Howdy, Stranger!

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





Volkswagen Jetta 2005 and earlier

1183184186188189413

Comments

  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    Read my posts about the swaybar. ;) Made the Jetta a lot more fun to drive. And I like the 1.8T engine. Happy?
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    I was perusing VW's website to post the info above for MSeals, and I came across something that makes no sense to me.

    On the OLD 2.8V6 (174hp) model, the compression is 10.0:1, and it's the same on the 2.0 engine. The 1.8T's compression is 9.5:1. So it has a lower compression than the 2.0, why is VW recommending premium fuel for the engine? It doesn't look like (on paper anyway) that it would really matter, with such a low compression ratio. Or else it looks like premium should be used in all Jettas.

    I have been running 87-octane regular gas in my 2002 1.8T for about 4 months now, with no problems whatsoever. Performance has not dropped, neither has mileage. Why spend the extra money on premium when it's not really needed???

    Also, according to VWoA, the 1.8T goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds with the 5-speed. The 174hp engine does it in 8 with the same transmission. Weird that the Turbo 4 would be quicker than the 6, but it seems to be true. Now, of course, the 6 has an advantage with the automatic, but by only .3 seconds.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    You do have alot of negative comments about the Jetta though. He is kinda right. I understand them though, but I have also been here for awhile now. Maybe Fish has not.

    You seem to have this love/hate thing going with your Wolfie, and we all pretty much accepted it. :)
  • fish8fish8 Posts: 2,282
    Yes, That makes me happy!!! ;-)
  • msealsmseals Posts: 257
    The performance time is quicker for the 1.8t vs. the old VR6 because of one major thing, WEIGHT! The 6 weighs ignificantly more if I remember correctly. To the point of some magazines saying it was nose dive happy. When the 1.8t first came out it got tons of praise because it has near v-9 power but much less weight. Now that they upped the ante to 180 hp, that even leans more towards the 1.8t than the V-6. The only reason I would be the v-6 is if I had an auto and did a lot of city driving. The new vr6 seems to get mpg almost as good as the 1.8t. So much that I am considering that too in the GLI. The only thing is the price.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    Justin had the old VR6 and has the new turbo 4. I think he said the VR6 used alot more gas. Am I correct, Justin?
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    The GLI's 6 speed makes it even more attractive. 200 HP, all that torque and a 6 speed. Nice. But that heavy nose thing was a big issue for me with the VR6s I test drove. I felt like someone was perched on the corners of the car's hood.

    Vocus, so true about the love/hate. Can't understand why. When it comes to my relationship with car it's mercurial at best. I'll have a fabulous time driving it one day and then next I feel like it has no power and it's wobbly. I think it all comes down to my deep-rooted hatred of the Jetta for nor being an M5 at a 1/4 the price. :)

    I saw a GTI 337 the other day. Wow, nice looking ride. Like the 18s.
  • fish8fish8 Posts: 2,282
    Is that really blueguy on this thread? Welcome!!!!!!
  • msealsmseals Posts: 257
    I know the old VR6 sucked the gas, but I was refering to the ratings that the new 200 hp one is rated at. I believe that it is 24 and 30 mpg, that is very respectable in terms of the HP that you get. You would still need to address the weight issue. I would think that some really stiff springs would help that up front, but then you would be having to address handling as a whole for the car. I would think that unless some adjusting was done, the stiffer springs up front would unbalance the whole cars handling.

    fish: What are you talking about, I see blueguy on this thread as well as the Jetta problem thread all the time.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    in a nutshell:

    1st gear is the same
    5th gear is now 6th gear, and gears 2 through 5 are shorter throughout.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    The 24V V6 gets 21/30 with both the 5-speed automatic and with the 6-speed manual. Considering my 1.8T is rated for 22/29 with the Tiptronic automatic, that is a pretty good rating.
  • justinjustin Posts: 1,918
    the 12v VR6 is much heavier than the 1.8T i think. my VR6 was smooth and fast, but sucked gas and had major front end dive when braking hard.

    i feel kind of bad for Blue. it has got to be exhausting to run so hot and cold about a car. i would simply get rid of the car and go buy the "real car" that he is referring to. let me guess - a BMW 3 series? pretty predictable. i say the jetta is the deal of century when price, safety, looks/style, and performance are all taken into account. NOTHING out there can outclass, out perform, or in general out do it, even for thousands more $$. you would have to spend in the mid $30's to get something better. i don't have that kind of cash :)

    i am not sure that i would ever actually buy a car for that much money anyway, unless i was wealthy. at the end of the day, what is the difference between 0-60 in 7.5 seconds vs. 0-60 in 8 seconds, ya know? same for braking and handling.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    The wheels from the new 24V GLX are called "Bugatti", and they are 16s. You had said you wanted to know a couple days ago. I just found the info on CarsDirect.com. Enjoy.
  • AnakinAnakin Posts: 410
    If your girlfriend's car was a 1996 model, it is not relevant if someone is asking about reliability of a 2002 model, considering the difference in platform and myriad improvements over the last 6 years.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    I hear that the 12V VR6 is alot heavier in the front end than the 1.8T is, that's why it's the preferred engine for performance.

    I never drove the 2000-01 1.8T models (150hp one), but I hear the new 180hp version is alot better. Glad I waited for the 2002 model.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    The older Gen III Jettas/Golfs (1993-99) had pretty bad reliability, from what I have heard. There have been alot of improvements since then, and the car is actually recommended by Consumer Reports from what I have heard.
  • justinjustin Posts: 1,918
    thanks. they are really nice looking. i am very impressed with the way 16's look on the Jetta. not too big, not too small. just right.

    blue - what did you do with your Wolfsburg wheels, anyway? did you keep them and install the sway bar, or get new 17" wheels?
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    He kept the wheels. Anakin is the one who got new wheels. :)

    The 17s really do change the car's handling characteristics alot. I have a 2001 Golf loaner with the std. suspension and tires, and the tires howl way too easily when making quick turns. The car also leans alot as well. I found this out definitely this morning on the Capital Beltway on the way to work. I swerved to miss a piece of tire in the road at 70mph, and the Golf (for a split second) felt like I had lost control. Not so in the Jetta with its 17s.
  • anonymous02anonymous02 Posts: 1,538
    anakin~
    I didn't see any specification on year. I still consider this car to be kind of newish. (It has less than 100,000 miles, and no major rust yet, and less than 10 years old).

    vocus~
    Reliability was (is) not bad, not great. Her friend has a 1997 which has been far worse. I prefer the looks and styling (and size) of the 1996 over what is currently produced. The Passat wagon is not bad, though. The regular Passat and Jetta are too round and bubblish looking for our tastes. I'm glad the reliability is up. That is not what I have heard from recent Jetta owners.
  • anonymous02anonymous02 Posts: 1,538
    on transmission, suspension, tires?
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    Have you cosulted a VW dealer yet? Just wondering, maybe they would be able to help you. Or else a good VW mechanic that you can trust.

    Recent Jetta owners, as a whole, have had less problems than the Gen III owners have. It seems now the only problems are rattles. The window regulator woes seem to have dissipated, and even the MAF sensor issues are pretty much gone too. VW even lowered the price dramatically of the MAF sensor (in case something does happen). VW also increased the warranties on all their cars to 4 years/50K miles basic (from 2/24), but they did lower the powertrain warranty from 10/100 to 5/60 (it's now transferrable now though, and it was not before unless it was an immediate family member). It seems VW has more faith in their cars now.
  • anonymous02anonymous02 Posts: 1,538
    Hah! Read back 20-50 posts and see what I think of VW dealers.

    If there were a good VW mechanic nearby, I'd go, but I don't know of any (central Massachusetts area).

    VW may have more faith, but I have less. I have a bad taste in my mouth due to that one dealer experience. Besides, we no longer find the cars attractive since the round design came out. (I take it a 1996 is a "Gen III"?)

    Thanks anyhow.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    I would think the specific mechanic for VWs would be the only one to help then. I am sorry, I don't know any so mechanics in the MA area (I live in MD). I would suggest possibly checking the local yellow pages to find one around that area.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    8u6hfd...did they really do that with the 6th? Argh! Why can't we get a freaking cruising/overdrive gear anymore with manuals?!!! Until the Jetta I was used to 5th being the overdrive and my cars would loaf along at 75-80-90, etc. The 6 speed offered so much hope...

    Justin, >>let me guess - a BMW 3 series?<<

    No.
    >> pretty predictable.<<

    Obviously not. :P

    >> i say the jetta is the deal of century when price, safety, looks/style, and performance are all taken into account.<<

    For 21k and below, we're on the same page.

    >>NOTHING out there can outclass, out perform, or in general out do it, even for thousands more $$. <<
    For 23k you can slip into a WRX and that nukes the Jetta. Not as luxurious but it's just as safe and it's got far better performance.

    >>you would have to spend in the mid $30's to get something better.<<

    29k gets you a G35 that has more room, more power, more luxury, better handling, better reliability, much better dealer service and a longer warranty, RWD, IRS, auto climate, etc. 25k gets you into a fully loaded max SE. You may not dig it, but it's a superior car.

    >> i don't have that kind of cash :) <<

    Me either. I just bought a house.

    >>i am not sure that i would ever actually buy a car for that much money anyway, unless i was wealthy. at the end of the day, what is the difference between 0-60 in 7.5 seconds vs. 0-60 in 8 seconds, ya know?<<

    Um, well the WRX is in the high 5s, the G35 is consistently 6.2 with an automatic (manual coming, coupe coming with more power) and the Max SE is floating around the mid 6s too. That's a sizable difference.

    >> same for braking and handling. <<

    Right but you don't like flogging your car. For some of us, driving is only fun if we've got the car pinned on a 270 degree on-ramp at thrice the legal limit. (please don't mention safety... :))

    Anonymous, just ask at www.vwvortex.com. The veedubbers over there are knowledgeable and slightly insane. They can answer any question.
  • anonymous02anonymous02 Posts: 1,538
    I applied for a password at vwvortex a few days ago. Still waiting.

    I have limited patience for limit access. I will re-ask: if someone here wants to post for me at vwvortex, please do, and let me know here.
  • justinjustin Posts: 1,918
    sure, for the SAME monthly payment, i would take a G35 over my Jetta. but i wouldn't pay more for it. cheap interior (i looked). seriously, the interior of the G35 was as cheap as my 2001 Civic Coupe. that faux metal has got to go! why not use chrome like VW? and the instruments - they are 96 camry-esque.

    and the WRX - give me an Aztek. it is ugly too, but at least it carries things :)
  • just visited the VW site to see if there were any pics of the GLX wheels, and I could not believe that with climate control, it was 28K!!Give me a break...I'd save a couple grand more and go for a A4, or 3-series, or G35 although I definatley agree bout the interior quality, and I'm not to keen on the exterior design although the coupe is much nicer.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    To each his own, man. I don't want this to turn into some one upmanship thing. We value different things. I like luxury, speed, handling, room for four adults and reliability. You like...um...whatever it is you like.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    that was car and driver, not consumer reports. i don't think you're aware of the latest changes done to the car ... it just needs better looks.

    i watched spider man last saturday. the best line of the movie had to by Willem Dafoe: "what do you want me to, trade in the rolls-royce for a jetta". did anybody else who watched the movie get a chuckle out of that line?
  • justinjustin Posts: 1,918
    yep, i saw it. i thought it was kind of clever.

    it is a well known fact now that the Jetta gives you the same feeling of substance than any other car out there, even cars that cost $100k more :)
Sign In or Register to comment.