Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53

Thread: 2010 VW Golf

  1. #21
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    BTW, the automatic transmission is a $1K upcharge on the Nissan Versa.

    And the 1.6 is only available in the ugly Sedan body style, if you want the hatch you have to step up to the 1.8 S trim level.
    Who wants an automatic transmission?

    There's goes an extra grand - a year's worth of fuel - and you've made the car much less fun to drive as well as more expensive to maintain!

    A buddy of mine recently got the 1.6 sedan w/AC for about $9k out the door.

    That's the ticket, in my book!

  2. #22
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    I don't want a slushbox either, but about 99% of the US auto buying public apparently does. And it's those people, no us, who determine the viability of a product.

  3. #23
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    I don't want a slushbox either, but about 99% of the US auto buying public apparently does. And it's those people, no us, who determine the viability of a product.
    My issue with VW is not the slushbox, per se. I understand that most people buy automatics and so they have to be available.

    What I question is the DSG for a car like the Golf. It is much more expensive than a regular automatic and in an economy-intended car, this makes it less competitive on price while (let's face it) the typical Golf driver will never notice nor appreciate the difference between a DSG and a conventional (less costly) standard-type automatic.

    I would make the same case about much of the technology that you now find commonly in mass market cars, such as variable valve/cam timing, multi-valve heads and so on.

    It's all wonderful - if you can and will drive a lot more aggressively than the typical American does. But the fact is most Americans either can't or won't. Mostly, they just plod along, listening to the stereo and fiddling with the GPS or their iPhones - barely exceeding the speed limit for any length of time, rarely accelerating full throttle, almost never pushing the car to even 70 percent of its capability in a corner - and probably never driving faster than 100 or so, even for a few seconds.

    So what is the point of spending a great deal of money to buy a car with a 140 mph-plus top speed that was built to cruise all day at 90 and which can generate close to 1 "g" on a skidpad?

    Is it just to look cool and pose?

    Is it because we think we're like that guy in the commercials?

    To impress the other Maggots with our purchasing power?

    It's retarded.

    Probably 75 percent of the American public would be just as well served by a car with the capabilities/performance of a mid-1980s Ford Tempo or Taurus.

    In fact, if you put the mid-1980s-era Tempo or Taurus' drivetrain underneath the "sporty" shell of a modern-looking car and slapped all sorts of "high performance" badges on it - and told the Maggots it had 300 hp and could reach 60 in 5 seconds - they'd be happy and never notice the difference.

  4. #24
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    The one thing that a new car, almost any new car, has that a mid-80s Tempo doesn't is much improved NVH. Even an entry level Kia is smoother and quieter than any Tempo. Taurus wasn't so bad in the NVH department, but still not up to modern standards.

    I wonder if a 4-cylinder 2-valve pushrod engine could be made to run smoothly and quietly, and squeeze the most out of a drop of gasoline with computer-aided fuel injection and timing, or if an OHC and multi-valve setup is required to get the best from the ECU?

    People could get by with a Tata Nano for most urban driving, but who would want to?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,071
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    I wonder if a 4-cylinder 2-valve pushrod engine could be made to run smoothly and quietly, and squeeze the most out of a drop of gasoline with computer-aided fuel injection and timing, or if an OHC and multi-valve setup is required to get the best from the ECU?
    For optimum efficiency variable valve timing is more or less mandatory; as inlet valve timing must be controlled independently of exhaust valve timing for the best results, two camshafts are needed. Four valves/cylinder give much better breathing than two - could conceivably be done with pushrods, but much easier with OHC.

  6. #26
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    The one thing that a new car, almost any new car, has that a mid-80s Tempo doesn't is much improved NVH. Even an entry level Kia is smoother and quieter than any Tempo. Taurus wasn't so bad in the NVH department, but still not up to modern standards.

    I wonder if a 4-cylinder 2-valve pushrod engine could be made to run smoothly and quietly, and squeeze the most out of a drop of gasoline with computer-aided fuel injection and timing, or if an OHC and multi-valve setup is required to get the best from the ECU?

    People could get by with a Tata Nano for most urban driving, but who would want to?
    That's true (on NVH).

    And sure, a pushrod, 2-valve engine can be smooth. Have you driven a late model/current Corvette? Its pushrod V-8 is every bit as smooth/refined as the OHC Ford V-8.

  7. #27
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Brand View Post
    For optimum efficiency variable valve timing is more or less mandatory; as inlet valve timing must be controlled independently of exhaust valve timing for the best results, two camshafts are needed. Four valves/cylinder give much better breathing than two - could conceivably be done with pushrods, but much easier with OHC.
    True, but the reason they have to resort to this is because new cars weigh so much (even "compacts" often weigh close to 3,000 lbs.) and so need larger/more powerful engines (burns more fuel) which in turn requires ever more complex technology (such as variable valve timing) to eke out the best-possible mileage.

