By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Just kiddin'.
-Craig
300HP turbo 3.2 V6; 4Motion, 6 spd direct transmission or manual.
The date said May 2005.
This must be chapter two in the move up market, up content and of course WAY up price.
Very nice. Also will not be the A4's fraternal twin any more either.
Can anyone tell me how to remove the back seat so I can remove the rest of the food. Any help you can provide would be appreciated and may prevent a divorce.
Thanks,
Bill
The exterior and interior should be "opposite", meaning if the outside is "dark", the inside should be "light". Dark blue exterior deserves a tan interior. Same goes for a red exterior. A white exterior would look silly with a beige interior, but superb with either gray or black.
Just by 2 cents...
-Craig
There is an article on the 2005 Passat in Automobile Magazine, August 2003, P.20. Looks like another benchmark. The flagship model is powered by a low-end-torque six cyl good for 300hp!
outun--I think Candy White would look great with a tan interior. And my Indigo Blue exterior looks great with the light gray. Different strokes!
While I don't disagree with Craig's "opposites" theory of colors, I don't do black interiors (too hot in summer and too hard to keep clean in winter.) I would categorize Silverstone Gray as a "dark" color relative to the gray interior.
Oh, and black leather is the easiest to keep clean. It doesn't show anything (except white dust, which cleans off with a can of air).
-Craig
I have 4 kids and my car gets trashed by everything - I have a no eating or drinking rule in my car but they still sneak from time to time.
If you read some previous postings I have had some major (gross) spills with no visual or olfactory (Smell) problems.
I do have some little lines from my shoes on the bottom of the door (getting in and out) that I can't seem to get to go away.
I don't see a problem with the gray, but if you want black and are scared of the heat, just get the windows tinted.
Gator
-Craig
I had no problems with my 2001.5 and I expect few with my 2003.
Reliability is touch and go with the Passat. Luckily, my '02 GLS, with about 22k miles, has been almost perfect. Minor issues appear in all cars, and my Passat is no different. Manual shift knob peeled a little (warranty), seat heater didn't work (warranty), burned out fog light bulb (warranty), driver door squeaked/groaned (warranty). That's about it.
The warped rotors should be covered under warranty. The radio was warranty. The windshield was warranty (why did you buy the car if the windshield was flawed when new??).
The Taurus rides like a car worth $10k. The Passat rides like a car worth $40k. You do the math.
-Craig
A better question would be why did VW build it that way to begin with? Where were the quality control checks all down the line? And why didn't the dealership notice it before it was delivered to us? Perhaps they did and just didn't think we'd notice?
If the Passat is "much, much, much higher quality than a Taurus", as you say, then why has my Taurus (two years older with 23,000 more miles in it's odometer) proven to be the "quality" ownership experience at far lower cost? IMHO the Taurus is simply the better value when compared directly with the Passat. That being said, I do think the Passat is a slightly better looking car. Fair enough?
various rattles
drivers door which needed adjustment
water stains in the headliner
check engine light went on
speedometer stopped working
car idled low which would shut off AC
rotors needed resurfacing (vibrations)
One dealer hung up on my wife because she wanted to make an appointment. The Honda dealer where I went (first come first serve) didn't get my car fixed when I brought it in so I had to get a rental (S10 or an Escort). They didn't get it fixed because the day I dropped it off, 7:00 am, they didn't look at it until about 3:00pm; I was second inline.
For about 2K more I could have gotten a car with 4 discs, side air bags and a number of small amenities. Also, my warranty is only 36K for 3 years instead of 4/50.
I know if purchased a Passat, and had these problems, and voiced these problems on a Honda forum I would be told I should have gone with an Accord because they are so reliable.
I'm actually very happy with the Accord and will probably keep it for many years, but you know...the grass is always greener...
Any thoughts?
Thanks for help in advance
NateP
The Taurus drives like an old lady's car (my 85 or so year old great aunt got one 6 months ago actually). If that's what you're into, you shouldn't have bought a Passat (or anything German). Look at the interior. The Taurus looks like my son's Little Tikes car.
Once again, "quality" doesn't mean "reliable". Are BMW's and Mercedes "quality" cars? Of course. How about Jaguars? Are they reliable? No more (and some less) than a Passat.
-Craig
Most people do not differentiate the difference that much, as poor reliability of any car strongly reduces the owners opinion of the quality of the car. Rich looking interiors and great handling won't mean much to most people if the car spends too much time in the shop. Short and long term reliability of a car is part of the overall quality of the car, in my and most people's view.
And, my 2000 Taurus SES does not have a "Little Tikes" interior, and the handling is excellent for a family sedan at a very reasonable price. It's quality-oh excuse me-reliability has been excellent as well.
You might not like the features of a particular product or its inherent characteristics, but if it works as intended, its quality rating would be high.
BTW - I love my Passat
I don't know how most people think -- but the people I know even those who "love" (or at least like) Ford's {Taurus} would probably not rate quality and reliability together.
Perhaps a component of quality IS reliability -- if the question were phrased to lead someone to that conclusion -- and perhaps people could be led to that conclusion.
Quality hmmm -- how about this assertion: a quality when it comes to cars must include some significant measure of "luxury."
People often don't mean technically what they say. Many products made by humans qualify as having a certain "quality." And, if the designation of quality was uniformly understood to mean reliable, well then the point would be valid (or at least much more valid).
Is a Taurus a "quality" car ? I have no reference point other than what I read written by two distinct group of authors "experts" and "customers." Anecdotally, the experts decry Ford's lack of "quality" -- some folks say their Ford's are reliable, some say they are not. Currently, the word "quality" seems, in print, to be more associated with Lincoln products (the Aviator and Navigator leap to mind). Ford products, like the Taurus, are generally written about (when they are written about at all) in very basic terms -- perhaps not derogatory terms but more in utilitarian terms.
The only time I can remember an automotive writer enthusing about a Ford Taurus was when he/she was writing about the SHO version.
Now, the SES Taurus may be well built, adequately powered, comfortable to drive and capable of hauling its passengers around in relative comfort and safety. I assume it does all of these things "as expected." But, often what is written about these more "popular" (sales volume) vehicles seem to be explanations of how it is "pretty good for the price" or other "it does 'x' well, considering its price."
The reliability factor of a Taurus is not likely to translate into people describing it using adverbs and adjectives that elevate, high value and reliability to be perceived as the equivalent of "quality."
Generally speaking I personally may agree that reliability could be (indeed should be) a component of quality. But the reality of the situation is that "quality" in connection with the description of a car (both from Madison avenue and from "Mr and Mrs Consumer)generally is presented to mean other things -- a long line of other things -- before reliability is ever mentioned.
A Mercedes appears to be perceived as a quality car -- (perception is reality) -- I can't recall any perception (from the Marketing Machine or anecdotally) that Merecedes is particularly more reliable than the "norm."
Lexus, attempts to perpetrate the notion (notice I did not say myth or truth) that they have legendary reliability. But that reliability appears to be disticnt from the quality perception that their Marketing Machine touts.
Are VW Passat's a quality product?
Are VW Passat's a reliable product?
It IS possible to define quantitatively the parameters that will allow an answer to the second question. Defining quality (of an autombile) merely quantitatively has proven a challenge for even the best and most highly giften automotive writers.
Even though I think you agreed with my notion that quality and reliability are indeed different things, please don't write a book in the space for a paragraph or two. I really want to understand what you write...
-Craig
But to agree, agree: Q and R are NOT the same.
- Ray
24,000 miles on an '02 W8 . . .
So I moved on to G35, A4 1.8T quattro, etc., before finally going back to the VW dealer to try the 1.8T with a manual transmission after reading some of the Edmunds.com comparison test results. The only stick they had was a GL, far less deluxe than the GLX, but man, this car was a blast to drive. I was keeping the revs up in the 4-5k range much of the time, but the engine was cooperative, turbo lag wasn't a big problem, and the handling was impressive for a FWD "family sedan."
The A4 felt tighter and handled better on the winding roads, but I don't understand why Edmunds is so hot on A4 interior -- the one I drove was bland and ugly compared to the Passat GLX interior, which was very very nice.
In any case, I'm now seriously considering a loaded GLS 1.8T manual -- it sucks that some of the features on the GLX aren't available even as options on the GLS, but in my experience, the V6 just ain't happening on this car.
My questions: am I crazy? Was there something wrong with the GLX I drove, or is the weird power delivery of the V6 considered normal and good? Does it behave better with a manual transmission, or is such even available? I'm trying to figure out why my experience with the V6 was so contrary to the reviews & comments I read everywhere, and whether I should give it another whirl.
(Other cars I want to drive before making a decision: Mazda6, Acura TSX.)
You won't be disappointed with a "loaded" GLS 1.8T. I have the same ('02 GLS, Luxury package, Leather Package, Monsoon). At 21.5k miles, and with Valvoline SynPower 5w-40 oil (not really sure it makes a big difference), I'm getting between 36-38mpg on the highway (driving close to legal limits). Or 30-31mpg driving, well, not quite so close to legal limits.
-Craig
The automatic transmission has a computer chip with a few preset shift patterns in it. It's got an economy mode, a sport mode, and one other that I don't recall off the top of my head. The chip includes some "fuzzy logic" capabilities so that, once you start driving it regularly, it will adapt its shift patterns to match your personal driving style.
So if you're hard off the line all the time, it will learn to keep the transmission in the lower gears using the sport shift pattern for a longer time. If you're like me and have limited foot mobility, the transmission actually learns to recognize that a small movement of the gas pedal is actually a command to "punch it" and it downshifts more quickly to give passing power.
It takes a few weeks or so of regular driving for the transmission to fully adapt itself to your driving style. As you continue to drive it, you'll find it working better for you.
In addition, the transmission actually learns the habits based on the ignition key being used. So if you and your SO/spouse both drive it, make sure to use your individual keys. That way it stores two sets of driving patterns and you won't be confusing the computer or getting frustrated because it's using the other person's driving pattern.
Is it possible to install a sub-woofer in the Passat's trunk? Where would it mount? How would it be hooked up? I saw the amplifier hanging from the "ceiling" of the trunk cavity (nice air cooling system!), so I would assume that connecting a sub to the amp would be straightforward as far as wiring goes, but that's also assuming that the amp has binding posts for a sub and crossover circuitry to handle a 3-way crossover instead of a 2-way.
Anyone here have a sub installed? Was it worth it?
Thanks in advance!
Part of the reason I was expecting more from the automatic was driving the G35 around the same time, in both stick & auto. Granted, it's intended to be a more sporty car and has a much bigger engine, but the acceleration with the automatic was great, to the point that I preferred it to the 6-speed manual.
Anyway, I enjoyed the Passat 1.8T manual so much that I'd probably go with it, but I'm disappointed I can't get power seats and some of the other bells and whistles that are only available with the V6. Still need to take a look at the TSX, and probably drive the A4 1.8T one more time for comparison.
I have not yet driven the new A8, RS6, Manual trans W8 or Tourareg. I have driven virtually every other combination and permutation of Audi and/or VW either by owning them, test driving them or being loaned them while our cars were in for maintenance.
The VW and Audi lineup of cars are, broadly speaking, good to great cars (from the driving perspective for purposes of this post).
Yet, these cars have such completely different characters when equipped with the auto transmissions versus the manual transmissions, that a drive in one and not the other may lead you to completely distorted impressions.
We took an EXTENSIVE test drive of a Passat GLX 4Motion -- back to back with an A4 1.8T quattro manual; followed that up with a test of the A4 equipped with a tiptronic, followed by a Passat 1.8T (FWD only, of course) with both transmissions (roughly back to back and precisely over the same "test drive circuit.")
Here is the only even marginally objective suggestion I can offer first to you then to Audi/VW:
to you: test drive "comparable" versions of the cars with both transmissions; unfortunately you will be unable to test a V6 GLX 4Motion with a manual (and there are other combinations that you can't try either -- a manual 1.8T 4Motion, comes to mind). Your conclusions may echo mine -- avoid the tip versions at all costs; pay extra to get a manual if you have to (within reason). The gearing coupled with the drive by wire "feature" of the VW group's implementation (exception Audi S6 avant and hopefully the RS6, too) of the tiptronic make the car have a feeling that is often mistaken for turbo lag. Plus, the manual versions are -- umm, FUN! According to my wife, the tip versions are dangerous since they often require "advanced" planning when quickness and responsiveness are desired and/or needed. In her case, she won't make left turns (from a full stop) in VW/Audis unless they have a manual transmission. Her point, although extreme is more fact that fiction.
I loved my 3 V8 equipped Audi's (all had auto trans unfortunately) -- but "tip lag" was very evident, even in "manumatic mode."
to VW/Audi: offer more cars with 6spd tips and with 6 spd manual transmissions; give us a V6 GLX with a 6spd manual (or 6spd tip), for example. What a shame there is no (yet in the US) V8 Audi equipped with a stick; and, although there are W8's that can be had with a stick, two VW dealers in Cincinnati have never even seen one -- and "you can't order one!?!" Duh!?!
Again, try them (the transmissions) both. Despite my wife's claim that the tiptronic equipped versions are dangerous, allow (encourage?) less control and are less fun -- actually both versions are good to great cars. Our bias is to "stick with the stick!" But, you already figured that out.
mbros
My question is this -- VW recommends using premium fuel. What do you all do? I have heard that people stay strict to is, some put premium in every other time....
Any stories or experiences?
The engine managment system is designed to run both most effectively and most efficiently with "premium" fuel -- it is a false economy to mix the gas, every other tank the gas etc. 100% pure premium -- you and your vehicle will be happy and you will enjoy better economy.
My dealer encourages that I use "certain" gasolines that have "additive" packages (Techron?) to keep the FI system and valves as clean as possible.
Again, a clean FI system will render both better milage and provide max power.
I strictly use Premium (>= 91 octane). When I'm at the local Sunoco station, I actually use what they call "Super", which is 91 octane, as their Premium is 94 octane and carries a 20¢ per gallon premium over the Super. When at a Mobil or other stations with only 3 grades of gas, then I get the Premium or Super+ or whatever they call the top grade.
"Wow. That's a girly color!"
or...
"Does your girlfriend/wife like her car?"
Let's be honest. It's girly.
Oh. And use premium gas. Your car will thank you.
-Craig