Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Volkswagen Passat 2006+

1252628303145

Comments

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Using regular fuel in any of the Passats, 1.8T, 2.0T, 2.8, 3.6 and even the W8 is a waste of money.

    The engine management systems dial back the spark to attempt to deter pre-ignition and engine damage due to such, but the exchange is poorer gas mileage.

    Every dealer tech and even the service managers says, "using regular is OK." But over the course of driving the car for, say 25 - 50,000 miles it costs more to burn regular for several reasons.

    Using regular is a false economy, that is.

    The Passats are designed for optimum performance with premium.

    Eventually, the use of regular, one would imagine, could cause other problems -- it makes me wonder if you did have an engine issue during the warranty period if you would have trouble collecting if it would be determined that you might have been a chronic user of regular.
  • ricwhitericwhite Member Posts: 292
    Which states only sell up to 89 octane? I've never heard that before.

    None, I believe. I think it's easy to "assume" premium is only 89 because the other two grades are 85 and 87. But, as in Utah, the premium jumps 4 numbers to 91. I am willing to bet the same is true in Colorado and other similar states.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    "Well the Passat and RAV4 are competitors for me."

    That is what counts, since it is your money. Likewise a hamburger and a Morton's New York Strip are competitors if you are hungry. That is all I was trying to say.

    Typically, generally, broadly speaking, the RAV4 and Passat are -- based on marketing -- not generally competitors. Passats may vie for your dollar, but generally speaking someone looking at an RAV4 probably is not looking at a Passat as an alternative.

    My broad, general comments in no way were meant to invalidate your considerations.

    Where did you find the reliability reports that suggest one of these vehicles are a cause for concern?

    Now, if you respond CR, that too is fine, but generally I find CR to be a somewhat less than reliable statistical sample (especially of German cars) to provide much more than an anecdote.

    The folks here on edmunds would be far more of a better source of info on a whole host of factors you may consider germane when when looking to buy such an emotional object as an automobile.

    ". . .yea yea yea, but is she a good kisser?" :blush:
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,162
    Well, RAV4 and Passat are similar price, similar cargo/people space (wagon version anyway), similar interior/feature content. Cross shopping those is as much relevant, or even more than say BMW 325 or Camry/Accord.

    The fact their driving characters are they have different looks is only relevant to people who "know" cars and can tell the difference between hatchback and wagon or between turbocharging and supercharging. Others look exactly at the price, content and space, i.e. if it fits the wallet and lifestyle. In this regard, RAV4 and Passat wagon might be direct competitors more than you know. One may be surprised what people cross-shop. Their reasons are plenty. Not mine, but I can see why they jump between seemingly completely different vehicles.

    2018 430i Gran Coupe

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I agree completely.

    The "group" of cars that are often "tested" by the likes of Car & Driver, etc, usually (not always, I grant) -- usually would be what "they" consider direct competitors.

    The Accord, Camry and Passat are "logical" when Motor Trend does a comparo.

    Again, I agree completely and I understand that folks cross shop. We're all jus' jawbonin' here.

    Speaking of "performance" or "space" or "drive line" or whatever, one tends to classify and categorize.

    As did I.

    I have a very high regard for the Passat and I (me, as in ONE PERSON) classify the Passat as a near-Premium German sports sedan. With no dis meant, I do not place the RAV4 no matter what in the same class.

    It struck me as incongruous to compare them ostensibly by virture of "its the same as but $12,000 less -- but with a lot less lux" [sic] kind of approach.

    I am often wrong, but never uncertain.

    Sorry if I upset anyone. :shades:
  • glenn386glenn386 Member Posts: 47
    I just checked the state of Montana website. different portions of Montana each have different requirements. In the higher elevations gas has 85.5 to 89 minimums. This is supposedly because at high elevations the 89 acts similarly to 91 at lower elevations. I also called a friend in Colorado and found that the minimum for the state is 89, but most large city stations stock 91.
    Texas also has a Minimum of 90, again most provide 91, but you may be stuck with a tank or two of 90 if you are traveling there.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    My business partner cross-shopped a BMW 530i (because he liked mine so much) with a Dodge Intrepid. The Intrepid won. Why? Not because of price (their lease prices were within $20 per month with the 5er being cheaper to insure), it was because he didn't figure the 5er would be a good towing platform for his jet skis.

    In my case, my top five cars are:

    1) Audi A3 2.0T
    2) Mazda MX-5
    3) BMW 330i
    4) Audi A4 2.0T
    5) VW Passat 2.0T
    6) Saab Sport Combi

    All would be equipped preferably with a 6-Speed transmission, Sport Package, Leather Seating, Xenon's, Bluetooth and a higher end audio system. Nav and AWD are something that I'd consider, however, the only car that can combine all of my preferred options and AWD is the A4. Fortunately AWD is an option that I'm ambivalent about at best.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "I just checked the state of Montana website. different portions of Montana each have different requirements. In the higher elevations gas has 85.5 to 89 minimums. This is supposedly because at high elevations the 89 acts similarly to 91 at lower elevations."

    Unless you're driving a turbo, then the 89 octane destroys your peak power even when you're at altitude. I drove a couple of turbocharged cars back in the 1980s and everytime I drove through mountains in Colorado my car would attempt to go to full power, only to have the OBC constantly jumping in to save the engine. Very annoying that.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • jimd4jimd4 Member Posts: 877
    Well I am looking at the RAV4 because it seems to have good all around performance, very good handlng and good space at a resonable price. I looked at the Passat wagon because it has much of the same along with lots of nice features and details that are similar to but not as well done as my present Audi A6 2.7T. And I am looking at both because the new A6 Avant has a sticker around $50K! If I did not need some hauling space it would be the A4 2.0T which is a jewel of a car.

    But as of today I have not decided on any car and in the end may suck it up and buy the A6 cause I love it so much!

    After two A6s I know they are.."good kissers"!
  • glenn386glenn386 Member Posts: 47
    I have had one salesman tell me that 4motion and Audi quattro are exactly the same all wheel systems and another salesman tell me that 4motion is based on quattro, but not exactly the same. does anyone know the real story?

    On the octane thing, I wasn't saying I wanted to burn 89 octane gas...I was asking if I will hurt a passat if I am unable to get 91 while on a trip?
  • krzysskrzyss Member Posts: 849
    there are 2 quattro systems and 2 4motion.
    1st set is haldex based (Audi TT, Golf R32, 2006 Passat)
    2nd set has torsen center differential (Audi A4, A6, <2005 Passat).

    Krzys
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,162
    I think both of them are telling the truth. Old Passat's 4motion was exactly quattro, new Passats 4motion is a Haldex clutch - totally different system than quattro in A4, similar to quattro system in A3/TT.

    Quattro is just a trade mark, so is 4motion. They simply mean AWD for Audi or Passat, respectively. The technical solutions vary upon the model, but entire AWD R&D is done at Audi, I think. VW gets the solution and might do some minor changes, but really minor, if any.

    2018 430i Gran Coupe

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    There are differences in the systems. Haldex and TorSen are not the same.

    Now, VW is Haldex, it used to be Both based on the orientation of the engine. The Passat WAS TorSen, it is NOW Haldex.

    Most Audis are TorSen, some are Haldex, as noted above.

    TorSen, it can be demonstrated, CAN be superior.

    For all real day in day out purposes, don't sweat the differences.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    I'm still considering:

    Buick Lucerne
    Hyundai Azera
    Acura TL
    BMW 325xi
    Lincoln Zephyr

    Front runner right now (yes, this will blow you away) is the . . . Azera. No kidding.

    I still need to test drive the Lucerne and Zephyr.


    I also was disappointed in the Passat especially since it is grossly overpriced in Canada with no Dynaudio to boot!

    I thought the interior of the Azera was cheap, plus it has no Xenons or Navigation system availability.

    The TL is a great car for the price. Navigation system, Xenons and audio are all awesome but the ride is rough and some of the cars have defects in respect to vibrations, rattles, bad leather, etc.

    The Lucerne has no Xenons but is quiet with a good audio.

    The BMW has those horrible run-flat tires plus the abominable i-Drive, not to mention the inflated price and rather cramped interior space. Also, the automatic transmission hesitates when you step on it, a "feature" which IMHO makes the car somewhat unsafe.

    The Zephyr is very nice; it has a lovely stylish interior, great ride, is very quiet, has a super audio and available Xenons and Navigation. In my view it's probably the best compromise of the lot and will be even better with the upcoming 3.5L engine although Car and Driver clocked the 0-60 speed on the 3.0L engine at 7.3 seconds which is not bad.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "The BMW has those horrible run-flat tires plus the abominable i-Drive, not to mention the inflated price and rather cramped interior space. Also, the automatic transmission hesitates when you step on it, a "feature" which IMHO makes the car somewhat unsafe."

    Have you actually driven one? By all accounts the Run-Flat tires on the 3-Series do quite nicely. Slams against the iDrive are getting rather old as BMW has dramatically improved the system since its introduction in the 7-Series, and by most accounts of those who actually gave the system a chance are quite positive. Cramped? Funny, the new E90 is for all intents and purposes as large as the E39 5-Series, a car which I found to be quite roomy. As for the hesitation in the automatic, well, it depends upon how you have it setup. In economy mode, the transmission shifts up to conserve on fuel and as such it needs a moment to downshift when extra urge is called for. Don't like the hesitation? Simple cure, switch the transmission into "Sport" mode, problem solved.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    Have you actually driven one?

    As a matter of fact, yes. The tires are stiff and impart an incessant drone which intrudes into the cabin and impairs the driving experience. The drone lessens at higher speeds.

    Further, the tires are expensive and have poor availability unless you find yourself in a large metropolitan area at the time of tire woe.

    The other matter of concern regarding these tires relates to just how far one can drive on the RFT when it in fact runs flat. The BMW website indicates the range is 150 miles. Two separate BMW salesmen have indicated 300 miles. A third one imparted the wisdom that "no one really knows." All of this is confidence-inspiring, of course.

    The i-Drive is abominable by any standards. It contravenes virtually every principle of the man-machine interface and the desired economies of time and motion pertaining thereto in affecting a parameter modification. What more is there to be said of a device about which rationalizations must be made in order to make it more palatable?

    The interior of the E90 is 91 cubic feet, 50 in the front and 41 in the back. Yes, it is spacious if the Mini or the Smart Car or perhaps the diminutive Lexus IS are your parameters for comparison. The size is barely adequate, nothing more.

    And yes, the automatic transmission, which is what I prefer, very definitely hesitates as has been amply documented on various affecionado websites.

    While we are at it, what ergonomic meister decided to place both cupholders on the front passenger's side of the car's dash? Is the person occupying that seat the bartender-designate by chance?! Should not the masterful i-Drive and capacious front seat volume have created sufficient vacant dash real estate so as to make the placement of the cupholders more equitable?

    One more observation while we are at it. Why does one require both a key fob and a separate Start/Stop button to turn the engine on and off? How exactly is this superior to a single device, i.e. an ignition key, in subserving this function. Has the company forgotten the dictum that fewer moving parts reduce the chance of malfunction?

    Considering the above, there is no doubt, helped along by the likes of Bangle and those of his ilk, that BMW is losing its way on the automotive design and execution highway and sadly departing from the principles of yesteryear which formerly made it the Ultimate Driving Machine, its superior handling, steering, braking and powerplants notwithstanding.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Sorry to have ever questioned your vaunted opinions Oh Authoritative one. Suffice to say that said opinions are just that, and in fact are very debatable in the very least.

    For my part, the only opinion of yours that I even remotely agree with is the bit about the Run-Flat tires and their Run-Flatability. Personally I'd much rather have a spare available in the even of a flat, Run-Flats or no.

    The good news for you at least is that there are many other cars on the market that measure up better on your personally biased yard stick, the G35 for instance.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • georgekgeorgek Member Posts: 50
    Sorry, shipo, he's right. BMW has pimped-up its cars to the point that they are expensive lux-o-buckets that often are fun to drive, but are laden down by things like i-Drive. The i-Drive fiasco may be better than it was, but it still Hoovers big time.

    The last BMW I drove that I really liked was my '84 318i. No power steering, windows or seats; cloth buckets; manual transmission - it was lithe, agile and really involved the driver. Any trip was fun, even a ten minute run to the grocery store. Today's bimmers are very far removed from the 2000s, 2002s and others that made their reputation as driver's cars.

    I do agree with you about the G35. Great engine, marginal gearbox, cheap and nasty interior.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I still don't understand why folks get their knickers in such a twist over iDrive, it's an OPTION on the 3-Series and seems to be very well recieved by virtually all that want it. If your don't want it, don't order it, simple as that. :confuse:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    Sorry to have ever questioned your vaunted opinions Oh Authoritative one. Suffice to say that said opinions are just that, and in fact are very debatable in the very least.

    If I were you I would have the good sense, not to mention the common courtesy, to keep a civil tongue in my head in attempting to objectively rebut the considered comments of those such as myself who in good faith criticize the progressive downward trend in BMW and the other German cars for that matter. You, sadly, do not. Your tone and disrespectful defensiveness, bereft as they are of objective proof supporting your "opinions," speak volumes about the futility you must feel in attempting to justify the gimmicks BMW currently sees fit to employ in its cars.

    I couldn't care less about your opinions as opinions are valid only to the extent they are based on facts, which yours most certainly are not.

    I can tell you that today's breed of BMW is a world removed from my last one, a 1984 533i which was indeed at that time a driver's delight. It captured the true essence of what a driver sought in a car without having to resort to superfluous electronic doodads such as i-Drive and push button start and active steering and on and on and on.

    And by the way, one is obligated to put up with the onerous i-Drive if one wants a car with navigation.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    One question, don't you think it is a little unrealistic for a modern BMW to drive like 1984 BMW? I think BMW has stayed as true as possible to their game considering that regulations and customer demands dictate that cars become heavier and larger with each redesign. I drove a E36 M3 once and thought was most natural feeling car I'd ever driven (never driven a 911 or anything of that ilk), but that car is very outdated compared to say the current M3, which will again likely be replaced with a heavier more powerful M3 (with a V8) for 2008. I remember the moans from various BMW devotees when the E36 3-Series was replaced. In reading your posts which seem to suggest you want a lighter, leaner BMW....would you buy a 1-Series Sedan if BMW sold one here?

    Don't think BMW doesn't at least in part understand where you're coming from, because as you can see they left off the active steering for their ultimate 5-Series, the M5.

    M
  • krzysskrzyss Member Posts: 849
    one needs 40K (if I am not mistaken) and Lotus can deliver Elise or Exige.

    Krzys

    PS Claiminig that BMW is too small, I guess, one limits oneself to 3 series as 5 series is bigger and available for extra charge.
    BMW is one of the few manufacturers that still give power of choice to customer.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    . . .of course have their merits and flaws. For one something is a merit for others a flaw. This is my best Homer Simpson imitation. DOH!

    Attempting to discuss these cars with heavy fact laden arguments almost certainly will get us nowhere.

    Apparently, it is a fact that if you want these something-tronic transmissions (and I don't care what kind of package they're in, Audi, BMW or VW for instance) they "stutter," they have lag or hesitation.

    As the Firesign Theater once said, "live it, or live with it." I had no choice since I wanted something a bit bigger than an A4 or the then current Passat, last June -- I ended up with the auto trans.

    If one wants an auto and no DSG or SMG is offered, well today these ZF based transmission just seem to want to be in a higher gear than most of us would care for unless one shifts into S mode. Even that is a half step, but it is pretty good.

    Manual transmissions today (opinion alert) are superior (end opinion alert.)

    I think the Passat that can be had right now is about the right size for those who think an A4 or 3XX is too small and the next step up too big or too something.

    Yet, the Passat seems to eschew any "P" (performance) characteristics at this point. But, the preceding was an opinion even more than usual since I have not driven one.

    A BMW 4 series or an Audi 5 series could be a wonderful addition to the auto landscape that, IMO, contains at least one car that is difficult to classify, and that of course is the Passat. From the driving perspective (historically, since I've not driven the new ones) the Passat was neither a BMW nor a Toyota, sometimes I thought of it as a "kinder, gentler, softer," Audi A6 or A4. Now, I don't know. I guess folks compare the Passat with the Camcords as a matter of course.

    Until I read that, I would not have imagined that even likely but I would grant it is possible. The Passat (opinion coming) compares with cars from Saab and Volvo first, Audi and BMW second and, er, maybe an Infiniti G class.

    Honorable mention might be the IS from Lexus, but I recently drove the PRIOR IS and found it too, to be an in between car, neither a Bimmer nor a Toyota, so to speak.

    Heck, at the price point and deal point, the Passat might (opinion) attract someone who has tested a Chrylser 300 w/AWD.

    For years, I thought Passats (of all the range) were Audi "light's," now I am not so sure. More's the pity they killed the Phaeton which could've been at least some impetus for the dealer body to, shall we say, "improve."

    The i-Drive argument is interesting now that I have two 2005 cars both with DVD full screen, moving map nav systems -- one, the Audi with MMI and the other the X3 with "pre-emergent" i-Drive.

    I like them both.

    It is "odd" not to have a tuning knob on the Audi, but hardly a show stopper, since I have 25 stations programmed to voice command. The X3 has pushbuttons, which are nice and normal and comfortable, but much more limiting if you have very wide tastes in "radio."

    You buy these cars like you pick your spouse in many respects -- mostly subjective.

    Of course as usual, I am often wrong, never uncertain yet convinced that I am a member of Lunatic Fringe since had I the power I would buy/lease/whatever Medium-sized cars with AWD, lots of gizmos, a turbo-diesel and a stick shift.

    At this point, nothing I am aware of scratches this itch.

    Is it true that you cannot get the Passat 4Motion w/3.6L engine with a stick shift? :confuse:
  • jimd4jimd4 Member Posts: 877
    No stick 4moooo! Nada
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,162
    In fact, no stick with Package options (i.e. only VE and Base), no stick with wagon of any level, either. Stick-[non-permissible content removed] at works.

    2018 430i Gran Coupe

  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    One question, don't you think it is a little unrealistic for a modern BMW to drive like 1984 BMW?

    I don't expect a modern BMW to drive like a 1984, I expect it to drive better. What I don't expect is for it to be loaded with unwanted, unnecessary electronic gimmickry which adds nothing to the "ultimate" experience but does serve to increase its unreliability potential and its price.

    they left off the active steering for their ultimate 5-Series, the M5

    If it is a good idea to leave the active steering off the M-5, then why is it also a good idea to add it, even optionally, to their other cars?
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    You don't think a modern BMW drives better than they did back in 1984 considering all the advances the market demands of a modern car? I think they do, but I can understand if you think some of the purity has been lost.

    If it is a good idea to leave the active steering off the M-5, then why is it also a good idea to add it, even optionally, to their other cars?

    Good question, I think the answer is obvious.

    M
  • quietypequietype Member Posts: 3
    VW has partnered with Nokia and Motorola to provide this device and harness. I just ordered it from my VW dealer. I am cranked about this offering. Finally! It runs $464 or so to buy and have installed. It is fully integrated with the steering column controls on equipped cars, such as the 2006 Passat, as I have.

    SWEET!!!!!

    Tom
  • quietypequietype Member Posts: 3
    So, tell me, Mr. Shipo, why are your opinions ("I can tell you that today's breed of BMW is a world removed from my last one, a 1984 533i...") any better than any other opinion offered here? :confuse:
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I was intending to take the "High Road" on this one and let it pass, however, since you asked...

    When I post an opinion, I usually state (as an example): "In My Humble Opinion" (IMHO), I prefer RWD cars over AWD cars due to the better balance, better performance (in some categories), better economy, simpler maintenance and the ability to hang the tail out so that I can steer the car with the throttle.

    Nowhere in that "Opinion" did I state that AWD or even FWD was crap, worthless or otherwise inferior and was developed and manufactured by a bunch of idiot trolls. As a rule (that I try to follow but sometimes stray from), I intend to keep things positive and not dump on what might could well be someone else's opinion. Hey, "Different strokes for different folks" and all of that.

    On the other hand, I have been known to take umbrage with folks who post things that are negative, highly inflammatory, or otherwise factually incorrect. In cases like that I will argue the points one by one, referencing as much science or published material to support my arguments as possible and/or necessary.

    Relative to this particular Passat discussion, there are two topics that I've argued repeatedly on a recurring basis, that of "What octane/grade of gasoline" and "What type of oil". If you've ever read any of my posts on those subjects you know that I'm strongly opinionated, however, such opinions are backed up by lots of science, anecdotal evidence and personal experience.

    "So, tell me, Mr. Shipo, why are your opinions any better than any other opinion offered here?"

    They aren't, they are simply framed in such a way as to clear up misunderstanding and/or to offer a counterpoint to those who feel that muck raking and bilge water spewing is a way to gain the admiration and respect from our fellow posters. Then again, maybe I should take the "High Road" there too; it's just that as a former Marine, I simply cannot resist mixing it up every now and again. :blush:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I find your thoughts and arguments if that is an appropriate term to typically be persuasive, but "not jus' cause you said so."

    Stating your opinions with the disclaimers many use here is indeed very valuable. As I have said, far more valuable than data points published by CR.

    You and I may disagree about AWD, RWD and FWD for all time. Yet, by reading, considering and in some cases vetting what is written here (not just by you), I have learned important facts and developed points of view that I would almost certainly not have learned and developed otherwise.

    Taking the high road, when possible (and it usually is), is the best choice.

    Considering the search capabilities herein it sometimes (not often, but sometimes) blows my mind that people will post asking about regular vs premium, oil specs, tire inflation and extended warranties. One would think these topics have been literally exhausted.

    Yet we continue to see some of the same issues broached that we had just elaborated on two weeks ago go unresearched and the question posted again.

    And, you know what, Shipo? Most of us just keep on participating without much if any sense of exasperation.

    I don't want to make you think I will not debate you further, but I did want to give you a sense that at least I do appreciate and value your input.

    BTW, Passats are breathtakingly expensive to repair and maintain out of warranty. Passats are generally less costly to fuel if the fuel that is used is Premium. And the VW spec oil and filters are not a nice idea, they are mandatory.

    Oh yea -- AWD rules. :surprise:
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    > BTW, Passats are breathtakingly expensive to repair and maintain out of warranty.

    Yeah, if you insist on taking it to the dealer everytime. I live on the East Coast, and I go to a couple of private VW specialists (Both VW master mechanics) who will repair and maintain them (using the same techniques, diagnostics, etc. as the dealer) for siginificantly less than what the dealer charges.

    Many drivers make the mistake of continuing to take their cars to the dealership long after the warranty has expired (save for oil changes, TSB, and recalls)...
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    And here is where the British (I think) have coined a phrase that fits quite nicely, "The loyal opposition."

    Regarding the arguments surrounding which driven wheels is the best for which driving environments, I have not doubt that you and I (and many others) will go many enjoyable rounds for quite some time into the future. ;-) That having been said, relative to the myriad of other automotive related topics, you and I seem to agree on more than we disagree, and yet, AND YET, in spite of all of the supporting science, anecdotal evidence and basic logic supporting our views (errr, opinions), there will be many folks who will very definitely see things differently. Are we correct? Probably in most cases. The good news is that you and I both seem to view that "Probably" part of the statement as a reason to read and consider prior to arguing a point.

    So:
    Low compression = Regular gas
    High compression (Passat 3.6) = Premium gas
    Low compression/Turbo (early 1990s Chrysler Turbo) = Premium gas (unless easy steady state driving)
    Medium compression/Turbo (late 1990s Audi 1.8T) = Premium gas (unless very easy steady state driving)
    High compression/Turbo (Passat 2.0T) = Premium gas

    Oh! RWD is da bomb! :shades:

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • georgekgeorgek Member Posts: 50
    Just to muddy the water a bit: my wife's 2001 Volvo 215 hp, 5 cylinder turbo specifies 87 octane. Her dealer recommends 89, which is what she uses.

    I'm buying a 2006 SAAB 9-5 "High Output Turbo" (2.3l, 260hp 258pft)SAAB specifies "87 or higher", recommends 92-93 for best performance.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "Just to muddy the water a bit: my wife's 2001 Volvo 215 hp, 5 cylinder turbo specifies 87 octane. Her dealer recommends 89, which is what she uses."

    Near as I can tell, the engine in your wife's car has a 9.0:1 compression ratio meaning that it should run quite well on Regular (in a lightly boosted mode), however, my bet is that for optimum power, Premium is required. This is one of those engines that is of a split personality regarding fuel as it will most likely deliver its best mileage on 87 or 89 while being able to deliver its best power on Premium fuels.

    As for the blown mill in the new 9-5, it too has a relatively moderate mechanical compression (9.3:1) and as such, Saab's "87 or higher" recommendation is probably just fine. As for the whole "Best Performance" thing, I'm not aware of even a single blown engine built since the 1920s that would deliver "Best Performance" on anything other than Premium gasoline.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • georgekgeorgek Member Posts: 50
    I've always used premium in my 1.8T and will do the same with the SAAB. MPG and power both are higher with premium.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    The Audi 1.8T mill as well as the Saab 2.3T run with a 9.3:1 mechanical compression ratio (as opposed to the 10.5:1 of the new Audi 2.0T setup), and as such without a double blind back to back test, I'd only lay 50-50 odds that those two engines will get better mileage on Premium as opposed to Midgrade.

    Said another way, 9.3:1 is a moderately high compression ratio and as such would probably have a natural mileage sweet spot with Midgrade fuel were it not for the engine electronics and the blower. Assuming that there is even a little boost from the blower at higher highway speeds coupled with the electronics being able to advance the ignition timing and I'd have no problem believing the "Better mileage with Premium" argument, however, if you happen to drive at a low boost steady state speed of 55 or lower, you might could well find that the Midgrade delivers the better economy. Of course, we are probably talking a single MPG either way, and when the whole peak power argument is brought into play, then Premium is the only real option for gasoline. ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • 150mphclub150mphclub Member Posts: 316
    the AKI is calculated at sea level. in mountain states altitude, 85 is equivalant to 87 at sea level.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "the AKI is calculated at sea level. in mountain states altitude, 85 is equivalant to 87 at sea level."

    That is only true when you are driving a normally aspirated engine. It isn't even remotely true when you're driving a car with a turbocharger, ask me how I know. :-(

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    I thought the term "blower" referred to superchargers, not turbos.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    A breathed on engine has a blower regardless of how said blower is motivated. True the term is probably used more often in drag racing circles, however, I've seen "blower" used to refer to "Turbosuperchargers" (as turbos used to be called) as far back as the 1920s.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    > I thought the term "blower" referred to superchargers, not turbos.

    "Forced induction" would be a better term to describe both...
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    ""Forced induction" would be a better term to describe both..."

    Where do I submit my Literary License Application so that I can be approved to use the following terms to refer to a turbocharger:

    Blower
    Turbosupercharger
    Air pump
    Pressure maker
    Atmosphere densifier
    Altitude reducer

    While I'm at it, I'd also like to apply for permission to use the following terms to refer to a turbocharged engine:

    Breathed on
    Blown
    Force fed
    Abnormally aspirated

    ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • jimd4jimd4 Member Posts: 877
    As someone who is interested in the 2006/2007 Passat and Passat wagon, it would be good if this forum could move beyond the topic of oil and turbos and get some info on an all around view of what owners think about Passat features, performance, costs etc.

    Check out the RAVA4 2006 forum for a view of life beyond oil specs.

    Otherwise, I suggest the name of the forum be changed to "Endless Shipo". I think the forum hosts must be asleep most of the time maybe?

    Good luck!
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    You would rather have me sit idly by while incorrect and potentially harmful information is being bandied about? Sorry, no can do. I am a former Passat driver and a potential future one as well and have a very acute interest in this car and its diminutive 2.0T engine (which also powers another car on my short list, the A3).

    Personally, I think discussions regarding such Passat/2.0T centric topics as proper oil and gasoline selection for a high compression turbocharged high specific output engine are far more germane to this topic than very sketchy comparisons to the Rav4. :P

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    I'm not even remotely interested in the Rav4. Why should I check it out?
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    What you need to do is make posts on the subject which interests you in order to engage others in a different line of conversation. Let's not make this personal.
  • jimd4jimd4 Member Posts: 877
    Not for the RAV4 but for the mixed and handy inputs on a topic besides oil specs as an example of what useful forum is like. Not one person in a month here has posted much on handling, features, price, pitfalls etc.

    I guess Shipo married the bosses daughter since he seems to run the site.
  • jimd4jimd4 Member Posts: 877
    Not personal at all. Trying to make a point that there is more to Passat that oil specs. Maybe there could be extra added forum on Passat oil problems.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    This is a subject that's drawing a lot of comments and we've changed our format lately to allow/encourage more granular discussions. Let's go here: Passat Oil Issues. I've moved some of the recent posts there.

    For those of you who have been having this conversation, should we add fuel and/or turbo to title?
Sign In or Register to comment.