer more engine choices to get out of this catch-22! What we need is people with some guts at VW and VWoA!
  • Hello. I'm new to VW so please bear with me. I got a 2006 jetta 2.5 three days ago and been noticing some issues already. When the sales person was showing us all the goodies that it offers, the supposedly "refrigerated" areas in the glove compartment and armrest console aren't working. No biggie, since I may not use it anyway but he said he'll have it checked the next time we went back to the dealer (it was around 9pm already). On our way home from the dealer, I was stopped at a traffic light and when it was time to go, I stepped on the gas but it barely moved. It was like the handbrake was on but it wasn't. So I gave it a little more gas and it jerked. Oh well, it's new so probably it still need some adjustments. And so I thought. My wife use it yesterday and today and she said the same thing, it's not responding to the initial acceleration after a stop. She said she almost hit the car in front of her because she gave it a little more gas and it took off fast.
    I'm going to a 300-mile trip tomorrow to break it in and see if it'll somehow adjust those components that needs adjusting.
    And one more thing, the sales guy said that it's ok to put 87 octone even though it says on the manual that it requires (recommend?) 89 octane. Is there any difference?

    Thx
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    I can only address the gas issue. I had two Mk IV (prior model) Golfs and they showed regular fuel on the EPA sticker (price sticker) but the manual recommended premium. I successfully ran regular in the first one, with minor pinging if I lugged the engine, but noticed an improvement in power and reduction in pinging when I used mid grade in it. On the second one, I followed the manual's recommendation and ran full premium in it, and felt the power and acceleration were much better with no pinging even under extreme lugging.

    If the sticker says regular, it will run ok, but if the manual recommends midgrade or premium, it will run better with the recommended fuel grade. If the manual REQUIRES midgrade, don't use regular no matter what the salesman says. Although you have a 2.5 normally aspirated engine and not a turbo, it's instructive that last year some 1.8 turbo owners getting service at my local dealer tried to use regular grade gasoline although premium is required, and experienced such driveability issues that the service department at my dealer posted a sign warning turbo owners not to use regular.

    VW is a premium brand and if they say you MUST use a grade, you really have to, and if they RECOMMEND a grade, you will benefit if you use it (but won't hurt the engine if you use a lower but authorized grade of fuel).
  • I know it says 89 octane, then midgrade it is. :)
    Thanks for your input chief.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Regular (87 octane) is fine for this engine. That is all that is required that is all we have used in ours.

    I don't think I'd keep driving with the problem you are describing, never had anything like that with ours.
  • I see. So how do you like it so far? never had any issues with it? I only have 45 miles on it, how about your car?
  • >On our way home from the dealer, I was stopped at a traffic light and when it was time to >go, I stepped on the gas but it barely moved. It was like the handbrake was on but it >wasn't. So I gave it a little more gas and it jerked.

    Something doesn't sound right. Did it do that on the test drive? If you have the automatic, it sounds like the gear isn't engaging right away, and you should check that out, quickly. A new car shouldn't do that. As for the gas, the VW manual says that you can use 87 in a pinch (even on my GLI) if there's nothing else available, but that you should use the higher grades as per the book on a regular basis. You won't get the advertised horsepower and probably not the fuel economy if you use 87 octane fuel as the engine will compensate.

    As for the cooled glove box, it's just a small vent, so the difference isn't dramatic (I had it in my 98 Passat and again in my 06 GLI). Perhaps the vent is blocked, but again, have the dealer check it out. I suspect VW will continue to falter in the JD Power 90 day survey if what I'm reading on these kind of threads is any indication.
  • Hi,

    I have been driving my 2006 jetta TDI w/ DSG trans for about a month now, and have put 5000km on it so far. I noticed slow response of accelerator as well, and it has not changed. After a month of driving I have become used to it and assume it is normal behaviour. I recall reading a road test that decribed the same symptom. Other than that, the car has had no problems. I will talk to dealer about the throttle delay at my first service. DSG trans is nice, but would be better suited to a car with more power, however, with gas at 1.25/litre, my choice of TDI was the right one. I will keep posting future issues.

    Cheers,

    GH
  • >Something doesn't sound right. Did it do that on the test drive? If you have the automatic, it sounds like the gear isn't engaging right away, and you should check that out, quickly.

    I test drove a different vehicle and landed with this one instead. The test vehicle was different and both cars only differ in color, both automatics. The feel was different, suspensions were different, and it was sturdy unlike what I have. Weird. I also just found out that last July, they had a recall on the gas supply clamp. It kinda sucks.

    "After having just been released, the New Jetta faces a major recall. Over 39,000 vehicles will be recalled. The recall was intiated at the request of the NHTSA and covers Jettas with the 2.5-liter gasoline engine. A fuel line supply clamp in the engine compartment may not be positioned correctly. This could cause a leak or even a fire if it is not inspected and fixed. It is typical for any new model to experience the pains of recalls, but it is unfortunate that the recall involves such a sensitive system."

    Since I bought mine only this week, they should have fixed mine, right?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    It is my wifes car and she still loves it. We have 2000 miles on ours and have had it for about 3 months now.

    Had it in once for 5 minor issues (one outer door panel very slightly mis-aligned, steering wheel a little off-center, 1/2 of rear dome light not working, the fuel line clamp recall, one rear door lock not fuctioning properly, and we also had them change the settings so that all door unlock when car is turned off) all of which were taken care of in the one visit.
  • That's one reason I like to test the actual car I want to buy. Notwithstanding that, I would have the dealer look at your car and make sure the recall was done. Don't assume it was, perhaps it slipped through the cracks. In any case, this is exactly what the 4/50 warranty is there for. If the brand new car doesn't seem right, better to get it checked out now and let VW make it right. It may well be that the car is in spec. I haven't driven the 2.5 or the automatic (the GLI "auto" I test drove is the DSG and so is a different transmission). However, it's better to get it checked out if you aren't sure. VW doesn't perform well in the 90 day JD Power surveys, so it's possible you have a transmission that needs to be reprogrammed (in which case it could be a rather simple repair).
  • After much arm twisting, I convinced my wife to go look at some new car possibilities. This is to be her car. We may have narrowed down the choices to either a decked-out Jetta or an Acura TSX. It was my idea to look at the Jetta, and my wife likes it, but now I'm not so sure. Are there any particular issues with this car that seem more common, other than generally poor dealer service? How's the gas mileage? I would really like to feel good about the Jetta, but, you see, I was the frustrated owner 20 years ago of an '85 GLI. In fact, I vowed to not get another VW, but I'm wavering. We are both concerned the new Jetta will rapidly devolve into a repair shop queen. Any convincing arguments for or against would be appreciated. Thanks.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,669
    I also compared these two.

    As far as specs go, the Jetta 2.0T is faster and has better mileage. They are around the same size and similar weight. The Jetta requires premium, not sure on the TSX (think so). The Jetta makes much more power down low so it should feel more powerful in day to day driving. If you live at a high altitude the turbo in the Jetta will still make the rated horsepower, whereas the TSX will not (it’s calculated at sea level).

    The Jetta has a one year (10k mi) better drivetrain warranty and better rust warranty (not sure how often that matters anyway).

    Both get Good on the IIHS frontal offset with the Acura getting best pick, Jetta has best pick for side impact (no test on TSX)

    What would persuade me in the Jetta direction is the DSG transmission. I find it amazing that you could get better mileage and performance (when compared to a manual) out of a transmission that let’s you shift when YOU want, but also gives you the convenience of slapping it in auto when shifting gets annoying.

    As far as dealerships…it all may depend on your area, and you will visit them for warranty service, so you should find one you feel confident in.

    With the Jetta being the first year model I can guarantee there will be issues (I had many with my 03 Accord) as there were with the TSX.

    I wouldn’t feel bad about picking one over the other, although my nod goes to the VW.
  • Thanks for the tips, Ivan. I should have mentioned that the Jetta we were looking at was a 2.5. I realize with that engine it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges and the Jetta will be a couple grand cheaper. Frankly, having a turbo scares me more than bad VW service. We keep cars a long time, and I'm under the impression that turbos rarely make 100k. What really impressed my wife was the memory seats and general seat comfort, plus the look of the car. She doesn't need more power. What bothers me is the fact that the TSX is faster than the 2.5 Jetta, while getting better mileage. Decisions, decisions.
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    Unfortunately, it seems to take VW longer than most manufacturers to "get the bugs out." There is an article about first year bugs at Consumer Reports. Basically, most car makers take 2-3 years to reduce the bugs to "normal" level, except Toyota which seems to do it in only one year. But even Toyota has more defects in the first year of model introduction. In my personal experience, initial defects on my 2001 and 2004 Golf were both low, but the 2002 developed undiagnosable driveability issues around 40,000 miles.

    If you really want to get the new Jetta this year, consider a lease with a term less than the manufacturer's warranty (which is a generous warranty) and make sure to get all regularly scheduled maintenance at the dealer to keep the warranty in effect.

    There are also a couple of VW "tricks." First, use 5-40 synthetic oil, as provided at the VW dealer, even for the 5 cylinder; it is a Euro spec oil specifically designed for VW and other German makes. VW specifies long (10,000 mile) oil changes and you shouldn't even think about this long without the synthetic (which is spec'd for the car, although they allow you to use 5-30 if 5-40 is not available. Please note that most dealers, shy about insisting on 5-40 full synthetic, offer 5-30 dino oil as an alternative, so don't go by what the service desk tells you, RTDM.

    Second, use premium gas. The 5 cylinder engine has adaptive engine tuning and runs optimally on premium. Regular won't hurt it, but you will lose responsivenss and power, and possibly pick up more engine knocking at low rpm under load.

    Third, don't have anyone but VW do oil changes. Besides the obvious difficulty of finding 5-40 oil at oil lube shops, the manual calls for using new drain plugs at every change to prevent damage to the oil pan. At the dealer, the plug is only a couple of bucks, but obviously lube shops don't carry them. Besides, I have had lube shops strip oil pans by overtightening.

    Fourth, do follow the manual for service. It calls for VW fluids, and you should use them since their coolant is very unique, for example. It also calls for brake fluid changes every two years regardles of mileage, to preserve optimum brake performance, and spark plug changes (unless the 5 cylinder is different) every 40,000 miles.

    I have found dealer service to be excellent, although prices vary considerably among dealers. Considering VW is a premium import brand, VW service is cheap, on par with service on Toyota's.

    The Acura will undoubtedly have better resale value and probably fewer long term problems. The VW will be a little "higher maintenance" but probably a lot more fun.

    One thing you can't overlook is the incredible, Volvo-like safety offered by VW: side air bags, side curtain air bags, 4 wheel disc brakes, ABS, stability control, and one of the few passing scores for the brutal side impact crash tests at IIHS, the insurance institute crash test. That is why I bought my VW's, and I felt safer in them - plus the incredible driver ergonomics. VW is truly for the enthusiast, and worth a little extra attention.
  • >That's one reason I like to test the actual car I want to buy.
    True. This actually was the first time I bought a car that I haven't driven before signing a contract.

    After putting almost 1k miles over the long weekend, the jerking stopped and I am now happy using the DSG trans. I am also getting a descent gas mileage. :)

    Here's my personal review of the car.

    PROS:
    - DSG
    - 6 disc frontload CD-mp3 readable player (converted 170 songs to mp3, burned it to a single CD and it's so sweet. I still have 5 empty slots to fill :) )
    - Trunk space
    - Interior space
    - A lot of standard features specially safety features incl. 8 airbags
    - Body style
    - Well-placed clusters
    - Cup holders
    - Sliding visor

    CONS:
    - Engine noise after a cold engine start- first 10 seconds is annoying
    - Tried changing settings for interior and exterior lights but didn't work. I still don't have footwell lights even after I set it to ON and at 100%
    - Opposite to the exhaust, on the right side facing the back of the car, there's a missing small cover or panel.
    - Wind noise on the freeway
    - Auto-open trunk door is temperamental. It works and it doesn't.
    - Suspension on bumpy road is between average to uncomfortable
    - Called Service 4 times in 2 days to setup an appointment and always gets the voicemail. Still waiting to call me back. :mad:

    Overall, I think it's a descent daily driver car and as long as it doesn't stall, I can live with most of the cons for now.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,669
    What bothers me is the fact that the TSX is faster than the 2.5 Jetta, while getting better mileage

    Yup...that'd be the "base" we've been having discussions about; the Turbo with Manual or DSG achieves a higher rating than the 2.5 with Auto.

    I just come to the conclusion that the 2.0T is that great of an engine and the 2.5 still delivers on it’s mission of providing adequate acceleration and mileage at a modest price (sound like a VW rep).

    Have you, or more importantly your wife, had an opportunity to drive the 2.5L back to back against the TSX?

    The TDI a consideration? $3+(if you're lucky) per gallon…ouch.
This discussion has been closed.