Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Volkswagen Jetta 2006+
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
VW has not shown to have this ability as many of their cars are problematic well into the 3rd, 4th, 5th years and on. So there is no comparison who builds cars with less problems and more happy content customers. Just ask the lemon attorney on this site who posts driftracer? and you'll see the high VW, Kia cases opposed to Honda/Toyota.
Every auto has problems, especially first year problems.
It’s the way a manufacturer (and dealers) respond to the problems that can make a huge impact on its customers satisfaction, and consequently its reputation.
That’s why I think a maintenance free warranty would be beneficial. It would put the customers and dealers at ease about repairing items that are clearly defective, such as power windows or struts or thermostat etc going out in year 3.
The Ford/Firestone incident comes to mind as what NOT to do.
I looked at Edmunds "true cost to own" figures for repairs and maintenance. For 2001 Jetta total for 5 years and 75K mi is $6206. For a 2001 Toyota Camry it is actually hihger, $6866. The repair figures are identical ($2102), maintenance figure is higher for the Camry.
The edmunds repair cost figure is based on the cost of an extended warranty, adjusted for estimated profit. If VW is so unreliable, why would the extended warranty cost not reflect that?
This has been my sentiment all along, though I have been arguing the fact that this engine has an extra cylinder is more disappointing. No advantage from the 6 speed auto in terms of MPG or acceleration, either, it would seem, given the MT and C/D reviews. And since sound quality doesnt seem to be a strong point... is this really where VW wants the mainstream Jettas to be for the next 5 or 6 years?
Pity.
~alpha
and i just forgot the servotronic the new electric auto ajusting direction and new rear suspension and a lot more...
so the base car doesn't give 0-60 mph in 7 seconds...too bad but there's a 2.0l turbo cumming in a couple of months that is capable to do it in under 7 sec!!!and the base engine doesn't have a super fuel economie hey! no problem a 177 pd- feet of torque turbo diesel is comming with an exceptional fuel economie don't like the standard tranny well you will be able to get it with the new d.s.g. 6 speed sequential gearbox!!!
i think vw is going to be fine for the next 5 years...
I wonder why a six-speed manual isn't offered with the five-cylinder. This would probably improve highway fuel economy.
Thanks for pointing this out. In fact, GM pulled something similar with the original ION (except it was a 5-speed auto, which most in the class still dont offer). When they realized the tranny was panend by the mags and public alike, because it offered no acceleration or economy benefit, it got yanked in favor of the already-used 4sp auto which works very nicely with the Ecotec.
So, the VW 2.5L 5 is loud shaker that doesnt produce good accel times nor achieves good MPG. Yup, I'd say this is a great engine to power a majority of Jettas until the next redesign in 5 or 6 years.
~alpha
In the mid 90’s I drove a civic for a while. I’d routinely get 26mpg. It happens when you run the engine over 5K all the time.
After a while I got tired of having to rev that high to get “decent” performance out of it.
It’s easier to get good mpg when the engine isn’t making any power (low rpms)
It may get worse real world mpg than the competition.
I was simply pointing out that the EPA is not the be-all/end-all of fuel consumption.
If the power is available lower and is more accessible, 1-5mpg doesn’t bother me again I’m making this up, it may have worse response who knows.
2005 altima mpg=28 city 39 hwy
2005 accord=29 city-44 hwy
2005 camry=28-44
etc... do you have any idea for the new jetta?thanks in advance
but they loved the interior and ride.
i can't wait for the gas turbo!
In US gallons:
2006 Jetta 6-speed auto is 22 city / 30 highway
2005 Camry 4/auto 24/34
2005 Camry 4/stick 24/33
2005 Camry 6/auto 20/28 or 21/29
2005 Accord 4/auto 24/34
2005 Accord 4/stick 26/34
2005 Accord 6/auto 21/30
2005 Accord 6/stick 20/30
2005 Altima 4/auto 23/29
2005 Altima 4/stick 24/31
2005 Altima 6/stick 21/27 or 20/28
2005 Altima 6/auto 20/30
2005 Malibu 4/auto 24/35
2005 Malibu 6/auto 22/32
All of the above except the four-cylinder Malibu make more power than the five-cylinder Jetta. Most of them get better mileage. It doesn't add up!
The five is a pathetic base engine because it does nothing particularly well. The TDI gets fantastic mileage at the expense of acceleration, which will be substantially worse than the 2.5. The turbo will probably get the same mediocre mileage as the 2.5 and produce great performance, but require premium fuel. Apparantly, VW can't be bothered to build an engine that both produces good performance (0-60 < 8 seconds) and is economical (obtaining > 30 mpg on regular).
They can, it’s called the 2.0T
With DSG it achieves a sub 7 sec 0-60, if that is important to you.
The mpg I’ve seen for this engine has only been with the Euro test. Not knowing the particulars, they are a bit “off” of the EPA (or visa versa it could be argued). Their highway (converted to mpg) was around 40 obviously will be different when EPA does the testing.
It’s been a long time since I’ve dropped a clutch from high rpm’s to get the magazine “published” 0-60 times. 5-60 and more importantly 30-50, 50-70 is important to me.
What is VW thinking?
~alpha
The Euro tests tend to result in higher MPG numbers, even after converting U.S. gallons to Euro gallons.
Someone mentioned that the car "might" achieve real-world MPG higher than the EPA tests. This is extremely unlikely, and the only vehicle I can think of where this occurs with any regularity is the Kia minivan. Typically, consumers see MPG figures that are lower than the EPA rating.
0-60 is not the be-all, end-all, and I don't go around getting the magazine published times either, but it provides some indication of how snappy the car is going to feel. In the 9-second range, the 2.5 will never feel fast.
They're thinking this Jetta will sell like the old one did, and that the impressive features list will make up for its lackluster standard powertrain.
I have no problem with premium, if there is an advantage to using it.
I’m not trying to defend the 2.5; I have no vested interest. Not having driven either, I would opt for the 2.0T and pass on options in order to achieve a comparable price. Additionally, there already are chips out for the 2.0T (230 hp/ 230ft lb).
9 seconds, or there about, does not seem impressive. If the torque came on low, again taking liberties in favor of the 2.5, this would give the impression that it had more performance than the drag strip indicates.
If my wife were looking at this car, she would probably choose the cheaper 2.5 with options over the 2.0T with no options. To many people, other than enthusiasts (many here), there would be very little perceivable difference between a 7.5 and 8.5 0-60. My wife is the last leaving the stop light I’m the first.
I guess you could argue that if EVERYTHING were equal why not get he Accord or Altima (4 cyl) with better 0-60. For me, I find every car a little different than every other. Sometimes I come away with the impression that “I just like it better” and it’s difficult to qualify what exactly it is (like when I drive BMW’s).
I made the comparison of the “real world” mileage. My intention was to show that the highest EPA rating will not always relate to best mpg when compared to other autos. I was getting 26mpg in a civic and 20mpg in a G35. The G35 had more power everywhere so I didn’t have to “drive it like I stole it”.
in the real world of luxury compact car the new jetta is probably all around the new benchmark....but again it's more expensive i don't know what to think anymore!!vw is always super conservative with o-60 times...there usually a lot better example=jetta 1.8t o-60 in 7.9 sec no way -my friend has one and we clocked it at 6.952 with a tiptronic tranny!!!i just hope their wrong again with jetta v...
For me, and according to most mags, the benchmark for compact cars is the outstandings Mazda 3, which can be had with leather NAV moonroof and 160 horse 2.3L 4 cylinder for about $22,000.
~alpha
That of course may not be important to everybody.
When I purchased my last auto, I was cross shopping a base Accord I4 5sp and a Passat 5sp. The Passat was more expensive as a base, about 2K, but included more standard features (4 wheel disc brakes, nice rims, side airbags, better warranty, etc) plus it drove better. I would have paid the extra 2K but the Honda dealership did 2K better on the trade in; so the net was 4K, not huge but due to other factors (building new house, wife quit her job, medical bills etc) I wanted the lowest monthly payment.
If 0-60 is your thing I’d go with a 2.0T and chip it; amazing things have been done with the 1.8T chipped.
Mazda 3 saw one the other day in a parking lot (never driven one). It was a black hatch, I thought “what a nice looking little car”. One of the nicest hatches I’ve seen in a while.
IT?Ihttp://www.vwvortex.com/gallery/gallery2.php?mode=album&a- lbum=/Volkswagen/Passat/Passat%20VI/Passat%20Sedan%20(Europe)'M SURE THAT YOU SAW THESE PICS BUT ANYWAYS!
Thanks.
~alpha
I am not slow pulling away from lights I tend to be the fastest, actually. My current car is rated in the 9 sec range.
The current gen Passat does have attractive lease rates, as does other outgoing Audi/VW products, but I’m staying away.
Honda Accord and Toyota Camry weigh 5-10% less than the new Jetta. The VW engine has 5% greater displacement and 25% more cylinders. I would imagine all these factors have somethng to do with the 10% or so lower mileage.
Whether the hwy mpg is 30 or 34 will be a non-issue for me. 4 mpg is really not a significant operating cost difference. I am not going to worry over $80-120 per year differences in the cost of gas.
Maybe an AWD version with a 3.2TDI DSG or 3.6VR6 DSG
Since I drive about 20,000 miles a year right now, and assuming that overall economy for vehicles of similar weight (say CamCords) is about 27 MPG, and the overall economy of the Jetta 6 speed auto 2.5L would be about 24 MPG, thats a difference of 93 gallons of gas. At $2 per, that $186, and over 4 years (holding gas prices at $2), $745. That may not be significant to you, but it is to me.
Wait, how much does this Jetta weigh? A Camry LE 5A is about 3200 lbs. The new Jetta is 3300 lbs+?
~alpha
The TDI is quite peppy with v-6 like torque, and for the 90% of the time that most people will stay under 4,000 rpm the diesel will feel like a v-6.
Torque is the true indicator of an engines strength. Hp is basically speed times that strength (divided by a constant 5252).
For instance a person who can lift 200 lbs in 1 second is stronger than a person who can lift 100 lbs in .25 seconds. The thing is, the weaker person has twice the power because he "revs higher". Same with hp vs torque.
So if the revs are within a fixed range (such as in normal driving below about 3-4000 rpm) this takes away the advantage of having higher hp as the revs never get high enough to produce the power.
http://media.vw.com/press_files/text/Jetta%20Techspecs.pdf
So not much weight difference, actually.
Driving it will be the key.
I am assuming that the higher gas mileage of the japanese engines involves some kind of trade-off. I happened to see a post on this same issue on vwvortex. Some there claimed that the torque curve of this engine is much better (flatter) than those Japanese engines.
If you are worried about expenses...the cost of a new car every 4 years is a lot more significant than the gas difference :-). You would save a lot more than $750 by keeping a car for say 120,000 miles rather than 80,000.
With every car I have owned, in my typical driving I get pretty much the average of highway and city mileage figures. I get close to the highway number on long freeway trips, which are not very frequent. So really I am looking at average of 29 (based on 24/34) vs. 26 (based on 22/30). I keep a car for at least 120,000. The difference for 120,000 miles comes to 477 gallons or about $1000 (and in my case this would be at least 10 years...so its $100 or less per year). If a car I like were to cost me $1000 more than one I did not like...I'd pay the extra $1000.
I'd like to look up the consumer reports actual milage figures for Volvo S40 (since it gets similar mileage to the VW engine) vs. the Camry and Accord. I am curious as to whether what they see in actual driving matches the EPA difference. I am assuming that they are consistent in the way that they drive for their mileage tests.
The torque curve of Toyota's 2.4L is actually pretty flat. Its a DOHC engine with redline at 6300 RPM, and peak torque of 163 pounds at a low (for a twin cam 4) 4000RPM. (Thats actually a lower peak than the Camry's 3.0L V6).
"If you are worried about expenses...the cost of a new car every 4 years is a lot more significant than the gas difference :-). You would save a lot more than $750 by keeping a car for say 120,000 miles rather than 80,000."
There are a lot of factors that go into this, and personally, I think theres a lot of arguments that can be made surrounding the precipitous drop in resale value after 100K, replacement of many wear itesm at the 90K/100k mark, etc.
In any case, this car is very underwhelming on paper.
Id sacrifice a little luxury and refinement from the more attractive, class leading, and lower priced Mazda 3s.
~alpha
This is a silly argument. The new car is going to drop in value a whole lot more than an old used car. The used car is not worth much, so can not lose much value. You are misguided if you have convinced yourself that you save money buying a new car. There are a lot of reasons to buy, but saving money is never one of them.
The few hundred bucks saved on repairs by buying a new car is not going to offset the $20,000 price of a new car. Not to mention insurance will be higher and most will be paying interest on the $20K.
If your car loses 1/2 its value in the first 4 years, that only leave 1/2 the value to be lost in all the rest of its useful life.
I recall seeing that BMW 330’s would routinely get in the low 30’s for highway; which is quite impressive since they have “BMW horses”
New Camry and Accord have “flatter” torque curves than in the past (4cyl) but not necessarily low. I guess not many 4cyl cars have low torque any way unless you’re talking turbo; 2.0T etc.
Since there have been auto mag tests on the Jetta, it would be nice to see actually engine specifications
perhaps its one saving grace would be a flat torque curve. funny that this engines uses a 6 speed automatic because it doesn't like to rev and that's what a 6 speed would take advantage of.
i agree that the mazda 3 is the best economy car out there but the jetta promises to be the most affordable premium compact. this IMO makes the 2.5 stick out even further as a detriment.
but the jetta 2.0t w/DSG tranny is going to make this one sweeeeet car. better gas mileage and much better performance that's more inline with the car's overall premium feel.
A few opinions:
-Styling: subjective, I know, but: Looks every bit as much as a morphed Corolla in person as it does on the web. Front angles are very attractive, profile less so, rear looks chunky giving car an overall stout impression. I dont think it has the eloquent charm of the Gen IV Jetta, nor does it have the trendiness.
-Trim Levels:
2.5L Value Edition
2.5L
Package 1
Package 2
The Package 2 model was $27K grand with 6 speed auto. This is no NAV, and with the 2.5L 150 horse guzzler/shaker. I can think of at least a half dozen other $27K cars that I'd rather have than the 2.5L Pkg 2, regardless of how well this vehicle handles/rides. An AWD Legacy GT (gives up features for all weather precision) or an Acura TSX (gives up torque but trumps the Jetta everywhere else) come immediately to mind.
-The "Leatherette" (vinyl) that is standard on all models except the Value Pkg (cloth) and the Pkg 2 (REAL leather) borders on vulgar. This isnt going to fool anyone. Seriously folks, I have no idea why, but its incredibly unconvincing- nothing like the leatherette on the BMW 3 series.
-The interior fit and finish and materials quality were oustanding, as expected. VW does an excellent job of interior design. That said, this isnt 1999 anymore and competitors have been advancing in both style and quality. The Jetta's interior is no longer the stand-out it once was.
-VW should be commended that electronic stability control is available as standard on the 21K models. That said, if you want stability control, you cant avoid the leatherette seating unless you have the 27K for the Pkg 2 model. Additionally, you I dont believe you can get a moonroof on the base model either.
-There are but 6 exterior colors available. Silver, Grey, two shades of Black, white, and Navy blue. Clearly, VW has taken variety to a new extreme. Germans gone wild!!!
-The rear seat is positively expansive compared with the current model.
-Fuel economy is indeed posted on the window sticker of the 6sp autos as 22/30. At the Toyota display, the 3.5L Avalon, which produces 280 horses and 260 foot pounds of twist, reads 22/31.
I've said from the beginning that this 'new' 2.5L VW 5 cylinder seemed to be a compromise with no competitive advantage. I'll stand by that. As noted, the reviews from the mags have also cited its non-refined sound.
So, there's still the drive. But if its a German driving experience you're after, for $27K, you could get a Certified Pre-Owned 2002 loaded BWW 330i.
Food for thought.
~alpha
if the new jetta 2.0t has that ignot solid feel over the road to go along with the high quality interior and numerous thoughtful features then i think it will be the car that stands out among the $27k cars.
And is the 2.0t going to comprise the majority of sales? I doubt it.
~alpha
still a bargain compared to the volvo s40, saab 9-3 and acura TSX. even the TSX doesn't have some of the features of the Jetta and will be out performed badly with the auto.
and you know how i love my hondas!
If the leatherette is crummy, I'd rather have cloth. BMW makes such a nice leatherette that I'd never pay for leather in one if the leatherette were available.
Anyway, that aside, I consider myself a professional, am educated, and will be as unbiased as possible in replying to some issues I've seen raised regarding the new Jetta.
I've driven the car.
About the leatherette seating: I would disagree, based on my personal opinion, and that voiced by many at our BMW store, that the VW leatherette is inferior. The leatherette on the new Jetta is the same as the leatherette upholstery in the 2004 Touareg and Passat. Passat and Touareg clients have expressed overwhelmingly positive reactions to leatherette in my experience. I have had many clients remark that they would rather have this material than real leather. Quite a few folks don't even notice the difference until we point it out, I'd say honestly about 40% of people are surprised when you tell them that leatherette is not "real". I would say, based on client reaction, that leatherette gets a 75% positive reaction from clients at my store. Many of our BMW store ( MINI also ) employees have remarked that they wish BMW had leatherette of the quality we do on the VW side of the house. I've actually heard a few BMW owners say the same. The BMW leatherette ( and MINI ) is generally not perforated like the VW sorrt, and is quite a bit stickier and less comfortable in real-world use than the VW material, especially in warm climates. The same cannot be said of the VW Beetle leatherette, as it seems to be of a lower grade than Jetta/Touareg/Passat. The leatherette gets such an overwhelmingly positive reaction at my store, that I'm surprised to see someone have such a negative reaction to it. To each his/her own, but this is completely contradictory to a lot of observed client reaction over about 2 years now.
On my drive, I did not notice the excessive "moaning" that some ( who have probably not driven the car but read a review and regurgitated the autor's opinion ) mention. I am disappointed that the horsepower rating on paper is so low. However, I must admit, that the nice torque characteristics mated with the very smooth-shifting 6-speed automatic do very well. The car moves out smartly. I would say that with any small car, there is some powertrain noise, but by no stretch would I deem it offensive. I would say that the engine noise is less than many typical 4-cyl cars under acceleration, such as Hondas, etc. Road noise is much lower than many.
The 2.5L engine that I experienced was not a "shaker". Very smooth. Actually, smoother than many 4-cylinder cars I've driven. I would be surprised if anyone outside of an automotive journalist would notice any 5-cyl harmonics or vibration. I would encourage anyone who has driven the new car with 2.5L 5 cylinder to comment on your impressions of the engine. Until then, I'd reserve judgment. I think a lot of the naysayers will think twice once they drive the car. Is it a 350 V8? No. For a base engine, very adequate? Yes. Those wishing for more have the excellent TDI or soon to arrive 200hp 2.0T, a 200hp engine with a broad torque band too ( hello, Acura ;>) ) to choose from.
I agree, I am not taken by the styling of the new Jetta. That being said, I think the Jetta 4 was an ugly car as well. I much preferrred the styling of my '97 Jetta 3. I will say that the interior room and appointments are such a leap from the outgoing Jetta, that looks are secondary to me, as the functional aspect of much improved interior space outweigh the exterior issue. Again, looks are subjective.
Regarding stability control, it is indeed an option on the base Jetta with cloth seats. You do not need to step up to a $21k model to get ESP. On 2.5 Jettas and up, the ESP is standard. On Value Edition Jettas, ESP is an option for less than $300. Of course you can't get a moonroof or other elaborate options on the base model ( Value Edition ). That's why it is a base model.
Regarding NAV system: Why would you want a NAV system built into a car? I personally don't understand this one. If I had built a low-res TV into the wall of my house, and could never remove it, what do I do when HDTV comes out? Compared to the cost of any factory nav system I've seen, one can get a great Garmin unit for far less cost. Not only less cost, but the Garmin or Magellan unit is probably more easily upgraded over time, and can be taken to other cars. For half the price of most OEM nav units, I'll go to garmin and get a better unit for half the price that I can take with me. Oh, and that unit will be upgradable over time too, unlike my hardwired nav from the factory that is quickly outdated. I understand the cosmetic argument, yes, an in-dash nav looks cool, but hey, I'll take function over form, and go on a cruise with the leftover money ;>) .
The new Jetta is certainly not perfect, and I was skeptical, until I drove the car. Specs on paper aside, when I drove the car with a critical eye ( was expecting to be disappointed ), I was pleasantly surprised that the overall package works quite well, and is a dramatic improvement over the outgoing Jetta. The new car makes the old car seem "cheap" to me, something I never thought of the Jetta 4 prior to the Jetta 5 drive.
Just my 2c worth. Drive it. If you still think it stinks, so be it.
Matt