Howdy, Stranger!

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

2005 VW GOLF V



  • dennisvwdennisvw Posts: 2
    I'm new to this board and have a long background of working with VW's (since 82) and currently work in a VW dealership as a service advisor. Here's what we've been told thus far about the new Golf.
      We will probably get the existing engine range to start, though, the diesel at this point is still up in the air. Diesels, if they come, will not be sold in California as they cannot meet the emmissions requirements there. Prices will be probably be higher than current models, but we don't know how much. As it is currently, the Passat is less expensive in the USA than in Europe (I was there last year and compared prices in a dealership over there, to ours).
       I have been told by a VW corporate person that the aim of VW is not to be a mass merchandiser of vehicles, but to move the brand up market; I took this to mean that the vehicle will be a fair percentage higher than our current model and that the vehicle will not be sold in the US until they think they have it right! (Given the issues of coils and window regulators, that's probably a smart thing). dennis
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    VW overexpanded in the US without adding adequate service bays or, in the San Francisco area, realistic service hours for working families. They need better service. I can deal with a car that breaks down more than a commodity car like a Toyota, but why can I get my Toyota serviced on MY schedule, while the VW was agony to get serviced?
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    If the new Golf is heavier (just a guess, new generations usually are) won't the current base engine make it really slow for a car at its price?
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    The car magazines have all stated the new base engine will be a 5 cylinder engine with about 150 hp. The optional 2.0 turbo four cylinder will have 200 hp. If the 5 cylinder doesn't make it, I would expect to see a nonturbo version of the new 2.0 multivalve engine. The accepted word has been that the current 2.0 will be dropped. I don't think VW wants to continue to embarrass itself by installing such a low tech engine in an all new car.
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    The reports I have read are that, in Europe, there is a normally aspirated 4 cylinder 1.6 that makes 115 hp (same as existing North American 2.0) and a normally aspirated 4 cylinder 2.0 that makes the 150 hp sounds right...but I haven't read anything about a 5 cylinder engine - is that brand new?

    I'd be really surprised if VW invests in a new 5 cylinder, normally aspirated 2.0 engine when they clearly have been pushing turbos as an alternative for those desiring better performance. Since VW has been too cheap to upgrade the normally aspirated 2.0 to multi valves, variable valve timing, and double over head cams, I doubt they will spend the enormous sums required to design, test, and gear up to build a totally new engine.

    In some ways it would be cheaper for VW to come out with a "lower boost" turbo (like with the PT Cruiser, which has a high output, intercooled turbo, and a non-intercooled, lower output turbo) than come up with one extra cylinder and all the hardware to go with it (the valve train etc). This is somewhat feasible, as a marketing tool, since the turbo has risen in power over the past 5 years from its early mediocre output. They could just "niche under" the present turbo.

    I do agree that when I got my 2001 Golf, I was pretty upset that the 2.0 normally aspirated was so low tech, way behind the curve. In reality, it had good freeway punch, because it was geared low - it was running 4000 rpm at 80 mph - I didn't have to throw a down shift to scoot up from 60 to 80, but at the same time, it didn't get rough or particularly noisy if I ran it up to 100 mph. For some reason it didn't run out of steam at the upper rpm range, despite the fact that it peaks torque very low in the rpm range - around 2200 rpm as I recall.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "...but I haven't read anything about a 5 cylinder engine - is that brand new?"

    No, it's just a VR5(a VR6 w/ one cylinder chopped off). One Brit car magazine pointed out that, compare to Audi's 1.8 turbo, this 5-cyl, which was introduced not long after the Audi's 1.8 turbo, costs more, has weaker torque, worse fuel economy, & no better smoothness, but...

    Since the 1.8 turbo has max torque all the way &, therefore, sounds boring(literally) & even feels boring due to lack of torque change for several thousand rpms, you're likely to FEEL more satisfying revving this 5-cyl back & forth, &, therefore, has more character!
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    Well, Europe is used to those small engines. Displacement based tax and all that. I don't know how they do it, everyone driving manual cars on cobblestone roads that are centuries old and aren't at all flat and level... it's impressive.

    Glad to hear the 2.0 won't be offered here though.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    The VR5 is a 2.4 liter engine if my memory serves me correctly. I think they are looking to match other small cars with big motors, like the 2.5 in the Sentra, 2.4 in the Lancer, and 2.3 in the Aerio. The 5 cylinder engine will feel much more powerful off the line then the old 1.8 turbo. No turbo lag to deal with. Fuel economy won't be great though.

    Honestly, I'll be sad to see the old 8 valve engine go. It's the last close tie to my 84 Rabbit GTI which has a bulletproof spunky engine. Over 20 years of service is a testament to the durable design of the engine.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032!vuserName=c- - reakid1

    Unfortunately the GEX header kept rubbing my GTI front swaybar(this Jetta didn't have a front swaybar to begin with), so the mechanic tried to move the header & broke it. Now I'm stuck w/ driving my Japanese cars for a while.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Posts: 854
    VW is so arrogant to think that their cars are "premium" and still have all these quality issues. Also, to think that people will sit and wait 6 years for a new design today is ridiculous.

    For the price of a cramped Jetta, one can get a nice roomy true mid sized car.

    They deserve their recent sales dive.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "VW is so arrogant to think that their cars are "premium" and still have all these quality issues."

    Let's hope VW can figure out how to make reliable cars, at least the ones imported from Germany. CR gave the Passat 2.8 the highest reliability rating of all German cars. That's a start.

    "Also, to think that people will sit and wait 6 years for a new design today is ridiculous."

    6 yrs isn't much. Have you wondered why the Camry/ES300 still rode uncomfortably shallow over deeper bumps for another 10 yrs from '92-02? It's b/c they've been using the same low-tech short-spring platform all this time! Even my '84 Jetta Wolfsburg coupe(just restored) based on the '74 Scirocco rides more comfortably over bumps than any of the low-tech FWD Toyota's from the '90's! While this manual-steering "vintage" VW's stable comfortable ride also provides fun-&-safe tossable handling & good-feeling steering, if only the noise level...

    Besides, the new quiet Golf V is a truely new design w/ the Focus-type control-blade rear suspension, so it's level of ride/handling compromise will climb to a new height. While someone in the VW family just figured out how to tune the new electric steering from numb into...
    creakid1 "2006 Volkswagen Jetta" Apr 1, 2004 2:07pm
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    When you consider that a good number of Jetta owners are single and don't have kids, then it doesn't make sense for them to spend the same money and get a midsize car. Some people simply don't want or need a family sized car but they prefer something sportier and more luxurious then your average small car and VW fills that premium small car niche with the Jetta. By your own thought process, one would wonder why someone would buy a BMW 3 series when they can have a full size Avalon......They are two totally different market segments and attract different buyers. Bigger is not always better, as so many Americans think.
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Posts: 865
    Actually, I think bigger is usually worse.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    or a good-handling-car, or both, that rides comfortably.

    So far, the base 325i is the champ.

    Back in '99, when I told another customer in the Pasadena VW dealer, "I guarantee! You can't find another car (rides)this comfortable at this price(over $19k Jetta)", the salesman was mighty impressed. That's right, while I sat in the back seat during the test drives, even the '99 Avalon didn't ride as calm as the '99 Jetta over bumps/undulations.
  • does matter to average buyer. Why do you think VW decided to increase the size of Golf V? I think their marketing folks saw they could sell more golfs this way. I think this is a good decision. Current golf is really tiny. Especially in Texas. I also think that recently redesigned Mazda3 is eating into VW sales. The same concept, extremely well executed, cheaper, larger and with the same quality as Jetta/Golf.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    The Golf V needs a bit more over the Golf IV's rear leg room, which was shrunken INTENTIONALLY from the earlier generations. Any 3rd-world version would not tolerate this kind of waste. That's why there's the roomy version of the Golf/Jetta IV -- the Skoda Octavia.

    The current Passat also lost leg room to the previous generation, but China Passat & Skoda Superb simply added their own wheelbase inches.

    Even I, 5'11", had no problem fitting into both the front & back of my pre-'85 Rabbit/Jetta I.

    Car companies purposely shrink their cars once while, as they can't just let the Golf growing in size continuously so no one will buy the Passat any more, especially the Golf is already quiet & comfy.

    The Volvo S80 costs a lot, so all the cheaper Volvo's are required to come w/ a cramped back seat. Heck, the old affordable Volvo 200 series got excess leg room even w/o FWD's packaging efficiency!

    & of course, w/ FWD packaging, a 173"-long '84 Camry has enormous amount of rear leg room.
  • jimjpsjimjps Posts: 146
    My understanding is that all new-chasis Jettas/Boras will be made in Mexico and imported to US and EU. This is a change in VW strategy and I would hope that they can concentrate effort into ensuring a high quality product this way. It also makes sense as the Jetta sells better in NA and the Golf sells better in EU. It seems unclear when GolfV will be made in Mexico or Brazil so maybe we will only get more expensive GTI's from EU initially.
  • spectre96spectre96 Posts: 3
    I read in post 53 [Is the "5 Cylinder" a Current Euro Motor?] a question about a five-cilinder engine in the Golf IV or in the new one. I live in Europe, and will give the lineup of engines available here:

    * Volkswagen Golf V


    1.4 16V 4-cilinder - 75 hp
    1.4 16V FSI 4-cilinder - 100 hp *new engine*
    1.6 8V 4-cilinder - 102 hp
    1.6 16V FSI 4-cilinder - 115 hp *new engine*
    2.0 16V FSI 4-cilinder - 150 hp *new engine* ==> this is the NEW engine, direct fuel injection.

    NO 5-cilinder in this new Golf V in Europe. Coming in a few months is the VW Golf GTI with a new 2.0 turbo FSI engine 4-cilinder with 200 hp. Very fast they say!


    2.0 16V SDI 4-cilinder - 75 hp *new engine*
    1.9 8V TDI 4-cilinder - 90 hp
    1.9 8V TDI 4-cilinder - 105 hp
    2.0 16V TDI 4-cilinder - 140 hp

    * Volkswagen Golf IV

    1.4 16V 4-cilinder - 75 hp
    1.6 8V 4-cilinder - 100 hp
    1.6 16V 4-cilinder - 105 hp
    2.0 8V 4-cilinder - 115 hp
    1.8 20V 4-cilinder - 125 hp
    1.8 turbo 4-cilinder - 150 / 180 / 210 / 225 hp
    2.3 5-cilinder - 150 hp *old*
    2.3 5-cilinder - 170 hp *newer*
    2.8 V6 - 204 hp
    3.2 V6 - 241 hp


    1.9 8V SDI 4-cilinder - 68 hp
    1.9 8V TDI 4-cilinder - 90 / 100 / 110 / 115 / 130 / 150 hp

    These are the engines available.
  • In US we only get 2 engines for Golf and 2 for GTI

    Golf IV -

    1.9 TDI diesel - 100 hp
    2.0 gas good for a measly 115 hp and 122 torque

    both with 8 V - Even Hyundai has better engines in their competing car - Elantra :(

    GTI spices things up quite a bit, though

    1.8 T 180 hp
    and even better
    2.8 vr6 200 hp

    But the cheaper GTI is $4K more expensive then Golf.
    It will be interesting what we will get. I guess new 2.0L gas and diesel would go into Golf V and something from Passat into GTI:)
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    finally arriving in the U.S.

    I hate it when the DSG isn't available for the 4-cyl gas engines.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,868
    New Golf is scheduled for 2006, not 2005.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "...if driven hard it grips better at the front end, with a sharper turn-in than front-wheel-drive models. There will also be an optional rough road package, which increases the ground clearance by 20 millimetres, firms up the suspension and includes a protection plate underneath the engine."

    Unlike the GTI, which is available w/ DSG, this tough vehicle is stick only -- for you macho drivers. Who needs a tippy SUV when off roading?
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    Actually that article seemed to contradict it self.

    I'm not sure how you can have handling that is
    "...tidy, if not exciting, with a comfortable ride and good body control"
    but also be "...lifeless and offers little in the way of driver involvement"

    Any way, that is for the SEAT Toledo. Cousins may share some genes, but they tend to have their own personalities.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    as far as talking to the driver so the driver can feel what's going on & know what to do.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    The SEAT León is the one that's basically a Golf. I thought the Toledo was built on something bigger. In any case, I've never heard of the Toledo being meant to be fun, unlike the Ibiza (subcompact) and León (compact).
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    Just like the Leon/Toledo. Now it's the Altea/Toledo.
This discussion has been closed.