Honda Civic vs Volkswagen Jetta

merc1 · November 2005

We know you like the Mazda3, as well as your dislike for the Civic. It's been regurgitated ad nauseum elsewhere. That's great but this time it's on the incorrect forum.

Sorry, but you've got the wrong person in mind. I haven't said anything about a Honda Civic or Mazda 3 anywhere else and I hardly ever post on such boards, and I certainly have said anything about either car ad nauseum anywhere.

However since I'm here, coming in second in a Edmunds comparo doesn't mean squat to me. The Honda Civic has lost and been called a loser by the same people that loved the previous generations of the car. Edmunds camparos are mainly for kid reading imo. They're largely inconsistant and vary wildly depending on what criteria they've chosen for the day. When you look at the real comparos in the magazines that seems to have a better handle on what they're talking about, the Civic loses everytime, at least as far as I can remember. Car and Driver came right out an called the sedan a loser.

Face it the 01-05' Civic was nothing special and was just that, an also-ran in the segment. One first place and one second place finish at Edmunds doesn't change that.

Sorry, but a "benchmark" car is a car that wins in most of comparos it competes in, not just a few by one source.

M

ctalk · November 2005

Face it the 01-05' Civic was nothing special and was just that, an also-ran in the segment. One first place and one second place finish at Edmunds doesn't change that.

Sorry, but a "benchmark" car is a car that wins in most of comparos it competes in, not just a few by one source.

I agree the 01-05 Civic was nothing special. Hopefully the new Civic will be a big hit (in sales and reviews)

chidoro · November 2005

However since I'm here, coming in second in a Edmunds comparo doesn't mean squat to me. The Honda Civic has lost and been called a loser by the same people that loved the previous generations of the car. Edmunds camparos are mainly for kid reading imo. They're largely inconsistant and vary wildly depending on what criteria they've chosen for the day. When you look at the real comparos in the magazines that seems to have a better handle on what they're talking about, the Civic loses everytime, at least as far as I can remember. Car and Driver came right out an called the sedan a loser.

That's great, ignore whatever you wish to ignore because it doesn't agree with your belief. Motor Trend liked the car a lot. So did Automobilemag. So did Consumer Reports. You can easily call a car a "benchmark" that is consistently referred to as a class leader. You don't, I am not surprised.

merc1 · November 2005

Motor Trend liked the car a lot. So did Automobilemag. So did Consumer Reports. You can easily call a car a "benchmark" that is consistently referred to as a class leader. You don't, I am not surprised.

Like I stated before, them liking a car and it placing first in one comparo does not make it a benchmark. Sorry if you can't accept this. When have you seen a automotive publication come right out and say they don't like a car? It rarely happens nowadays. If the press "liking" a car is all it takes to create a benchmark then every car in every class is a "benchmark". Most comparos will tell you that there isn't a "clunker" in the bunch and that all the cars are worthy, but only one can be best and from 2001-2005 it wasn't the Honda Civic.

To say that just because a few magazines liked the car makes it a "benchmark" is very disingenuous. You say I'm ignoring what Edmunds and others have said, but it seems to me you're doing the same thing if you don't put what is arguably the leading U.S. publication's (C&D) opinion of the car in the mix.

A true benchmark car is never, ever called an outright loser by anyone. At best it will win here and at worst come in second there, but it would never be called a "loser" by anyone.

A "benchmark" gets uanimous praise!

M

chidoro · November 2005

There's a difference between liking a car a lot and liking a car. If you wish to downplay a number of magazines that consistently put the Civic as the car everyone is gunning for, that's fine. It doesn't help your argument that the Civic was viewed by many as the tops in the class even during the the 2001-2005 generation and, therefore, could expect at least the same results or better in the 2006+ generation. It's what can be used as a comparison to the Jetta since that's what this thread is about. You decided to chime in by disagreeing and ignoring multiple publications praise of the vehicle and press personal semantic preferences.

A true benchmark car is never, ever called an outright loser by anyone. At best it will win here and at worst come in second there, but it would never be called a "loser" by anyone

When you look at the real comparos in the magazines that seems to have a better handle on what they're talking about, the Civic loses everytime, at least as far as I can remember. Car and Driver came right out an called the sedan a loser.
:confuse:

merc1 · November 2005

At every point it seems that you're retracting your assertion that the Civic as a "benchmark". The problem with the above is that you're only using the good reviews of the car as a basis for saying it was a "benchmark", not all of them.

A benchmark does't get panned in one review and praised in another. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

True the Civic has traditionally been a "benchmark" of the small car class, but the previous 2001-2005 design dropped the ball by more than one account.

Now watch as the 2006 version is praised more rountinely than the 2001 model was, that is the making of or being a "benchmark".

There's a difference between liking a car a lot and liking a car. If you wish to downplay a number of magazines that consistently put the Civic as the car everyone is gunning for, that's fine.

Likewise if you chose on ignore the magazines that called the car a loser to make a shaky claim about a benchmark. A benchmark gets praise everywhere and everytime it is test, not a few times here and there. This kills your argument. Doesn't matter if I like a car or not. It the oldest trick in the book to pick the good reviews over the bad ones, but with a true benchmark you don't have to do that because they'll all be positive.

Hey if you choose to believe that the 2001-2005 Civic was a "benchmark" thats fine, but please don't misrepresent by claiming this opinion was shared with everyone who tested and drove the car because it wasn't.

M

thegraduate · November 2005

"Lows: Mid-size-sedan mass, modest grip, absence of on-center steering feel, ambitious pricing."

"you'd get a flaccid suspension coupled to a weakling engine"

"These days, that seems a bit lethargic, or maybe the five-cylinder's moaning engine note just makes it seem like it takes a lot longer."

It seems like your car doesen't necessarily bring home all the bacon, either, in the benchmark department. Before you start criticizing me, I never said the Civic was the benchmark...Just did a little search for the details on the Jetta, in Various Car Mags. When it comes to buying an economy/compact, ambitious pricing doesen't sound like what I need! Fine german handling (paraphrased from you, I believe); does numb steering come standard, or just a VW option?

chidoro · November 2005

At every point it seems that you're retracting your assertion that the Civic as a "benchmark".

Utter nonsense. You don't even appear to know what the word "benchmark" means.

A benchmark does't get panned in one review and praised in another. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

What is hard to understand is why you didn't look up the word before making that statement.

Likewise if you chose on ignore the magazines that called the car a loser to make a shaky claim about a benchmark. A benchmark gets praise everywhere and everytime it is test, not a few times here and there. This kills your argument. Doesn't matter if I like a car or not. It the oldest trick in the book to pick the good reviews over the bad ones, but with a true benchmark you don't have to do that because they'll all be positive.

I mentioned multiple sources, you mentioned one. And if you read the text in that sole comparo you've decided as your one and only holy grail of the Civic(and why your argument holds utterly no water), they complained more about rattles than anything else. That was not mentioned in any of the other reviews of the car. Sorry, it kills nothing and you are just plain reaching at this point. You didn't think the Civic ever even won a comparo but when proven to be incorrect you brush it aside.
So you can continue to think whatever you wish however your addition to this thread has been completely unnecessary.

pat · November 2005

... turn this into something personal.

People can contribute what they want. And others can ignore messages they find "unnecessary".

Or respectful contrasting opinions cam be posted, but it's just not necessary to get into personal comments with another member.

shaolingolfer · November 2005

Civic don't even belong to the same class as Jetta in my opinion. Not even close.

merc1 · November 2005

There must be someone else here with a similar user/screen name because I haven't said a thing about the Jetta here or anywhere else.

I never posted a reply to you on this or any other board.

M

merc1 · November 2005

Utter nonsense. You don't even appear to know what the word "benchmark" means.

I do know a "benchmark" car isn't a car that gets praise one place and panned in others. Benchmark: point of reference, standard, yardstick or " a standard by which something can be measured or judged". A car that fits that description wins most if not all the time and it certainly isn't called a loser by anyone. You know like a BMW 3-Series, Honda Accord, Mercedes SL, 1997-2003 BMW 5-Series, those are benchmarks. You simply can't find this: "The Verdict: Something new from Honda  a loser" written about any of them anywhere. Plus: "Way too many rattles, way too many shades of metallic in the paint, harsh ride, numb path control on the interstate" sounds like they're complaining about a whole lot more than just rattles. Rattles what amounts to a poor driving experience are now acceptable in a Honda Civic, the supposed to be "benchmark"? Doesn't add up.

