Volkswagen Jetta 2006+

jeffyscott · August 2005

My point is that they have more choices than we do.

And you want to eliminate one of our choices. :confuse:

As I said before, I am glad that they gave me the choice of a non-turbo engine that uses regular gas. I don't want a turbo. If I wanted a turbo I would have simply waited for the 2.0T or the GLI.

For gas engines, aside from the two small engines at 102 and 115 HP...which VW probably figures would not go over well in the US, the europeans get a 150 hp (2.0 FSI) and the 200 hp (2.0 FSI with turbo charger). The US gets the 150 HP 2.5 and the 2.0 turbo. So don't really see an issue with engine choices.

The europeans do get two diesel choices instead of the US's one. But the market for diesels is much larger in europe than in the US.

If you consider the car an "abomination", why do you even care what engine it comes with?

blueguydotcom · August 2005

Approaching the new candy-apple red Jetta GLI, I wondered if maybe someone had gotten really drunk and greenlit a car that can only be termed a styling abortion. Surely this tall, roly-poly bug shaped vehicle wasnt a replacement for the Mark IV Jetta. The front has weird upward slanted eyes instead of lights and the honeycomb grill makes me think maybe someone spent too much time watching Emeril and felt a blackened sifter would look cool on a car. It doesnt.

The lack of fend flairs or and hard, edge makes the car comes across like everybodys worst nightmare of the future after Ford dumped the Jelly Belly-shaped Taurus on us. The Jetta GLIs got the same presence. Only taller. Really tall. Standing next to the car I wondered if this was VWs new off-roader cousin to the Touareg.

The slab sides of the vehicle are only broken by simple, plane and very small door handles. Otherwise the side of the car could be mistaken for a poster  its that flat and shapeless. The spoked, flat, banal seventeen inch wheels dont help matters. Lacking any depth or shift in angles, the least flattering view of the car comes from the side.

Out back the c-pillar rushes down to a stupid-looking spoiler and some of the worst taillights since Toyotas Altezza/Lexus wannabe IS300. The trunks got verve only because so many incongruous ideas congregate on the woeful vehicles hindquarters. The Jetta couldnt look any less Germanic in origin  nothing clean, tight, purposeful, sturdy or striking about the cars appearance.

Popping the door, and sliding into the leather-lined buckets I felt an overwhelming sense of déjà vu. The interiors merely an update of the last generation Jetta. Thats a mixed bag. Strong, super thick A-pillars still block sightlines. The expansive dash actually forms to some kind of giant basin near the windshield as if one of those huge NASA satellite dishes served as a design inspiration. They took the bad dash of the Jetta Mrk IV and made it worse.

The center consoles not totally different  stacked with stereo on top and AC down low. Ill never warm to that kind of design. The stereo belongs lower, as its so rarely touched and its readout it totally unnecessary. I listened to it for about 5 secondsI couldnt care less about the radio. Dual zone climate controls continue to decorate the lower portion of the center stack. The AC seemed just as loud and worthless as the Mrk IVs.

Stealing a cue from Audi, the Jettas now got those weird plastic braces running from the lower stack to the center console. What purpose does it serve beyond adding more plastic for me to bang my knee into? The center console possesses two hardened, unforgiving mini cupholders (cupholders stink anyway). The last generations worthless, flimsy arm rest has disappeared, replaced by a large, more Byzantine and preposterous design. It bends, it twists, it slides, it converts into a Ginsu knifethe damned thing does everything but strongly support an elbow. I leaned on it and hard a loud popquickly, I pushed it into the standing guard position so as to hide my vandalism from VWs employees. Oops.

Doors close with the same reassuring heft as all VWs. The bodies on these cars always feel so tight! Nobody else produces that vault-sensation quite like VW/Audi. Those doors, mind you, seem lifted directly from the last generation. The materials seem to cover the doors, the handles the same, the window controls are mounted the same way (and as I always say, in the wrong place) and even the trunk/gas release buttons are the same as the old Jetta. Did they even bother engineering anything new?!

Ah but get your hands on the steering wheel and you feel something right. Its small, leather and thick  sort of like Dr. Tobias Funke. Slide a hand under the column and there it istilt and slide. Yeah everybody else is doing it but VWs still does it best. Their steering columns can be arranged infinitely. Very nice. And those gauges, while Spartan in number, look great.

I leaned back in the leathery seats and felt something great. Oh these suckers grip you. Very nice. Im not a towering, corpulent American  sort of the antithesis of Joe Average  so the seats made me feel like Goldilocks: just right. A lumbar control made the seats squeeze me tight as if getting a hug from a female Russian weightlifter I knewlong story. Nice padding on the underside too. Overall they felt wonderful.

But they were cursed with VWs ergonomic blight: their version of manual seats. Manual seats are finesimple levers normally allow forward, back, tilt of seat and maybe raising and lowering. Not the VW design. Theyre so good at interiors that for some reason they go all Corky the moment it comes to seats. Want to raise the seat? Pump a handle like a milk maid at the well! Want to recline a bit, hope those wrists are built up as youre gonna have to twist a 15 inch diameter know 1 entire rotation to move the seatback a degree. Its arduous work. Only the front lever to move the seat fore and aft works as a human would expect. For 28k I expect normal seats or power memory seats.

I depressed the shiny aluminum brake pedal and turned the key. The little 2.0 turbo burbled to life. Its not aggressive sounding but it does sound tougher than the old 1.8T. I reached down and moved the shifter into D. Or tried. The button for controlling the DSG is odd and doesnt move easily. Eventually I forced the shift lever  which is mounted in the center console  into D. I believe D stands for dorky as the cars shift habits in D mode are delightfully silly. I pulled out of the parking lot and by 45 mph the car had me in 6th gear.

Screw that, I slapped the shifter over to +/-. The shifting was in my hands. And a computers control. No matter as I slammed my foot down and felt the heft Jetta surge forward with authority. The little engine rocketed up and moved through the gears with video game precision. Holy crap this sucker flies.

The DSG proved intoxicating. Shifts snapped by so fast there wasnt time to consider they had occurred. Boom  next gear  boom  next gear. I was in fourth doing 80 and the car wasnt trying. In fact the little grumble from the engine gave no concept we were doing anything that might be illegal.

Not everything was rosy in the world of DSG/2.0 marriages. As stops the car enters a weird glide phase. Ive felt it on other DSG/2.0 combos, so I know its not my imagination. The car goes to neutral and it feels totally uncontrollable and disturbing at first. Additionally, the paddle shifters mounted on the wheel are a tad small. These buggers actually control a clutch, so I dont find them as jokey as the semi-auto toys on most cars, but their super Smurfy size make them a tad useless. Id rather something bigger and make em shiny too. I like shiny stuff. (continued)...

blueguydotcom · August 2005

At 80 mph the engine in 6th wasnt quite pulling 3k rpm. At 90 it was at about 3500. Not too bad. Still the engine runs a little too hot in 6th for my tastes. Id rather see 3k at 90 mph but I worry about gas mileage when cruising.

Also at normal freeway speeds  80-90mph, the wind whistles terribly around the roly-poly shaped car. Its a noisy, howling sound that fills me with all kinds of dreadful memories, like seeing bad so-called horror movies. At this point, only tire noise is acceptable when driving normal speeds.

When it comes to handling theyve certainly tightened the Jetta GLI up over its Mrk IV sibling. The lousy beam axles gone  replaced with a normal IRS. Also, the torque steers so muted I cant recall ever feeling it, even when accelerating hard out of corners.

The porky GLI feels pretty agile in switchbacks if one is maybe 50-75% over the speed limit. It feels almost athletic until you need to bleed off more speed and you realize understeer is very real and the cars massive weight, matched with baby brakes makes this car anything but a hardcore handler. The cars super high ride height also works against it in transitions and sharp corners, contributing to substantial body roll and front-end dive. Yikes. More than once the car gave me many simultaneous feelings  were not slowing down, not turning and this damned car is going to flip over.forward!

For 28k the cars way overpriced and out of its league. At 25k loaded with leather, moon, xenons, etc, the car could be considered reasonable. After all, its a VW so expect to pay 2-3k less than MSRP  so 22-23k seems in line for this car. The engines an astounding, pulse-pounding little work of art (efficient too) and the tranny should be available on every car in the world (its that good). But the cramped interior, super high ride height, tall body, cruddy brakes, and sloppy handling mean this is not a car thats in the sports luxury class. It shouldnt be priced so high given how poorly it stacks up against the likes of cars in the 27-35k range (yes a 30k model is easily possible). Likewise, the GLIs way too expensive when compared to the Mazda3 and Subaru WRX  two econobox cars that deliver value and supreme fun.

Heres to hoping the GTI is lower, lighter, tighter in the corners and equipped with decent brakes. That might be the perfect little racer when matched with the 2.0 and DSG.

fish8 · August 2005

Can you please expand on 1, 2 and 3? I am not following your posts at all.

1) Huh???? IS300?

2) Is looking like a COPY of a TOYOTA a good or bad thing? I, personally, think that it looking like aCorolla is a BAD thing. VW's have always been distinctive and had a Europena feel. A corolla has neither a distinctive nor a European feel. A Corolla is built to be standard transportation.....getting from point A to point B with no fuss or trouble.

3) Tc? Scion?

dino001 · August 2005

2. You didn't mention the Jetta look exactly like a COPY of a TOYOTA compact which sold best in the world.

Well, nobody wanted $20-28K for a Corolla. And since when "genuine German engineering and styling" was to copy econo car from Japan?

The car looks just horrible. Correction: it looks horrible when compared with its predecessor. From really far it is kinda OK, but when you get closer than 10 feet, it gets chunky, disproportionate, lamps are just like corolla and nose - ouch!

I think if there was an award for biggest disappointment of the year, it would win by a landslide. A couple of other similar awards, like greatest misfire, most idiotic pricing, etc. Piech must go!

600kgolfgt · August 2005

> If you consider the car an "abomination", why do you even care what engine it comes with?

Oh, I don't know - maybe because I've owned VWs (Mk1 through Mk4) for over 25 years, not to mention doing engine rebuilds, suspension mods, and general maintenance on them as well. Let's say I'm a bit of an automotive enthusiast who was disappointed when the MkV Jetta arrived on the scene. They took what was an appealing car and basically "turned it Japanese" .

blueguydotcom · August 2005

1. That is the only price range you can afford, even though you dream about the IS.
2. You didn't mention the Jetta look exactly like a COPY of a TOYOTA compact which sold best in the world.
3. Dude, get a Tc.

It is? Huh, you know my income, eh? Do you realize what I own now?

Kirstie_H · August 2005

Sorry about that - hostile message has been removed. Let's move on.

fish8 · August 2005

BMW 330i Correct?

The more I see this car on the road the more the styling grows on me. It's definately not as character rich as the previous generation, but i like it non the less.

ivan_99 · August 2005

A very thorough and articulate review.

Nowwhat we all want to knowplease elaborate on:

A lumbar control made the seats squeeze me tight as if getting a hug from a female Russian weightlifter I knewlong story.

blueguydotcom · August 2005

Thanks.

The weightlifter was just a joke. I peppered a lot of odd references in there ("Arrested Development", nursey rhymes, etc).

blueguydotcom · August 2005

Yeah. trying to find a replacement before May. I'm giving Audi/VW their fair shake - regardless of my prior issues with my 01 Jetta, I still can't help being attracted to that 2.0. The A3's handling isn't as sharp as the GLI but I sure like the seating/interior in the A3 more.

I've heard the GTI will be 300-400 lbs lighter than the GLI, so that should help handling. Hopefully VW will lower the car's stance too. German models of the Jetta and Golf are considerably lower than the ones we get here. Weird. someone said it was to help side impact ratings. True?

Even with all my smack, I still love that engine/tranny. Can't help myself.

ivan_99 · August 2005

0-60 6.7 - pretty good
25/32 mpg also pretty good

With revolutionary DSG if they keep the price within a couple g's of say a TSX (slower, worse mpg with 6MT) I can see this being a winner.

fish8 · August 2005

I do not like those wheels. They look VERY aftermarket to me. They look like wheels a teenager would put on his/her car. Just my opinion!!!

nippononly · August 2005

I bet the American one will have different rims. Those are VERY European.

600kgolfgt · August 2005

The GLI I saw at my local dealership had different rims - similar to the 2004 R32.

wai · August 2005

Is it same as 2004GLI rim? I like the red colour brake calipers looks like Brembo. Also their disc rotors are bigger. Their fog lights are cool.

jeffyscott · August 2005

I think those are VW's optional larger diameter wheels (18 inch???) for the GLI...notice the rubberband-like tires. The standard GLI has 17 inch wheels, I believe.

600kgolfgt · August 2005

The wheels I saw on the GLI are the optional 18" wheels.

blueguydotcom · August 2005

Yes it has different rims in the usa. They suck too.

blueguydotcom · August 2005

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.

kyfdx · August 2005

Not in love with the wheels, but the overall look is a step up from the base model, IM(not so)HO...

regards,
kyfdx

dino001 · August 2005

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.

Kirstie_H · August 2005

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!

ivan_99 · August 2005

With all the discussion regarding VWs 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 engineeven with more cylinders, larger cams, valves etcso Im 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).

allhorizon · August 2005

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_99 · August 2005

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...

jeffyscott · August 2005

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.

jrct9454 · August 2005

...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_99 · August 2005

While I agree with you regarding hybrids (waste of money), the Accord has a higher output than the engines listed above (if thats your thing). I dont 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 wellbut I wont 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

xkss · August 2005

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.

allhorizon · August 2005

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.

jeffyscott · August 2005

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.

allhorizon · September 2005

...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!

johnnybgood · September 2005

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

micweb · September 2005

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).

johnnybgood · September 2005

I know it says 89 octane, then midgrade it is.

Thanks for your input chief.

jeffyscott · September 2005

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.

johnnybgood · September 2005

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?

akuska · September 2005

>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.

ghaynes · September 2005

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

johnnybgood · September 2005

>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?

jeffyscott · September 2005

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.

akuska · September 2005

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).

crissman · September 2005

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_99 · September 2005

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 (its 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 lets you shift when YOU want, but also gives you the convenience of slapping it in auto when shifting gets annoying.

As far as dealershipsit 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 wouldnt feel bad about picking one over the other, although my nod goes to the VW.

crissman · September 2005

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.

micweb · September 2005

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.

johnnybgood · September 2005

>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_99 · September 2005

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 its 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 gallonouch.

Volkswagen Jetta 2006+

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles