Howdy, Stranger!

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

Volkswagen Passat 2006+



  • a911sa911s Posts: 13
    <<So the new models will be at the dealers by the end of August?>>

    According to my VW dealer, yes. But he's not sure how many options will be available right away.

    <<Also in a preview, some site said there would be 4 or 5 engine configurations?>>

    It's possible that 4 or 5 engines (counting diesels) will be available to European customers. But the 2.0T and 3.6 litre V6 will be the only engines offered in North America.

    <<But that only the 2.0T will be DFI (or FSI as Audi/VW calls it)?>>

    The engine has FSI (Fuel Stratified Injection), which is "Audi Speak" for direct injection. The FSI system ensures smoother response, more low-end power, better fuel economy and less turbo lag in the 2.0T. And that's saying something because the 1.8T in my VW is nearly lagless, with peak torque available at 1900 RPM.

    <<Will DSG be available with all engine configurations or just the high-output models?>>

    VW/Audi are selling the DSG in the Diesel version of the New Beetle and in the 3.2 litre TT at the moment. The A3 will probably get and I understand they're planning on introducing it to the new A4 and A6 as well. However, for the time being, none of the other VW models are getting it. The only "manumatic" available in the new MKV Jetta and upcoming B6 Passat is the new, revised 6-speed Tiptronic. It's not quite as quick or as advanced as the DSG but it's a lower-cost option and it works very well in our V8 Touraeg.

    <<Does VW have something like Audi Advantage (the free maintenance thing).>>

    Unfortunately no. But the VW cars all come with 5 Year/50,000 Mile warranties and VW is moderately easy-going about giving people warranty coverage on things that shouldn't be covered. Also, keep in mind that maintenance on a VW, even one with FSI, is less expensive than maintenance on something like a BMW.
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,251
    I have no doubts that DSG is the best non-manual transmission out there today.

    If you are somebody like me who keeps a car for many years then maintenace costs for a new clutch may be quite hefty, since the DSG involves two clutches.
  • Can't get too excited about the 0-60 time.

    But what about road handling? Does the new 2006 Passat even come close to the existing models with 4-motion?

    Come to think of it, why isn't 4-motion standard on the new model, and do you know when we'll we see it?
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    The 0-60 time for the 2.0T at 7.4 seconds for the automatic is downright slow. The new 2006 Sonata is 7.0 seconds according to Car and Driver. The 2006 Passat desperately needs the 3.6 l V-6 engine in order for it to be credible, especially considering the price the car will sell for with the six cylinder engine.
  • patrice2patrice2 Posts: 1
    I am also an Alpha Driver. I currently own a 2000 4cyl passat, and after driving the 2006 4cylinder FSI, there is no doubt in my mind that this is exactly the car I will be purchasing next month. The Inside is FAR more roomy than my current Passat. It was fun to drive! And although I did not like the "Altima" style back lights when I saw them on the website, they look much better in person. In the 24 hours I had the car, I put 350 miles on it and loved every minute of it. More leg room, more head room, cooled glove box and console, fun push button ignition key, when VW symbol on trunk is pushed the trunk opens (fun)..headlights tilt to illuminate the road ahead, no visible key holes on the car (anywhere)...boomin' sound system, sunroof design cuts down noise, and 200hp is slammin for a 4 cylinder. I kept finding myself doing 95 miles/hour thinking I was going 55!
    Although I have not driven a TL, I can say that the new Passat handles much like the 2005 Acura TSX, it is also as roomy and as comfortable of a ride as the TSX.
    I would highly recommed that people take a goog look at this car when it comes out.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    0-60 in 7.4 seconds is plenty fast enough. We don't need every car to be designed to impress the automotive press. The vast majority of real drivers are not going to accellerate at anywhere near the capability of this car.

    There are other aspects of vehicles to consider, besindes what happens when you floor it from a stop.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    Not that I know for certain, but wouldn&#146;t two clutches last DOUBLE as long? I think the DSG alternates from one clutch to the other.

    Wouldn&#146;t it be like have two complete sets of tires?
  • chaz318chaz318 Posts: 16
    where are you driving where you need to get to 60 significantly quicker than 7.4 seconds. first off thats a very decent number, its not fast but it is no where near slow, and furthermore 0-anything is about the most useless times they can give for tests. i mean its fun to know if i wanted to for soem reason go to 60 as fast as i could when this stoplight turns green and i could do it __ seconds fast is fun, but what matters much more is the likes of 30-50, or 50-70 hell even 5-60 is more important than 0-60 in everyday driving, becuase you actually depend on teh former two fo rhte likes of passing or entering onramps, less so of the latter but you depend ont hat more than 0-60. plus with this cars great torque, and i know its got a great lowend torque band, this car will mor ethan likely stand out from the pack of mid size economy 4 cylinder sedans (accord, camry, etc.) and will at least equal those of (what i feel are its real competitors) low power versions of entry level luxury sedans (325, is250) in these more useful numbers, plus itll still hold up well with those cqars in 0-60, and will trump the accord and camry 4 cylinders, although at least with the entry level luxury sedans skidpad and slalom numbers may prove a bit measely considering VW has taken the mor eluxurious side to audis sporty side, and the fact that its a nose heavy front driver.
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,251

    I am not sure myself but I believe the cluthes work simultaneously in changing gears?
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    If the 2.0T is "plenty fast enough," then why is VW making available eventually the 3.6 l which will be approximately 1 second faster to 60?

    The fact remains that the 2.0T is slower than the lower-priced '06 six-cylinder Sonata and the performance is poorer at a higher price.
  • chaz318chaz318 Posts: 16
    need i remind you power nor 0-60 times make a car. yes more power and faster 0-60 times are better but there is much more to the car than that, not saying the sonata is a bad car, nor the passat is a better car, just thats a general fact of life. furthermore that new sonata also makes more power and acceleratres faster than the 2006 bmw 525i with the auto, but ive never heard of that being considered a poor car becasue of its 0-60 time, and i dont see people trading theres in for sonata's (again nothing against the sonata i think its a great car, im just trying to prove a point)
    anyways VW i feel isnt targeting the same consumers hyundai is with the sonata. VW has announced it would becoem a luxury brand, and that would make the new passat compare more squarely against entry level luxury sedans
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Rationalize all you want, the Passat with the 2.0T is underpowered. Not to mention the fact that even to evoke the power that it has it must resort to the add-on of turbocharging which complicates the engine, causes it to run hotter, be harder on the oil, and makes it more prone to mechanical failure.

    On the subject of VW engines, the new Jetta 2.5 again displays a sub-par engine which is also underpowered, runs roughly, and is not doing a whole lot for new Jetta sales.

    Moreover, VW would do well to stop trying to be a "luxury" car company and get back to its roots as the "Peoples' Car" company. The W8 was a flop as was/is the Phaeton. If someone wants a "luxury" German car, there are BMW, M-B, Porsche and, to a lesser extent, Audi. The market has declared on no uncertain terms, judging by VW's present financial woes, that the company needs to lose the idiotic "luxury" notion and get back to making reasonably priced cars that run extremely WELL and are highly RELIABLE. In today's ultra-competitive market, a merely "good" car has to be more than that. It has to be GREAT. Wimpy engines is not the route to greatness, particularly in view of today's market trend toward greater HP and torque.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "Not to mention the fact that even to evoke the power that it has it must resort to the add-on of turbocharging which complicates the engine, causes it to run hotter, be harder on the oil, and makes it more prone to mechanical failure."

    Sorry, not buying... Turbocharging is a technology that is over eighty years old and is very well understood.

    Taken point by point:
    1) Turbocharging does not complicate an engine, it actually simplifies it. Why? Three words: moving parts count. The fact is that a typical turbocharged engine has fewer moving parts than an otherwise similarly powerful normally aspirated engine.
    2) A turbocharged engine of any given output shouldn't generate any more heat than its normally aspirated brethren, in fact, in reality it probably generates less heat simply because it usually has a higher BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption), meaning that more of the resultant heat from the combustion process is converted into usable work.
    3) Harder on the oil? Well I suppose if you drive at full throttle all of the way into your garage and then immediately shut you motor down without letting the turbine spin down, then yes, it probably is harder on the oil. Having said that, modern synthetic oils (which I use regardless of how my engines are aspirated) are more than capable of dealing with the heat of the liquid cooled bearings of a modern turbocharger under any normal driving environment.
    4) More prone to mechanical failure... Hmmm, says who? I've owned a number of cars with turbochargers, and I've known many folks who have as well, and I've never seen any anecdotal or scientific evidence to suggest that turbocharged engines are any less reliable than normally aspirated mills of similar output.

    Personally, if I'm looking at two cars that are equally desirable from my perspective, one with a normally aspirated engine, the other with a smaller turbocharged mill of similar output, I'll choose the car with the blower every time.

    Best Regards,
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    I agree…

    I can&#146;t remember the last time I&#146;ve done a &#147;true&#148; 0-60 run…and I&#146;m not that old.

    The magazines that do tests with automatics use the brake torque technique, where they hold down the brake pedal with their left foot and the gas with the right foot. I&#146;ve never know anybody with an automatic that does that.

    5-60 for automatics is really the true measure…if that&#146;s your cup of tea.
  • jc9799jc9799 Posts: 70
    If the 2.0T is "plenty fast enough," then why is VW making available eventually the 3.6...?

    Well, for one thing, most cars, including the Accord/Camry/Sonata/Altima class, below the Passat, and the 3-Series/C-Class/A4 group just above it, have 2 engines, also. Besides the 2.0T power ratings can hold it's own against the 325 and C260.

    I'll agree with you on the Phaeton and W8 Passat. Most folks just aren't willing to spend that much on a VW. However, I don't think the new Passat is a direct competitor to the 325/330. Sure, there may be some overlap in prices, but the Passat should start several thousand dollars less than a base 325. Since you bring up the Sonata: I see the VW to the Bimmer the same way the Sonata competes with the Accord/Camry. A more value laden alternative when similiarly equipped.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    If the 2.0T is "plenty fast enough," then why is VW making available eventually the 3.6 l which will be approximately 1 second faster to 60?

    I assume because they think they can make greater profits by making that engine available than they could if they did not.

    This sounds to me like VW is going to stop trying to be a "luxury" car company and get back to its roots as the "Peoples' Car" company.

    Volkswagen's new Mr. Fix-it, Wolfgang Bernhard, didn't mince words in his first public diagnosis of what ails Europe's largest auto maker. Its costs are too high, its quality subpar, and its products too expensive.

    The 2.5 engine in the new Jetta is just fine it has plenty of power and torque for any normal driver and it does not run roughly. When I once floored it from a stop the front tires very briefly squealed a bit...why would I need more power than that, so I can spin the wheels more? Passing and entering the freeway is no problem at biggest problem is the car is so smooth that I am going 90 without realizing it such as when entering the freeway

    The low sales probably are more due to them having too many loaded up cars. I think our VE Jetta is a great car for the price we paid.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The magazines that do tests with automatics use the brake torque technique...

    Yeah that is not something I am too interested in doing with my car. I may floor it from a stop from time to time.

    I wonder if magazines aimed at normal drivers, such as CR, do their acceleration tests the way a normal driver would...meaning just flooring it from a stop? If so then their numbers would be much more meaningful to me and most others who are not strictly looking for bragging rights.

    I happend to flip across a drag racing run on TV yesterday. The car hit over 300 mph in 1/4 mile and 4 point something seconds. That is fast, but it would be pointless to have that performance in a street me going 0-60 in 4 seconds (or 6 or whatever) is just about as useless.

    Somewhere around maybe 10 (or maybe even 12 seconds) for a 0-60 time seems to me to indicate a car has adequate acceleration. If someone want to pay for more that is fine, but I get tired of reading things like a car is too slow because it takes 8 seconds to hit 60. Most drivers (not me) seem to take at least about 1/2 mile and maybe 60 seconds to hit 60 mph after a stop, despite driving cars with 200 HP V-6s, or whatever.
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,251
    the Passat with the 2.0T is underpowered

    A base Passat 2.0T underpowered? 7.4 seconds for a base model is not fast enough?

    So what do you want from a base Passat, 0-60 in the 6 or 5 range? Have you seen the more expensive upcoming Lexus IS250. HP is about the same and performance specs unlikely to be better then the Passat! What about the more expensive BMW325 and Audi 2.0T?

    So you you are drooling over the Hyundai Sonata! My suggestion is that you do a future test drive Test drive in some future date a Hyundai Sonata, Altima V6 , Camry V6 and Honda V6 and compare it to either the lower hp Passat and IS250! Your likely conclusion will be hp is not created equal among different cars.

    Hp has been consistently lower for the benchmark sport sedan 3 series these past three decades and consistently no higher hp vehicles has knocked the Bimmer off its pedestal.

    Hp stats are nice to boast about until you actually drive the car! Writing off the Passat 2.0T as tepid before a test drive sounds highly premature!
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I agree that VW should for this luxury car thing and get back to the basics, but a 7.4 0-60 time isn't slow for what is basically an upscale "family" car like the Passat. Also, you're going by projected 0-60 time, not a magazine test numbers, which are usually lower than the MFR times on German cars.

    The new Sonata? While nice they're still learning how to build a decently built car and the styling could belong to any car on the market its so derivative. So it gets to 60 mph in 3 tenths of second quicker. Did you stop to think that that Sonata has to have a V6 compared to the Passat's turbo 4 in order to manage a mere 3 tenths of second advantage?

    A Passat will be the be the better built car and certainly the more entertaining one to drive...ok so the reliablity isn't going to be a strong point, but then again it isn't for any VW.

    Just looking at the interior/exterior I'd rather have the Passat with its .3 second slower 0-60 time over a car that that while improved, looks like Honda/Toyota or Nissan could have built it, but didn't. Also, the Passat will still be the more rewarding drive when you factor in handling and feel, which a Korean car doesn't even begin to address.

  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    Since we are comparing apples to oranges. Don't forget that the Passat will have a manual tranny available that will in all likelyhood be faster than the automatic Sonata V-6.
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Posts: 690
    > Rationalize all you want, the Passat with the 2.0T is underpowered

    Lets compare specs, shall we?

    2006 Hyundai Sonata:

    3.3 Liter V-6
    237 hp @ 6000 rpm
    228 ft/lb torque @ 3500 rpm
    hp/liter - 71.8

    2006 VW Passat 2.0T:

    2.0 L Turbocharged, Direct-Injection I-4
    200 hp @ 5100 rpm
    207 ft/lb torque @ 1800 rpm
    hp/liter - 100

    Lets see - VW - 100 hp/liter (out of a "wimpy" 2.0 liters)
    Hyundai - 71.8 hp/liter (out of a V-6)

    VW peak torque starts @ 1800 rpm
    Hyundai needs to be wound up to 3500 rpm to reach its peak torque

    VW engine - torque rating higher than horsepower
    Hyundai engine - horsepower rating higher than torque

    So based on the numbers, the VW puts out a higher output per liter than the Hyundai, a peak torque range between 1800 and 5000 rpm as opposed to a 3500 rpm peak torque rating, and has a better torque/hp ratio than the Hyundai.

    Methinks the Hyundai engine is FAR wimpier than the VW engine. In order to achieve the same 100 hp/liter rating of the VW 2.0T, the Hyundai will need an output of 330 horsepower.

    Game, set, match - VW... :shades:
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    How does the Sonata base engine compare to the VW base engine?

    I am only interested in a stick shift so the V-6 Hyundai is out. While the Hyundai has improved markedly, I still don't think the 4 cyl will approach that of the VW.
  • tomatopietomatopie Posts: 31
    You folks here seem to know your car stuff.

    I commute 100 miles a day and am about to replace my wonderful 1991 Legend LS 5-speed with 215,000 miles. I want a car of similar size and features, a driver's car, with good safety features. I also want to improve on my 25 mpg.

    The Passat TDI seems to meet my needs, and offers 38 mpg. I think I might do even better on fuel. I drove one, and it had plenty of power.

    Here are my questions:

    1) How useful is the TipTronic? Will I find that I just leave it in "D" all the time?

    2) Exactly when does the 2006 Passat come out, and how will that affect the price of the 2005 leftovers? A dealer offered me $1600 off list for a 2005 Passat TDI GLS. I didn't find that very compelling.

    3) Is it accurate that there will be no Passat Diesel for 2006? Will this actually drive up the price for the last few TDIs on the lots?

    Thanks for any insight!
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    There's more room at the top of the market than at the bottom. There's more profit in the top 1/2 of the market (generally) than in the bottom 1/2.

    VW has problems (doh?!?) -- but the upcoming crop of cars (the soon coming Jetta with the "better" engine, is on this list as is the new Passat) will certainly be well received by the buying public. Further they will probably be well reviewed, too.

    The Phaeton probably isn't the sales success VW had hoped for.

    The Phaeton does seem to be a bargain, however, compared with the A8 and the other Germans. I would be glad to have one.

    The W8 was such a good car -- especially when ordered with the manual transmission and sport suspension. The W8 was virtually never marketed.

    This was probably a decision made for a vartiety of reasons most of us can't fathom. :shades:
  • onlysurferonlysurfer Posts: 96
    I don't know the 0-60, 50-70 or any of those numbers for my 2002 VW Passat GLX 4Motion but I certainly know that the car is underpowered despite having a V6. What more, reliability is only about 98%, because remaining 2% of the time was spent at dealer's shop, and while the repair was covered by warranty, it wasn't worth it.

    Oh, and one more complain, the breaks ain't good either.

    Darn it, it's fun to drive though! I just hope I'd be able to resist temptation to buy another VW when time comes.

    Have fun!
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    Oh, and one more complain, the breaks ain't good either.

    I&#146;ve made the faux pas as well…fingers faster than brain…

    Brakes, not breaks :shades:
  • onlysurferonlysurfer Posts: 96
    Yep, brakes ain't fast, still the car manages to break faster...!
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    I test drove the V6 Passat and the Audi A4 1.8T quattro. Now the Passat had the automatic and the A4 had the stick. Despite the "disadvantage" the Audi should have had, the stick made the car "feel" a heck of a lot faster.

    I also drove an A4 with the 2.8 (in 2001) and the auto (what a slug!)

    If the Passat could've been had with the manual transmission, I would bet the issue of lethargy would have been largely mitigated.

    Of course, then VW came out with the W8 with both transmissions (kind of an S4 "light" if you asked me -- but no one did) and the thing died on the vine. The W8's in stock at my local dealership were always highly discounted.

    I still think if VW would've tried a dedicated marketing campaign rather than that stupid commercial where the guy in the VW W8 races a kid on a tricycle. . .well perhaps they could've raised market awareness.

    Of course VW seems unwilling to go for a real campaign with staying power:

    the superbowl ad was great (throwing the shoe into the tree to knock down the bright red VW that "got away from" the driver) why not go with that theme and market the R32 (or its replacement). The Jetta ads are OK, but from what I've read the cars that were first available were, shall we say, "less than stellar."

    Anyway, love the cars, confused by the "packaging and marketing."

    For the record: ditto Audi.
  • a911sa911s Posts: 13
    First of all, yes, the DSG is a Dual Clutch system. I drove a 2006 A3 with the DSG over the weekend and it's incredible. It shifts more quickly than Ferrari's F1 tranny! And even in FWD guise, the car handles VERY well, it's on the short list of the best FWD cars I've ever driven along with the 1991 Lotus Elan SE and the 1995 Corrado VR6.

    Secondly, as to power:
    The 2.0T powered 2006 Audi A4 *with Quattro* and a 6-speed does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds. That's as quick as a V6 Honda Accord, which is FWD (which means it's lighter) and has 240 horsepower, quicker than a FWD Toyota Camry V6 and very near the 0-60 times of the six-cylinder BMW 330Xi and G35X. The FWD B6 Passat will be at least that quick with a 6-speed, and only marginally slower with the Tiptronic (0-60 should come in around 7.3), so it's NOT underpowered. It's competant to keep up with more expensive, more powerful six-cylinder competitors. The 3.6 litre motor will produce 280 horsepower through a short-ratio 6-speed Tiptronic and Volkswagen's 4Motion AWD system. Rumors from Europe suggest it can match the accleration figures of a G35X and 330XI and outhandle both of them!
  • a911sa911s Posts: 13
    I forgot to add before that Car and Driver's 0-60 time for the Hyundai Sonata is 7.0 seconds, and it's base price is $23,495. A Tiptronic 2.0T powered Passat should start at around $22k and have a 0-60 time of around 7.3 seconds. Sure, you could opt for the $18,495 4-cylinder Sonata, but it's no gonna have the 2.0Ts performance. And, obviously, the VW is going to hands down win in the interior quality department (nobody at this pricepoint can beat VW's interior quality) and I'm willing to bet the Passat will be a better driver's car with better handling. Is .03 to 60 MPH worth giving up a superior interior, better handling and higher resale value, all of which you'll get from VW? Not in my book. Plus, who's drag racing mid-sized sedans?
Sign In or Register to comment.