Source

Secondly, I didn't "brush aside" your proof that the Civic won a comparo, I merely stated that you're only using the good comparos to bolster a point that was weak from the start. You can't pick and choose which reviews you want to use, just like you say I'm doing. Calling the previous generation Civic a benchmark was just off-base, particularly the sedan version.

M

chidoro · November 2005

I do know a "benchmark" car isn't a car that gets praise one place and panned in others.

Actually that has nothing to do with being a "benchmark" but you got the statement backwards anyway, it got panned in one place and praised in others.

Benchmark: point of reference, standard, yardstick or " a standard by which something can be measured or judged".

Yep

A car that fits that description wins most if not all the time and it certainly isn't called a loser by anyone.

Nope.

Secondly, I didn't "brush aside" your proof that the Civic won a comparo, I merely stated that you're only using the good comparos to bolster a point that was weak from the start. You can't pick and choose which reviews you want to use, just like you say I'm doing.

I stated many sources that liked the car a lot, and there are more. You stated one, huge difference. It's not as difficult to assimilate one poor review as opposed to many that praise the car. We are doing very different things, you simply choose to ignore many sources.

Calling the previous generation Civic a benchmark was just off-base, particularly the sedan version.

Disagree. I disagree because people and other car makers use the Civic as a benchmark vehicle when they are shoppping for and building an economy sedan respectively. That was the case in the previous generation and assumed it would also be the case in this next generation. It's perfectly on-base. Agree to disagree.

merc1 · November 2005

stated many sources that liked the car a lot, and there are more. You stated one, huge difference. It's not as difficult to assimilate one poor review as opposed to many. We are doing very different things, you choose to ignore many sources.

Just like you choose to ignore the ones that didn't like the car and found it to be lacking compared to the pre-2001 Civic. You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of doing.

Disagree. I disagree because people and other car makers use the Civic as a benchmark vehicle when they are shoppping for or building an economy sedan. That was the case in the previous generation and assumed it would also be the case in this next generation. It's perfectly on-base. Agree to disagree.

Only half true. True the Civic has traditinally been a benchmark small car. No question. The problem is that the 2001 model dropped the ball and was overrun by better cars according to a lot of "sources".

There is no way I will ever see a car that can be called a loser by a leading publication as a "benchmark". That simply doesn't happen with true "benchmark" cars. You have never seen the cars in my previous post called a "loser" at any time by anyone.

I fully well expect the 2006 model to reclaim Honda's status of a benchmark for 2006 after dropping the ball from 2001-2005. To call a car that was labeled a loser a benchmark is just plain denial and/or being highly selective of which "source" you pick. Something that wouldn't have to be done if for instance I stated that the Accord was a "benchmark". That opinion is cemented in both C&D and Motor Trend in their December issues. The description "loser" simply can't be found about the Accord, but that description can be found for the previous Civic.

Yeah, agree to disagree.

M

chidoro · November 2005

Just like you choose to ignore the ones that didn't like the car and found it to be lacking compared to the pre-2001 Civic. You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of doing.

Nope. You have one review that didn't show the Civic in a positive light while I stated many that did. One. Uno.

To call a car that was labeled a loser

In one review

a benchmark is just plain denial and/or being highly selective of which "source" you pick.

I picked many sources

merc1 · November 2005

Point being that if the car was a true benchmark, at best every source would say that and at worst they would say it is a very good car, but no one (especially C&D, Honda cental) would come right out and call the car a loser. Wildly varying opinions don't happen with true benchmark vehicles.

You can't find a truly bad review for a BMW 3-Series or Honda Accord and you certainly won't catch them being called a loser by anyone, thats all I'm saying. If the car is that great the praise is unanimous.

M

chidoro · November 2005

It's just doesn't disprove that the car wasn't a true benchmark except in your case since that's how you narrowed your decision down. Other consumers and most automakers did use it.

merc1 · November 2005

Other consumers and most automakers did use it.

I don't doubt this for the previous car, but how do you know this about the 2001-2005 Civic, especially when it didn't meet with instant and across the board praise like previous Civics? What automaker named the Civic as their bogey during the car's 2001-2005 model run?

If anything what C&D said proves that it wasn't a benchmark anymore. For such a Honda loving publication to say that speaks volumes, imo.

M

chidoro · November 2005

Then don't believe it, what am I going to tell you at this point. It's already been like talking to a wall.

pat · November 2005

Enough, please. It's time for both of you to recognize that this is getting you and us nowhere. Agree to disagree and stop going in these circles here. Thank you.

thegraduate · November 2005

It was...i just clicked reply on the wrong message...not directed at you; sorry for any confusion. :shades:

spinzero · November 2005

I am very confused with the pricing of new Jetta. If you compare the Jetta 2.0T (non-GLI) to the Passat 2.0T, the price difference is only $460.

The difference in equipment level is absolutely negligible, ans so is the fuel economy where Jetta get an extra city MPG. (This is probably due to the Jetta's sucky drag coefficient of 0.33 vs. very decent 0.28 of the Passat.) The weight difference is less than 50 lbs, meaning that the overall weight management on "compact" Jetta is less than ideal.

While I'm a very big fan of nimble, small cars, this kind of pricing structure seems VERY weird to me. Especially if you look at non-GLI 2.0T, which is by no means particularly more sporting than a Passat.

What do you guys think?

deans1 · November 2005

shaolingolfer wrote:

Civic don't even belong to the same class as Jetta in my opinion. Not even close.

-------------------------------------------

I had a new style 05 Jetta package one TDI version that was driven for a few months and then promptly dumped into the recycling dumpster. VW couldn't have cared less about the problems I was having with it.

I don't have the time let alone patience to fight VW in court, so I went out and bought an 06 Honda Civic EX to replace it which I absolutely adore. It was a pleasant change not getting into a new car and being vibrated to death while being told by VW that is was within normal operating parameters.

I am no brain surgeon, couldnt care less what the term "benchmark" implies, but I do know I enjoy my Civic a heck of a lot more than I ever did that so called great Jetta I am reading about on these boards.

This poster will never again own another VW product and I will let others who ask, know "exactly" what my terrible experiences were with that German auto maker. I am in the process of writing VW although I know it's waste of time and energy but I want them to understand how I feel about their garbage products and let them know I will tell others of this experience as well.

For all the details you can write me a at (rwz53@yahoo.com) because I will not clutter up the boards on such a poor product, with even poorer service any longer.

shaolingolfer · November 2005

Such garbage Jetta TDI is selling like hotcake. Maybe somebody's garbage is other person's gold.

roberte1 · November 2005

The civic does have a cheeper price but, that is all it has on the Jetta . As far as I can tell VW is not even worried about the Civic as a competitor . Volvo S40, Masda 6,Accord seem to be what there shooting at . Everything the old Passat competed directly with . To answer my own question the Jetta is far more evolved than the Civic . ESP,6 air bags, only car in its class to ace the side impact test ,crash activaed front head restraints(to help prevent wiplash), German enginering, electronic steering (a Porsche system), heated seats, automatic climate control, and so much more !!! Now for my money I would spend the extra $35 dollars a month a lease the far better equipped Jetta and have the peace on mind that I had a far better chance of walking away from a crash . Now as far as maybe wanting somthing faster just buy the 2.0T problem solved !!! At this point I can't see how you can even compare the two !!! How about Civic VS Golf !!!

bpeebles · November 2005

I agreee wholeheartedly. The Jetta is in a different class than the Civic. The Jetta is higher-quality throughout....the Civic is just an entry-level car. (VW does not even sell its entry-level cars in North America)

Make no mistake here.... I said "higher-quality" not "more reliable"...there is a big difference between these 2. I, for one had enough of a reliable tin can. The ONLY reason I owned a Civic was because it was 4-wheel-drive and my wife needed the winter-traction.

Perhaps the Civic is a "class leader".... but I am still not sure what the class is.... Perhaps the class is "Small vehicles which are manufactured by a company which name starts with 'H' and ends with 'onda'"

nwng · November 2005

what the term "german engineering" means these days. Not the most efficient, not the most reliable, not the most advanced in technology, not the least expensive, not the least complicated, not the best in holding value.

But boy I wish I drive a 3er everyday.

bpeebles · November 2005

I can partially-answer your question.... German engineering partially means that the designers were considering how the durn thing will be maintained. VWs are designed to be worked on by a common human being. In other words, maintainance was DESIGNED into it. The designer considers that somone will need to work on it at some point.

The oil-filter on VW is right in front and easy to grab with the hood open.

When compared to say--Honda...the oil-filter is located between the engine and the firewall... where it is almost impossible for a mere human to change (even when the vehicle is up on a lift.)

Since I am trained in engineering... I can appreciate the difference between these 2 design philosophies.

roberte1 · November 2005

German engineering is and always has been the most advanced !! So much so that several car manufactuers have recently produced new models just to keep up. If you want a well bulit car you buy a car enginered by a German !!! Just ask the next person you see "who makes the best car's". I can tell you 9 out of 10 times it will be a German car manufactuer.

inajoong · November 2005

Civic should be compared to the Golf.
Jetta is in a different league than the Civic.

ctalk · November 2005

To answer my own question the Jetta is far more evolved than the Civic . ESP,6 air bags, only car in its class to ace the side impact test ,crash activaed front head restraints(to help prevent wiplash),

Well, the Civic has not been crash tested yet so I have no comment on that. But the Civic does have 6 airbags and active head restraints.

roberte1 · November 2005

Is that 6 positions or 6 Air bags . The Jetta accuttualy has 10 positions standard and 12 positions optional. From want I can find in research it is 6 bags and 6 positions for the Civic.

earth · November 2005

I looked at many different vehicles, and Civic was my final choice. I don't care if anyone thinks its second class or Jetta has this over that. I like the Civic, so those that like the Jetta, go ahead, and buy it, go to their forum, and talk about it, and go away from here.

roberte1 · November 2005

Congrats on the new car . No matter what anyone says its still a great experiance to buy a new car . No matter what make or model.

spinzero · November 2005

Just ask the next person you see "who makes the best car's". I can tell you 9 out of 10 times it will be a German car manufactuer.

Yes, nine idiots will make anything true, right? Wait, make it ten.

I will give you an example of wonderful german engineering. Take the 2.5L engine of your beloved Jetta. Good old cast iron block, redline set at lofty 5800RPM, 9.5:1 compression ratio, and the specific output of 60HP/Liter, it truly is worthy of the marketing ploy "half of Gallardo's engine." When mated to a 3,230lbs COMPACT FWD car, it truly redefines the phrase GERMAN ENGINEERING. And I mean it when I say "redefines."

So I URGE you to find a crappier engine produced by a Japanese manufacturer in this day and age.

And for those of you that say we should compare Golf, not Jetta, JETTA IS A GOLF WITH A BOOT. Slapping a boot to a hatch just to suit weird American taste does NOT put it in a new class.

And the funny thing is, I don't even like Civics. I have always appreciated what VW has to bring to the market. Not necessarily better performers than Japanese rivals, but emotionally more exciting. And they do have some of the most advanced core technologies. I would say that it deserves the price premium over the Japanese if it weren't for the horrible reliability record.

But the thing that I cannot stand the most about VW is some of its owners, the VW fanatics. Mindlessly repeating marketing ploys like the almighty "German Engineering", blaming Mexican factory workers for their reliability problems. (Cause you know it can't be GERMAN engineering, right?) Yes, because Mexicans designed the faulty coil packs, sludging turbos, and plastic window regulators.

I study high energy physics, and I get to meet lot of German physicists. They are, in fact, very smart. As smart as Americans. And Japanese. And Chinese. And Indians. And just about anybody else.

German engineering my [non-permissible content removed]...

bpeebles · November 2005

Lets not forget that here in North-America, we are getting 2 generations old hardware from VW. The Germans are building engines for fuel that is NOT EVEN AVAILABLE here in the USA.