    If they could build a 1,600 lb. car (about the weight of an old Beetle) a 60-80 hp engine would quite sufficient and with EFI (and an overdrive gearbox) the thing would probably easily return 50-60 mpg.

  8. #28
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    That's true (on NVH).

    And sure, a pushrod, 2-valve engine can be smooth. Have you driven a late model/current Corvette? Its pushrod V-8 is every bit as smooth/refined as the OHC Ford V-8.
    I specifically asked about a pushrod 2-valve 4-cylinder engine. V8s are inherently smooth.

  9. #29
    I want to know why an engine has to be perfectly smooth? Pushrod engines aren't that rough...I mean it's not like you have a hit and miss engine under the hood when you have pushrods. Besides pushrod engines are more durable than a OHC with no timing belt to break.

  10. #30
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    I specifically asked about a pushrod 2-valve 4-cylinder engine. V8s are inherently smooth.
    I'm with diesel.

    How "smooth" does an engine really need to be?

    I personally like to be aware that the thing's running!

    And, to be clear: I don't mean rough-running or vibrating excessively ...

    I have no doubt a 4 cylinder, 2-valve/pushrod engine could be made to run reasonably quietly and with reasonable civility with modern EFI/computer controls - and without the expense of variable valve/cam timing/OHC heads, etc.

    The expectation that every engine should run totally imperceptibly, like an electric motor or turbine, is a car journalist fetish - like 1G lateral acceleration and 150 mph top speeds.

    It's because of all that flapdoodle that new cars cost a small fortune nowadays and take most people 5-6 years just to pay for... vs. 2-3 years in the not-so-distant past.

  11. #31
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    The thing is, cars have to make a good first impression if people are going to buy them. Refinement sells. NVH is one of the things the casual motorist will notice on a test drive.

  12. #32
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    The thing is, cars have to make a good first impression if people are going to buy them. Refinement sells. NVH is one of the things the casual motorist will notice on a test drive.
    Sure, but refinement to the nth degree?

    How much of a difference are we talking about?

    As with 150 mph top ends and the rest of it, I believe much of what drives tis is not objective, real-world usability but rather perception and image. People read that such and such a car is the "smoothest." But could they really tell the difference between it and the "next smoothest" - and so on down the line?

  13. #33
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    I test drove a Golf TDI today. It was an automatic, and I thought it was a bit sluggish at times. The transmission didn't seem to work as well as the same DSG in the Audi A3 I drove in 2007. The Audi shifted almost imperceptably and quickly, and made perfect choices every time. The TDI seemed to hesitate a bit if I lugged the engine and it needed to downshift. Oh, the sticker on the Golf TDI was $31K!!!!!! I didn't look closely at the sticker to see what the big hit was, but it had an automatic, sunroof, 18" alloys, and sat-nav. And the trunk was packed full of little options such as floor mats, cargo nets, and other cargo-fastening doodads. But that's $7K in options, not counting the automatic. And it didn't even have leather.

    But I was rather pleased with the way the car drove otherwise, the chassis wasn't as much of a let down as I was expecting, coming from my GTI. And I really liked the interior materials, the cloth seats were very comfy and I preferred the thinner steering wheel rim to the thick one in my car.

    I'm thinking about trading my 2007 GTI in for a 2010 one, I'm at that point where I need to decide whether to trade my car in or drive it into the earth. It's three years old, paid for, and has 24.9K miles. The dealer told me that the big hits on trade-in value come at 30K miles, another hit at 35K when the bumper-to-bumper warranty expires, and 60K. But I will only do it if they can find exactly the car I want -- a red 2-DR GTI with manual, and no options.

  14. #34
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    I test drove a Golf TDI today. It was an automatic, and I thought it was a bit sluggish at times. The transmission didn't seem to work as well as the same DSG in the Audi A3 I drove in 2007. The Audi shifted almost imperceptably and quickly, and made perfect choices every time. The TDI seemed to hesitate a bit if I lugged the engine and it needed to downshift. Oh, the sticker on the Golf TDI was $31K!!!!!! I didn't look closely at the sticker to see what the big hit was, but it had an automatic, sunroof, 18" alloys, and sat-nav. And the trunk was packed full of little options such as floor mats, cargo nets, and other cargo-fastening doodads. But that's $7K in options, not counting the automatic. And it didn't even have leather.

    But I was rather pleased with the way the car drove otherwise, the chassis wasn't as much of a let down as I was expecting, coming from my GTI. And I really liked the interior materials, the cloth seats were very comfy and I preferred the thinner steering wheel rim to the thick one in my car.

    I'm thinking about trading my 2007 GTI in for a 2010 one, I'm at that point where I need to decide whether to trade my car in or drive it into the earth. It's three years old, paid for, and has 24.9K miles. The dealer told me that the big hits on trade-in value come at 30K miles, another hit at 35K when the bumper-to-bumper warranty expires, and 60K. But I will only do it if they can find exactly the car I want -- a red 2-DR GTI with manual, and no options.

    $31k for a Golf is insane - to me!

    That is within spitting distance of a BMW 3, more than an A3 - both of them legitimate luxury brands.

    I mean no offense to VW. I like their cars and have owned several. But they've become to a great extent overpriced for what they are. Someone should remind management what "Volkswagen" means.

  15. #35
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    $31k for a Golf is insane - to me!
    I agree. And it was just a TDI, not a GTI or anything. There was also a Jetta Sport Wagon in the showroom, another TDI, with a $32K sticker, and like the $31K Golf, it didn't even have leather. Sure looked good in black though.

    There were also plenty of $18K Golfs on the lot, but they were all in boring colors and had wheel covers.

  16. #36
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    I agree. And it was just a TDI, not a GTI or anything. There was also a Jetta Sport Wagon in the showroom, another TDI, with a $32K sticker, and like the $31K Golf, it didn't even have leather. Sure looked good in black though.

    There were also plenty of $18K Golfs on the lot, but they were all in boring colors and had wheel covers.
    That's off the hook. I would pay the $18k and hope for the best. You can always change the wheels. On the other hand, VW has priced itself out of the market in two ways - 1. Their cars are too expensive at the retail level. 2. Their parts are more expensive than on my Jag. I have heard that they cost as much to maintain as a Porsche.

  17. #37
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    I agree. And it was just a TDI, not a GTI or anything. There was also a Jetta Sport Wagon in the showroom, another TDI, with a $32K sticker, and like the $31K Golf, it didn't even have leather. Sure looked good in black though.

    There were also plenty of $18K Golfs on the lot, but they were all in boring colors and had wheel covers.
    VW should consider doing something along the lines Nissan has done with the Versa 1.6 ....

    Imagine a 45 mpg TDI Golf - no big ticket extras, just the TDI, manual transmission and maybe AC - with an MSRP around $19k.

    I bet they'd sell them hand over fist and end up making more money on volume than they are now selling a relative handful of loaded-up $30k examples....

  18. #38
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    Well, VW are in the process of trying another go-round at manufacturing cars in the US. Maybe that'll stabilize prices some? But I think the car they have in mind to make here is a N. American market only product, the VW version of a Camry. The Passat is too expensive to go up against the Camry, and the Jetta is too small, so they've developed a new large platform (or stretched and widened one of the old ones...) that they can make here at a competitive price.

  19. #39
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    When I was at the VW dealer the other day, they had a 1982 Jetta on the showroom floor that looked like it came out of a time machine. Everything I could see on the car was original and pristine. I'll have to find out the story behind it the next time I'm out that way.

    The one thing that surprised me the most was how small and low it seemed. New cars are so bloated, and tall. The original 1975 Golf/Rabbit weighed around 1750 pounds I think, and I bet that '82 Jetta (still a MkI car, made in Westmoreland PA) wasn't much over a ton.

    I wish they'd had a '65 Beetle in that kind of shape.

  20. #40
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    When I was at the VW dealer the other day, they had a 1982 Jetta on the showroom floor that looked like it came out of a time machine. Everything I could see on the car was original and pristine. I'll have to find out the story behind it the next time I'm out that way.

    The one thing that surprised me the most was how small and low it seemed. New cars are so bloated, and tall. The original 1975 Golf/Rabbit weighed around 1750 pounds I think, and I bet that '82 Jetta (still a MkI car, made in Westmoreland PA) wasn't much over a ton.

    I wish they'd had a '65 Beetle in that kind of shape.
    If you can, take some pictures - would love to see it!

Similar Threads

  1. 2011 VW Golf
    By Eric in forum New Car/Truck Reviews
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2010, 09:43 AM
  2. 2010 vw gti
    By Eric in forum New Car/Truck Reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2010, 04:37 PM
  3. 2010 ... or 10,000 BC?
    By Eric in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 06:40 AM
  4. VW reveals new Euro Golf, including diesel versions
    By Eric in forum Automotive News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2008, 07:44 AM
  5. VW Golf to get 7-speed DSG
    By Eric in forum Performance/Muscle Cars
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-06-2008, 09:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •