Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

18448458478498501065

Comments

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    edited December 2012
    No it is not a big car, it is a compact CUV and weighs about the same as my 2007 Mazda6 and only has one less hp. Nobdody was accusing the Madza6 of being a Porsche but nobody called it underpowered either. Mazda has fixed this problem by putting the 2.5L into the 2014 CX-5 which has 20+ more hp. Every single review I have read on the CX-5 has concluded that it is a "drivers crossover", just not with breakaway, off the line speed. It will get out of it's own way if pushed hard. I've test driven them myself and I was impressed at the ride and cornering ability. Steering was better than my 2013 RDX but I agree that more power would have been nice but certainly not necessary. Show me another CUV in that class that averages 28mpg and gets 26mpg in the city. Those high MPGs don't come free.

    From what I read they are being sold about as fast as the dealers get them and they have been out for about 11 months now. That's demand that many competitors would like to have.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    There were no markings on the rear - just Optima and GDI. It only had 8K miles so not sure about the year. The stereo wasn't that great now that you mention it. We kept it turned down for the most part for conversation purposes.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    If it had rims, fogs, and dual exhaust w/no markings but GDI on the trunck it is an LX. The LX has smaller 16" alloys, No dual zone A/C,No leather, no wood trim, no manual mode for the trans, no HID's. MSRP $19,900.

    The EX has 17" rims, dual zone A/C, sport-shift trans mode, leather seats, Black Zebrano wood trim, soft touch dash, rubber trunk liner and floor mat set + carpeted summer mats, etc. MSRP $24,250

    Basically some of the little touches that make it a little more desirable...and the 17" rubber is nice.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Pos Model
    1 Ford Focus
    2 Hyundai Elantra
    3 Toyota Corolla
    4 VW Jetta
    5 VW Passat
    6 Ford F-Series
    7 VW Golf
    8 Chevrolet Cruze
    9 VW Polo/Vento
    10 Ford Fiesta

    VW and Ford are doing very well. However, the only mid-size in the top ten is the Passat.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    There was no dual zone A/C - it was manual control only but it did have manual shift mode for the tranny although I didn't use it. No leather or wood trim. No HIDs.
  • I'll be picking up my Passat SE tomorrow night. From an all-around perspective I just can't find a reason not to buy one. That coupled with the sign and drive and the $1,250.00 incentive currently being offered makes it the best lease deal on the US market right now. I also happen to truly like the car so that helps :)
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    please let us know how it goes w/ the Passat. Are you getting the one with the 170 hp I-5? It won a few mid size sedan comparo's just a few months ago.

    It's a solid car that's hard to beat and I heard it is very roomy.
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    edited January 2013
    curious to see how Camry sales are going to be over the next few months. With the bad news on crash data I will be interested if consumers even care about crash tests. My prediction is the Honda Accord will move to number 1, the Fusion will be 2, Camry 3, Altima 4, Malbu 5
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    I don't think there is any way that the Fusion can overtake the Camry that quickly.
  • ajr1775ajr1775 Posts: 33
    edited January 2013
    The car is as advertised. Picked it up last night, 2013 Passat SE in Black with Black V-tex interior. Sale price of $24,500.00 including the destination charge. VW had a $1,250.00 lease incentive and that helps to get the lease rate down. Sign and Drive, they make the first months payment. So, my only out of pocket is the tag which I have yet to pay, they'll call me when it's ready and I'll pay then. Monthly payment is $289.00, their first offer was $308.00 per month and of course you never take the first offer. I probably could of nagged a bit more but we were just trying to get the F out of there on New Year's Eve and we had two little ones in tow.

    So, no cons to report. What I like about it:
    1. Styling is descent; no too eccentric, it's just right for me.
    2. Interior is good. The hard plastic surfaces that are there are not as much of an eye soar as they use to be on older VW models. Lots of space on the inside, I hate tight interiors. The V-tex is surprising, they did a very good job with it. Seats are just right, not too cushy and not too hard. The touch screen controls are easy to use. Bluetooth to my Iphone works well, sound quality is good. Cabin insulation is the best I've experienced in a car for this price. Trunk is good; they did a good job on dressing the hinges and the indoor trunk handle for closing the trunk is a novel idea.
    3. Ride is great. I don't like touchy brakes and jiggly suspensions. The Passat is just right, good "feedback". You know what your car is doing without being jarred about or being too dampened.
    4. Best engine so far on a Passat. I drove a 2004 for some time. The engine is pretty quiet. Acceleration is sufficient. Some people complained of a delay on the acceleration, I have no idea what they're referring to. Braking is good, not too touchy. Breaking distance is not the best according to reviews but I can't comment on that, felt OK to me.
    5. Driver's view is excellent. I really like view out of the front and side windows.

    So, no cons I can think of. I'll report back later with any I may find. Also, for relevance sake, I test drove a Fusion, Optima, Accord, and Hyundai. Happy hunting folks and I hope you find what you're looking for out there.