I pray that once we have suitable fuel for the LEADING EDGE VWs, that we can buy this car in the USA.

http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/volkswagen_news/article_1496.shtml?page=1

Imagine 170 Horsepower with 47.9MPG.... and squeeky-clean exhaust thanks to exhaust particulate filter.

So, when comparing Engineering design of VW, we here in the USA tend to forget that we are looking at stuff that is 2 generations old. Mostly because our beloved government officials bow to the big fuel companies which have been dragging their feet when it comes to suppling clean fuels for the most advanced German Engineering.

Oh-- and I have not seen many folks mention the DSG automatic xmission that VW is selling in the USA. No Asian car company is offering this leading-edge engineering. This is another example of "German Engineering". If you do not know what the DSG gearbox is, then you are not up to speed on modern transmissions. (HINT: F1 racecars have been using this technology for several years) The DSG gearbox is the ONLY automatic-shift transmission that can get BETTER MPG than a manual-shift tranny.

thegraduate · November 2005

If you do not know what the DSG gearbox is, then you are not up to speed on modern transmissions.

You dont have to assume that everyone here is an idiot, and you dont have to talk down to us that don't buy Jettas. I know perfectly well what a Jetta is, and I'm NOT an engineer, I am in fact a Communications major with a concentration in broadcasting (I figured if you wanted us to know what you were, it is only fair that you know what I am). I mainly know about the DSG because of the numerous failures of transmissions of that type in other German cars, that I have read about in long-term tests of German cars. That isn't of utmost importance, the thing VW needs to overcome is it's customer service issues. I hear more complaints about CS on forums and in magazines than any other particular problems. Anybody want a couple of pennies? Because there are my two cents!

the grad

bpeebles · November 2005

No arguement from me on that point. You are totally correct that VW could perhaps improve its perception of poor reliability if the customers were treated better by the VW service departments.

Since this forum is comparing VW with Honda... I have to say that the local Honda dealerhip was EXCELLENT, SUPERIOUR, WONDERFUL and any other nice thing I cannot currently think of.

Sure my Civic had some "issues".... but when I walked into the Honda service department, it was as if a red carpet with my name on it was below my feet. They knew my name and actually DID SOMTHING when I complained about issues. I always left there with the PERCEPTION that somthing was done to fix my problem. (I complained about uneven tire wear... I got 4 new tires and an alignment!!)

Conversly, with my Jetta, I have often get "we dont see any problems with that" from my VW dealership. I often leave there with the PERCEPTION that they did not even make the effort to try to address my complaint. (I complain about radio reception and they did not even turn on the radio to check it out....only looked for errorcodes in the computer)

Bottom line: The Honda service department was FARR AND AWAY better than VW.... but I like the VW automobile much better than Civic. Since I spend more time with the car than with the service department... I own a JETTA.

bpeebles · November 2005

New technology always has "teething pains" as it matures. VW is not afraid to take that risk. That approach seems to given them a "black eye" from the point of view of "reliability".

Asian carmakers have a "formula" which basically says... "Only sell what others have proven to be reliable technology" Can you list even one ground-breaking high-technology on any Asian automobile in the last 20 years?...I would like to hear if I am missing somthing.

It seems that the USA consumers seem to have "reliability" drilled into their brain cells. This means the "take no risks" approach of the Asian carmakers fits very will into many USA consumers.

I, on the other hand have a very strong aversion for anything that is "popular" and tend to go the opposite direction from the mainstream.

When I did purchase a Honda Civic... it was the 4-wheel drive Civic wagon. (again... not mainstream)

When I chose to replace that... I went with Volkswagon Diesel. (It was SOOOOO obvious that 56 MPG was somthing I desired.)

I venture to guess that there are many others besides myself who will give up some "reliability" for technology (German Engineering) and reap the rewards therin.

spinzero · November 2005

New technology always has "teething pains" as it matures. VW is not afraid to take that risk. That approach seems to given them a "black eye" from the point of view of "reliability".

Ok, so please enlighten me exactly what kind of leading edge technology caused the oil sludge on 1.8t. Saab and Volvo have been using turbo charged engines on pedestrian cars without resorting to turbo timer or synthetic oil for decades, so I'd be VERY interested to hear how high tech 1.8t was. You could also go over the coil pack failures while you're at it.

All there is to the "German Engineering" is that they came into the market first, and therefore sits higher in the ladder with certain "prestige" than the asian counterparts. This allows them to market more expensive, higher-tech vehicles, because people that don't know a thing about technologies will still buy them for the prestige. But do not think that Japanese companies are incapable of such engineering power. They just don't have the market base that will accept such cars yet.

Good example will be the legendary (almost TOO legendary at this point) Skyline GT-R in the 90's. It certainly was one of the most technologically advanced sports cars of its time, but Nissan could not export it to the western world because western people would not have paid that much for a 2-door Nissan. Of course now things are a little different, as the GT-R name commands serious prestige among import tuner crowd, which is why Nissan is bringing the new gen GT-R here. Why, because Nissan's engineering power has dramatically improved from the 90's? No, it's just that now they have the market base for a Nissan super car.

shaolingolfer · November 2005

Check out the new Honda Ridgeline forum and the automatic transmission problem of the Honda V6 engine from 1999-2003. Do a search and you will find some owners has to change out the tranmission over 7 times!!! :lemon:

bpeebles · November 2005

Are you aware that the 1.8T is an AUDI engine that was borrowed for use in VWs?

Apparently you are not familear with the "oil sludge" issuse that killed 1000s of Toyota engines several years ago. But this is not about bad design...moreso it is about the limits of the conventional dyno-oil not being able to withstand the intense heat of modern internal-combustion engines.

Driving a turbocharged engine has some "special needs" one of them is to idle the engine for at least 30 seconds before shutdown. I am only surmising here... but when VW made the 1.8T available to the "masses", there were many drivers that never even opened up the owners manual. They perhaps treated the 1.8T like any other engine. I considerd the 1.8T... but I know that turbocharged engines REQUIRE high-octane fuel, I opted not to get that engine.

You really need to consider that VW was able to make such a small-displacement engine with that kind of specific-power output available to the masses. Along with that kind of power-output comes the need for special fuel, special oil...etc. The US car-byuying public is just not prepared for that kind of commitment. Many folks want "quickie oil changes" and "just drive it" automobiles.

For those people, perhaps a VW is not the best choice of vehicles. After all, this forum is intended to help people make the right decesion for themselves and they MUST consider what kind of commitment they are prepared to make to keep a VW happy. A VW is not a drive it and forget it automobile.

The German roadcar which a VW is offers other desirable things that many folks prefer over the other choices in the same price range. It is very hard to find a small car with QUALITY for sale in the US. I ended up with the choice of Jetta and Altima as the only choices that met my requirements. (but the Altima did not have ESP nor did it get 56MPG)

spinzero · November 2005

Are you aware that the 1.8T is an AUDI engine that was borrowed for use in VWs?

I'm sorry, but Lexus's problem is Toyota's problem. Audi's problem is VW's problem.

Driving a turbocharged engine has some "special needs" ... but when VW made the 1.8T available to the "masses", there were many drivers that never even opened up the owners manual. They perhaps treated the 1.8T like any other engine.

Oil sludge in a modern turbo engine is simply poor engineering. Turbo charging was first introduced in the 60's, and it matured through out the 80's. As I already have mentioned, many contemporary cars used turbo charging without causing this lame problem. I do not know of any other passenger cars south of M3 that REQUIRE SYNTHETIC OIL other than Golf/Jetta.

My WRX is designed so that even after you turn the car off, the temperature gradient created by the hot turbo charger itself will keep the liquid circulating until the turbo cools down sufficiently, preventing the oil build-up. That to me is good engineering.

For those people, perhaps a VW is not the best choice of vehicles. After all, this forum is intended to help people make the right decision for themselves and they MUST consider what kind of commitment they are prepared to make to keep a VW happy. A VW is not a drive it and forget it automobile.

I fully agree with what you said here. VW's are far from drive it and forget it. However in my opinion, VW's are not exotic, and therefore do not fall under the "ok to be unreliable" category.

bpeebles · November 2005

Does your WRX have a watercooled turbocharger? Then there is the difference. VW uses oil-cooled turbocharger.

As for the requirement for synthetic oil.... more and more automobiles are recommending synth oil. Just because you personally "do not know of any other passenger cars south of M3 that REQUIRE SYNTHETIC OIL other than Golf/Jetta." does not mean they do not exist. That discussion id beyond the scope of this particular forum. Suffice to say that many modern cars with 10,000 mile OCI (OilChangeIntervals) recommend synth. oil. Changing oil more often than that is considerd a waste of natural resources my many.

Personally, I have been using MOBIL1 synthetic oil since it was first introduced in 1976. The benifets are obvious from many viewepoints. (It is interesting to note that the price of a quart of MOBIL1 has not changed much since 1976)

Those of us that have held a piston in our hands and SEEN the difference are convinced. Have you ever seen the inside of an engine that ran dyno-oil its entire life? There is a thick layer of tar-like goop on everything.

wai · November 2005

Every car enthusiast will put Fully Synthetic Oil into their car even though it is not required in the manual. They know this will protect their engine better than the conventional motor oil. I bet you have not put synthetic oil in your WRX. When I came to USA from Hong Kong four years ago, I am surprised that very few oil change services has stocked synthetic oi. I remember I have a hard time in finding one with synthetic oil when I want to change oil for my Civic. People here just don't know the benefit of using synthetic oil. They will rather spend more on body detailing than keeping the engine healthy. In Hong Kong, half of the cars are using synthetic motor oil.

spinzero · November 2005

I think you guys misunderstood my point. I know it is better to use synthetic oil, especially on turbo charged cars. Needless to say, I use nothing but Mobile 1 on my baby.

But that is not the point. The point is that doing so is NOT required by Subaru, meaning that within the normal operating conditions, the car will function just fine even with regular dyno oil. In other words, Subaru did not assume enthusiasts owners, even for a car that is specifically marketed towards enthusiasts.

And that is the industry standard. You don't sell ~$20k passenger sedans and expect the owners to be enthusiasts. In fact, VW didn't even recommend Synthetic until the oil sludge problem came up. It was an ad-hoc remedy for failed engineering, and a good excuse to deny warranty on average, non-enthusiasts owners. I really don't think there is much excuse for what happened to some of the 1.8t owners in this country.

The bottom line is, VW owners take care of their cars just as much as (or as little as) the owners of any other makes in the price range. Assuming any more, and passing the consequences of such assumption to the owners, is just wrong.

bpeebles · November 2005

Again -- Toyota, Damlier-Chrysler, Ford (and others) have dealt with "sludge issues"... this is not a VW-only characteristic as you seem to allude to.

Not a design flaw. Instead it is simply a sign of the times because engine-designers are squeezing more and more power from less and less displacment engines.

There was a time (not that long ago) wheras getting 100 horsepower per Liter was considerd nearly unacheavable. (normally asperated engine) I own a motorcycle with 750cc engine that produces 81 horsepower. (thus breaking that once-unacheavable limit.)

BOTTOM LINE: We can stop discussing "sludge issues" and "special oil" as if it were a VW-only characteristic.

deans1 · November 2005

[bpeebles]

It IS a VW only issue when talking about the TDI version. TDI requires oil that is not easy to find in USA unless you go to the internet. The Sludge Issues are relevant if one doesn't follow manufactures recommendations, for instance, buying an oil not recommendations by VW. Many folks that buy these TDI's and put oil other than what is recommended need to be concerned, obviously they are not. I had a VW parts manager tell me this. I can provide his name and address to the VW dealership, it is a large one too. He told me when folks see the cost of the recommended oil they simply disregard it and buy it cheaper elsewhere, fact. In that regard the Sludge Issue is alive and well, other than that fact, I agree with you.

spinzero · November 2005

I agree that we've talked about this issue enough. As far as whether this is a prominently VW issue or a general problem that affects all turbo charged cars, I think people can easily make their own decision by simply googling a few keywords.

shaolingolfer · November 2005

Specific oil is definitely needed for TDI. I think you can find it in Walmart. Also after the first oil change at 5000 miles, the recommended oil change interval is 10,000 miles. No big deal for me to visit dealership to get it change.

Honda Civic vs Volkswagen Jetta

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles