I saw an MKV Jetta on the road for thew first time two days ago, a 2.5> that appeared to have a nice level of equipment, although I was on the> highway and could not get a very good look.

magazine reviews that seemed top complain endlessly about how "slow"> the 2.5 model is, but this one seemed to be cruising at 85 without any> hitch

I read several preliminary and with 170 ft. lbs. and a 6 speed tip, I

I understand that the new Jetta officially went on sale today in the U.S.> (according to Automotive News), so I'm sure we'll be seeing more on the > road> here soon.>

Years ago I had a friend with a Chevy Sprint 3-banger that also > occasionally> cruised at 85, but overall I wasn't too impressed with the car's> performance.>

Because if they don't, people tend to refer to describe their products as> "woefully slow". More importantly, that's how the auto and oil companies> make their money, convincing people to spend large portions of their > income> for performance that they don't need and rarely if ever use.>

-- > Kent> 1987 VW GTI 8V, original owner, 222,000+ miles>

Acceleration is important to a certain extent because of things like > merging, etc. where you do need to be able to get out of a situation where > if you were any slower you'd be in harm's way. However acceleration is > one thing and cruising is another. My 139hp VR6 (yes, detuned from the > 172hp from other VR6 VWs of the time) Eurovan is over two tons and while > it'll never win a stoplight race, it cruises effortlessly and gracefully > at 75-80mph up a 6% grade even with four people and a load of luggage for > a weekend aboard and A/C going in desert heat.>

I'm aware of the flaws in this line of reasoning...but perhaps someone > could explain to me the rationale for using a 5-cylinder motor with such a > meager increase in power over a cheaper 4-cylinder with a similar > displacement?

I'm aware of the flaws in this line of reasoning...but perhaps someone > could explain to me the rationale for using a 5-cylinder motor with such a > meager increase in power over a cheaper 4-cylinder with a similar > displacement?>

First off, I don't think that the 2.5 actually is half of the> Gallardo's V10, what I've read seemed to indicate it was more closely> related to the old Audi I5 than to the Gallardo's V10. Also, keep in> mind that Audi has been seeling a 5 in Europe for close to a decade, so> I'm guessing (atmitedly) that this is really an evolution of that older> 5, not half a Gallardo's V10.

Secondly, while the 2.5's 170 Ft. Lbs. of torque is very pleasing to> see, I'm a little thrown (like some others seem to be) as to why it's> only producing 150 horsepower. 160-170 horsepower seems more inline> with where this engine *should* be considering that it's more expensive> than Nissan's Sentra SE-R VSpec, which makes 175 horsepower and 180 Ft.> Lbs of torque without the aid of FSI or the fifth cylinder.

Lastly, I'm not really sure why this new engine was neccesary. It seems> to me that the 12-valve 174 horsepower VR6 (or simply a de-tuned> version of the 24 valve version) would have been the better choice.> More horsepower and more torque from an existing powerplant that VW was> already tooled up to produce, and that wouldn't have needed much time> or money put into development and road testing.

I guess, but the VW dealer seemed adament that VW was aiming at having> a lower-priced 3-Series in the new Jetta, a 175-180 V6 to compete with> the 325i would have been perfect. Although I guess the 2.0T, while more> than adequate on it's own merits, isn't nearly powerful enough to go> head to head with the 330.

<<It's not even powerful enough to compete with the new 325i, which>will>have 215 hp. However, a 3.2L VR6 might match well against the 330i.>>>

I checked some numbers, and boy, the 2.5 IS slow. The 0-60 time is 9.1>seconds according to Car and Driver. Now, given, that was in a>pre-production car with the Tiptronic, but it is a 6-speed tip. That's>compared to 8.4 second 0-60 times for both the Chevrolet Cobalt LS and>Dodge Neon, which are both cheaper, and a 7.7 second time for the>Corolla XRS, which is also cheaper despite being the top-spec model in>the Corolla lineup. With 197 Horsepower and 207 Ft. Lbs., I'm guessing>the GLI should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.8-6.9 seconds,>considerin­g the 200 horsepower GLX VR6 did it in 7.1-7.2. But it'll be>the same money or more than the Cobalt SS (0-60 in 6.1) the Neon SRT-4>(0-60 in 5.9) which are both quicker and the Sentra SE-R Vspec which is>only marginally slower and fully loaded for under $23k, not to mention>the fact that I'm not sure it'll match my GTi's 6.5 second time>(according to C&D) and my GTI is a 2002!. Interior and ride quality are>important and VW has got all of others beat there, but performance is>at least a little important and the new Jetta fails to make the grade.>I hope VW is saving some power upgrades in their back pocket, because>they'll be needed.

I checked some numbers, and boy, the 2.5 IS slow. The 0-60 time is 9.1> seconds according to Car and Driver. Now, given, that was in a> pre-production car with the Tiptronic, but it is a 6-speed tip. That's> compared to 8.4 second 0-60 times for both the Chevrolet Cobalt LS and> Dodge Neon, which are both cheaper, and a 7.7 second time for the> Corolla XRS, which is also cheaper despite being the top-spec model in> the Corolla lineup. With 197 Horsepower and 207 Ft. Lbs., I'm guessing> the GLI should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.8-6.9 seconds,> considering the 200 horsepower GLX VR6 did it in 7.1-7.2. But it'll be> the same money or more than the Cobalt SS (0-60 in 6.1) the Neon SRT-4> (0-60 in 5.9) which are both quicker and the Sentra SE-R Vspec which is> only marginally slower and fully loaded for under $23k, not to mention> the fact that I'm not sure it'll match my GTi's 6.5 second time> (according to C&D) and my GTI is a 2002!. Interior and ride quality are> important and VW has got all of others beat there, but performance is> at least a little important and the new Jetta fails to make the grade.> I hope VW is saving some power upgrades in their back pocket, because> they'll be needed.>

I understand that speed isn't the major factor for many people when>picking a new car, but it does come into play, at least a little, for>me. When a car is almost a full second slower than the class average, I>start to wonder if that'll be a big deterrant trying to get up crowded>onramps here in Los Angeles where I'll need to be carrying decent speed>in order to merge safely. At the same time, I re-read the C&D article>and it's not clear to me if that 9.1 second time was actually gathered>via C&D testing or if that's the number VW gave them. VW's factory>numbers tend to be slow, for instance: they give my GTI a 7.1 second>time but C&D tested it at 6.5 seconds, this is normal of VW's times. If>VW rates the car at 9.1 seconds, I have no reason to believe it won't>actually be in the mid-8s, putting it back on par with the class>average of about 8.5 seconds.8.5 isn't exactly sports car territory>either, but a $20-25k dollar compact sedan in 2005 should be in that>area, if not slightly better. It still won't be as quick as a 325i, but>BMW gets as much as $34k for 325is, and it better be quicker for a $10k>price premium over the Jetta!

Corolla's are fast on paper, but come on - no one drives to 6500rpm and >shifts up on a regular basis (especially ppl who drive Corollas).

At this point I now realize it's extremely unlikely that my next new car > will be a VW. This just makes me sad. I'm sure that the Jetta will be an > efficient and reliable machine, but it's a big let-down for someone who once > was a loyal customer.

Perhaps this is how former BMW 5-series enthusiasts feel?

Well, I guess if you're hung up on looks, then yeah. It's still a VW > underneath.

However, in the case of the 5-series, the changes were not just cosmetic. > iDrive, active steering, etc. - all conspire to the make the 5-series less > than what it used to be,

<<Yep - but I'll bet they drove more than one buyer away on looks>alone. I>certainly wouldn't buy one, even at a non-BMW price. And no - I'm not>an>anti-BMW snob.>>>

I used to really like the 540i, especially 6-speed equipped version.>Now I wouldn't even think of owning one, with iDrive and it's confused>rear quarters.

<<How do you like the new 3-series? I think it looks pretty decent.>>>

Not to bad looks wise, better than than the 5er. But if you want>navigation you're stuck with iDrive again and I simply won't have it.>I'd have to forgo navigation if I got a 3, but I'm keeping my fingers>crossed that navigation sans iDrive will be avaliable on the 1-series>along with a slightly bigger motor than what they're currently selling>in the European 120i. The 1 and the MKV A3 are my preliminary choices>as replacements for my GTI, but it's got another 1 to 1 and 1/2 years>with me so it'll be awhile before I'm seriously looking. Of course, I>guess the upcoming Passat 3.6 and the G35 could be considerations as>well if I can afford to move up a price bracket in another 18 months.

On 28 Mar 2005 01:45:25 -0800, "Steven Grauman" <OneActor1@aol.com>­> wrote:>

**How do you like the new 3-series? I think it looks pretty decent.

kaboom wrote:>

It's the best Bangle/Hoodoynk-era­ redesign yet. But I still liked the >styling of the previous model better.

<<Ever thought about leasing or do you drive your cars into the>ground/too much mileage? >>>

Lease deals usually end up sticking you in the butt, plus I'm already>right at the 15,000 mile per year limit that most lease deals come with>and I'm not dealing with any 25 cent per mile overage charges. I'd>rather use the trade-in value of my GTI as part of a down payment and>buy again.

I saw the new A4 and A6 at the Los Angeles Auto Show in January and>liked them both. Although I don't take them as gospel, I'm waiting for>some more defitnitive reviews of the A4 2.0T and 3.2 from Car And>Driver, especially aganist the 3-series which is their perennial>favorite.­

<<He has an STi and an M3. He's trying to talk me out of any BMW and>into an Impreza>>>

I test drove the WRX before I bought my GTI and have driven both the>STI and Mitsubishi's Lancer EVO.

Their very quick, but they can't match>the handling balance, or luxury apointments of a BMW (maybe the new A$>too if it handles as well as Audi claims) and both Audi and BMW have>subaru squashed for interior quality.

Car and Driver got a 5.6 second>0-60 time from the new 330i sedan, that's .3 quicker than a WRX and>only .6 slower than the STI, and I'd bet that with the mtahced tires>the 330i would post better times around any road course in the world.>I'd rather put myself into a used M3 3.2 or a B5 S4 than a new STI or>EVO.

The Legacy sedan with the 2.5 litre turbo motor is much nicer, far>better interior and build quality than the STI and it's only maeginally>slower, 0-60 in 5.2 instead of 5.0. It's also got a better ride, and if>skidpad numbers are any indication it handles roughly as well as the>STI too. With the 5-speed and some minor upgrades to springs, shocks>and tires, it'd be a better match to the BMW, but both German marks>would still in any interior comparisons. Plus we have no idea yet if an>S3 and M1 are on the way..

<<We also like the Mazda 3 and 6.>>>

I test drove the 3 a few months ago when my brother was car shopping ->GREAT little car. It's very well appointed, fairly priced, has very>good handling, and surprisingly good build quality. Get the 2.3 litre>motor though. I haven't driven a 6 but I've ridden in a 3.0 w/ manual>and I liked it. I'm really into the new Mazdaspeed version too, and I'd>be willing to look at it when I get my next car.

<<Yea, my sister has a 325xi wagen. She would take the babyseat out of>it and go race it at Limerock. It was pretty funny when the MomMobile>scorched some dude in a Porsche>>>

Huh? Even an early Boxster 2.5 should post better track numbers than>any 325. And even a 330i with the sport package would have a hard time>besting the newer Boxster 2.7's times.

When was the last time you drove a 914? Even with the slightly bigger> 4 they are not particularly fast. 80-95 hp in a 2900 lb car.It makes a> 944 seem fast. Not every car is a new car. Did you know that Porsche> has been building cars since 1938. They even built tractors. One was> on Ebay a few years ago. That tractor is faster than my tractor. I> think it had a top speed twice as fast as my John Deere.>

"Steven Grauman" <OneActor1@aol.com>­ wrote:>

Jim B.

2900 lbs? maybe if the driver and passenger both weight 500 lbs. each >but it would require a hydraulic press to get 'em both in there ­>

but yeah... 914 isn't lightning quick nor is the 944 but that's not what >they're all about... handling is a good thing...>

nate>

(actually still own one of each, although the 914 hasn't turned a wheel >in years)>

jimbehning@doesthi­sblockporkmindspring­.com wrote:>

A web site stated that weight. I had a hard time believing that> number. I think my 67 Beetle weighed about 1700 lbs, The 84 GTI I> guess was about 2,000 lbs. While my father in law's 914 feels fairly> solid I could not imagine it being that heavy. Both the 914 and the> 944 have quite nice handling. The 914 is pretty amazing to me. A car> of that vintage certainly felt better than my GTI.>

Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>

Jim B.

The 3.2 will be a bit late for U.S. customers but only by a few months> from what I hear. As far as size goes, I know the A4 isn't getting any> bigger, but the A6 may be SLIGHTLY larger than before.

<<Yea, my sister has a 325xi wagen. She would take the babyseat out of>it and go race it at Limerock. It was pretty funny when the MomMobile>scorched some dude in a Porsche>>>

Huh? Even an early Boxster 2.5 should post better track numbers than>any 325. And even a 330i with the sport package would have a hard time>besting the newer Boxster 2.7's times.

I saw>the Golf at my dealer, it was there "visiting" for some promo thing VW>was doing for 2 days. They were giving people drives but I didn't get>one. It's not horrible, but not fantastic, although the interior is>STELLAR. It's also like 50% more rigid than my MKIV which is good. I>hate the rims though, I wish VW would put BBS sets on the GTI and GLI.

<<Really, you like the 3? I've been seeing them around more and more.>The 3s are very nice looking. I would shoot for the bigger engine with>a manual.>>>

It's a really great car for the money, although I prefer the 1.8T to>Mazda's 2.3 litre naturally aspirated four. If a Mazdaspeed version>with higher output (maybe aided by a lower pressure turbo) came out I'd>like it even more. The Mazdaspeed 6 is going to use the same 2.3 litre>motor, but with direct injection (a la Audi's FSI system) and a turbo.>I wouldn't be surprised to see FSI find it's way into the N/A version>of the 2.3 as well, which would boost low and mid range torque output>and make the engine a little more desireable.

Perhaps this is how former BMW 5-series enthusiasts feel?