    My final thought, great value and then some.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,174
    sounds like a good deal. I just described it to my son. He is graduating college in May, and if things go according to plan, he gets a real job and will need a newer/reliable car. Given the lack of bank account, most likely we will be looking at something like this to get him up and running. 3 years of cheap payments as he gets established, and saves money for his "dream" car.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • ajr1775ajr1775 Posts: 33
    That rate I got was based on 12K miles per year. I also looked at Jetta SEL and on a sale price to lease rate ratio the Passat lease rate is actually better. Not to mention it's about 15% less to insure the Passat over the Jetta.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Why does a college senior not have a bank account already? Just curious. Mine got a bank account when he was 16 (and working) and had a credit card 2 years later.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,174
    he has a bank account. There just won't be much in it when he finishes helping to cover costs of school. Certainly not enough to put a lot down on a car right after he graduates! He also has his own credit card, though with a modest credit limit at this point.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    I thought "lack of bank account" meant he didn't have one and didn't have any credit. I guess you really meant "lack of cash" which is redundant with "college student".
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    Is this the V6 or the I-5? First of all congrats. I know it's a nice car.

    The 170 HP I-5 is being phased out in favor of the I-4 1.8T coming out in about 6 mos. Don't get upset. It's a great engine. It has to go in favor of smaller, boosted engines that get killer fuel economy at cruising speeds. Also, even my KIA has 200 HP out of a 2.4, so the 5cyl is 30HP down.

    Volvo has also ditched the I-5 it has used for over 20 years, but since Volvo was purchased by China's Geely motors. So, there may be a day when Volvo is no longer Swedish as well.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited January 2013
    I wondered that too, as I have not checked the Passat yet for my car replacement. I thought I was going to go subcompact and still may, in search of lower mpg, but it is getting that even mid-sized cars are getting mpg figures sometimes exceeding the subs... (or at least real-world figures).

    But if VW is going to build a new 1.8T, I think that is a mistake to keep it as 1.8. The last 1.8T has a terrible reputation for being an oil burner and not really a very good engine for longevity, nor fuel economy either FTM. Plus it required premium gas, which is a huge financial hit if/or converted to mpg per $ spent.

    I have driven the 2.5 and while I know it has a bit of a reputation for not being as fuel efficient as its competition and still uses a cast-iron block (not that there is anything wrong with that, other than weight and the need to factor weight bias/balance/handling a little more diligently..in fact cast iron still makes one of the sturdiest platforms for engine rigidity rendering longevity) and also does not use direct injection (one of the more significant measures taken for Kia to get that 200 hp out of a 2.4 I4) but the 2.5 feels more balanced and smooth than an I4. To my seat of the pants, it feels (and sounds) more like a 6 than a 4. And there is an old saying that there is no replacement for displacement, and while on a technical basis displacement = displacement be it through bore size or stroke, the way you get that displacement, can be felt seat-of-the-pants in real world driving, and the torque produced, be it from increasing stroke (tending to increase vibration) or adding cylinders (smoother) seems to be a more accessible torque with lighter throttle applications. What I am trying to say, is that that 2.5 felt stronger than my 2.4 I4 even though they both put out the same torque (and hp) at basically the same revs. And of course I mean stronger by more than just 100 cc.

    I wanted to comment also on gas direct injection tech that seems to be all the rage lately. Sure it can give more hp and torque and (potential) fuel economy, but at what ultimate price? By this, I mean that when it comes time to replace the extra high PSI fuel pump and filter assemblies, and pricier injectors, you can be certain they are a lot more expensive than traditional pump/injector technology. This cost can quickly offset any potential fuel savings. The other variable too, is that while these direct injection systems can offer up pretty impressive mpg for gentle driving, they can also use a lot more gas if you are heavy-footed, which could further negate any actually $ savings over life of ownership. That said tho, owners who replace their car every less-than 100k probably won't be the ones flipping the bill for a new fuel pump, but might still feel the sting of injector replacements.

    I will be checking into the Passat with this 2.5 although a VW dealer is one of the ones that I am not close to. I would like to not assume that the 2.5 in the Golf gets better real-world mpg than the Passat. An example of this is the TDI version of both. Probably through a combination of gearing and wind drag, but I suspect the Passat is extra slippery through the air, because people are getting better highway mpg with their stick TDI Passat, than TDI stick Golf owners, which is a lot lighter and has a smaller frontal profile to cut through that wind.

    Your lease sounded great, but that depended on how many months was the commitment?

    You guys who have college kids that will soon be in a position to lease a car like a Passat, blows my mind. How times have changed over the decades..
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    DI engines don't use any more fuel under heavy throttle than non-DI engines. And fuel pumps and injectors should easily last 150K miles.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited January 2013
    Can't say that I can agree with you on this. Don't care to debate it, but derive my opinion from the facts (known to me as my understanding of them thus far) that...regarding the ability to direct fuel right into the combustion chamber, can have many perks, most due to that system's ability to utilize a more precise time factor of all operations. Being able to more precisely time (and size) the combustion gives great control, but also gives the potential for greater hp and torque. And because we (as Americans) have always been enticed that more is better, these DI systems put that capability in our hands. The fuel economy potential is there, if we proactively exercise discipline on the loud pedal. Sorta like the best of both worlds, but to get one, you must drive with proactive intent on the other..otherwise pay for the fun of the occasional spurt.

    Another example I could use is a turbo vs NA. A turbo can save you mpg if driven accordingly. But it can also give you the urge of a much larger displacement, at the expense of fuel economy. Just ask any owner of your average turbo'd car (let's say any Ecoboost ª, car, SUV or pickup) if it can suck fuel at a big rate if you are heavy footed, and I think you will find universal agreement that they can be quite thirsty if always pushed.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Of course if you use more throttle you'll use more fuel but that's not because of the DI which is what you were implying.
Sign In or Register to comment.