2014 Volkswagen Passat TSI Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,316
edited September 2014 in Volkswagen

image2014 Volkswagen Passat TSI Long-Term Road Test

Volkswagen's 1.8-liter turbocharged engine is great in the Passat, but gets even better in smaller, lighter cars.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • reminderreminder Member Posts: 383
    Got the same motor in my '14 Jetta.
    Like it so far. Fairly broad power band, typical of most turbos.
    Rare in small displacement motors.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    It's popular right now to say that the new breed of small turbos do not outperform larger naturally-aspirated engines, but...just took a look at the LT 2012 Camry, and over 17,000 miles, with the standard 2.4 liter four at 178 hp vs. 170 hp for this VW, the Camry averaged 25.7 mpg and went 0-60 in 8.6 seconds, compared to 27-and-improving mpg and 0-60 in 7.7 for the Passat. Now, VW always underrates its engines, and the turbo gives a much wider powerband, but the Passat is a slightly larger and heavier car than the Camry, so this is a clearly superior powertrain performance.
  • bassrockerxbassrockerx Member Posts: 24
    ive seen one here in Alabama i assumed that it was from canada or mexico or perhaps purchased in Europe by a military serviceman. had to a double take. forgot what tags it had.
  • glossgloss Member Posts: 150
    The Leon's a great-looking little car. Like an Audi-lite.
  • barich1barich1 Member Posts: 143
    fordson1, the Toyota engine isn't even direct injected, so that's not a very apt comparison. That makes a big difference by itself. A better one would be with the new Mazda6, but there's no Edmunds average for that of course.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    barich1, here is the comparison I'm making: this is the powertrain Toyota is selling in its midsized sedan, and this is the powertrain VW is selling in its midsized sedan. Nobody told Toyota that in the year 2014, they could not sell a direct-injected engine in the Camry. This is the car they brought to market, and so I'm comparing.
  • barich1barich1 Member Posts: 143
    You said that "It's popular right now to say that the new breed of small turbos do not outperform larger naturally-aspirated engines, but.." and then used Toyota as an example to prove your point. If you didn't start off making a broader point that isn't accurate, and were just comparing the Camry to the Passat, yeah, the Passat's powertrain wins.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    The other reason I compared is because Edmunds had a LT Camry, so it was apples to apples. If they had a long-term DI car like a newer Accord or Mazda6 four, I would have compared that.
  • emajoremajor Member Posts: 332
    fordson,
    When I've made the "WTF is up with these small turbos" comments, I'm referring to the 1.6 and 2.0 Ecoboost and 1.4 Cruze turbo, and I think the criticism is well deserved there. The 1.6 provides no power or fuel economy advantage over the Toyota 2.5, the 2.0 can't compete with the Japanese 3.5 V6s or Pentastar, and the 2-liter NA Focus engine makes the Ford quicker than the 1.4 Cruze without using any more fuel.

    VW does the small turbo thing right. This 1.8 looks like what the 1.6 Ecoboost was trying to accomplish.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    emajor, I agree that VW does this right - they have been doing it since the B5 Passat in 1998, and that's about 10 years longer than anyone at Ford, Hyundai, etc. have been doing it, and it shows. I would add that as installed in the Escape, Fusion, etc. the 1.6 and 2.0 Ecoboost are kinda flat...as installed in the Fiesta ST and Focus ST, they are much better.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles