anti Touareg sentiment

The German's cheat *both* directions, just like the other builders, and the mags have marketing "considerations" in their testing. That's the real world.

Actually , all the publications don't even have better times, here's a link again:

And more importantly here's what that magazine says about the power:

"And the throttle. Oh, the throttle. Drive-by-wire is more often a curse than a blessing and the calibration used in the GTI is terrible. The throttle is slow to respond and has a general feeling of disconnect and vagueness. Combine that with an easily heat-soaked intercooler and getting the GTI moving on a hot day is a choice between stalling and wheelspin (or bogging if the electronic stability control isn't disabled)."

Those of us_that have actually owned the 1.8T know this mag quote to be true...they are pigs at low rpms in day to day driving until the turbo comes on. Very soft.

Actually, the 2.0L and even TDI feel about as strong in around town normal driving unless you're jumping all over the 1.8T to get on the boost.

Thats from someone that's driven all three a lot...and owned two of them.

Not some mag quoting, 0-60 obcessed, kids...

But knock yourselves out splitting hairs guys.

Well, it does make 240 hp (80 hp/l). And, IIRC, runs on regular *and* is ULEV. Impressive, I must say.

I know a guy who has one. Nice car, just a tiny bit less nice than a B5.5 Passat IMO. Don't know much about the new ones except that they're fast.

-- Mike Smith

Fine, I'll call the average about 7 seconds. I think that's fair, and it still makes the average car on my list much quicker than any TDi.

The W8 passat is quicker, so is the Grand Prix GTP and the Nissan Maxima 3.5. Sedans are getting quick.

I posted that I'd driven 3 different generations of Accord, and had sampled both I4 and V6 models. Given, most of them are above the 7.0 second average, but the point of that list was mostly just to illustrate how many cars I've driven.

Most 4 cylinder cars from the early 90s are rather slow. And by comparison, even the 90Hp TDi is, at the very least, adequate.

The 2000 V6 was a much improved car over the previous versions, albeit not perfect. The new generation that started in 2003 is undoubtedly the best Accord ever. It's unfortunate that some companies cars don't get any better over time. Steve Grauman

SCC is a hack job magazine. They've become so over-obssesed with building-up Civics that nothing else seems right to them, and they'll bash everything else.

The Tiptronic is a flawed tranny, and I've personally commented on it many times. It often makes the 1.8T seem much worse than it is. However, my 1.8T is mated to a 5-speed, and it never once has come off as "soft" or like a "pig". It luanches hard through first gear, and the drive by wire throttle isn't quite as bad as SCC's horridly biased test drivers made it out to be. Steve Grauman

Couldn't agree more. TDI is a great "normal drive around town" motor, for everyday drivers that aren't running up past 3000 rpms. (The way most adults actually drive) Terrific mileage and good performance.

I'd rate them this way for that normal non-performance drive around town-TDI followed by 2.OL followed by 1.8T

Fact is that little 1.8T just doesn't have any real low end grunt until you hit reasonable boost around 3000 rpms.

For Amerian driver's the 1.8T never made much sense to me. We don't have high gas prices and we don't have European tax laws and regs that favor low displacement engines. Easier to get the same or more performance with just increased displacement and no turbo complexity and service/durability issues.

There's still no good performance substitue for cubic inches...for American car OWNERS and drivers.

Gas Turbos are a marketing gimmick for the gullable in America.

Turbos in diesel cars make more sense.

This finally makes sense to me why my chipped 1994 2.0L Jetta and TTSS exhaust seems to equal and sometimes beat 1.8Ts out the light.

This is where the experienced driver part comes in. The clueless wonders are easy and those who rev out spin their tires.

Too bad. It sounds like I am going to hate drive by wire until they get it fixed.

Sounds like the wallet talking to me. :)

Very astute. You must have more real car (and life) experience than just some kid reading magazines and regurgitating on newsgroups.

Road & Track, Car & Driver and Motor Trend are just ad driven major media company owned rags that would try to say a car runs 0-60 in 3 seconds...if big enough mfr's ads were being run...

That's the way it really is...

And yes, often those cars are especially "prepped" driven and timed for mag tests...been there and done that.

P.S. All the VWs I've owned are manuals...not Tiptronic.

My biggest complaint of the 2.0 is that it's 2 valve head and single cam setup make it very hard for the engine to "breathe" and do it's job much above 4,000 RPM. I've always felt that they were fine for normal surface street traffic but felt very weak and strained when I need them to rev higher on the highway. The

2.0's passing power is non-existant. Hopefully the new 2.0T will spawn a twin-cam, multi-valve replacement for the N/A 2.0 we've got right now. Steve Grauman

Iv'e never had a problem with my 1.8T in very slow, bumper to bumper traffic. And if it can work during rushhour on the 101 here in Los Angeles, then it shouldn't be problematic for anyone.

We don't? Damn, and I though almost $3 a gallon for 91 was high. The 1.8T gets gas mileage roughly equivalent to that of the 2.0, but with FAR better performance. You shouldn't need to think very hard about why it's VW/Audi's most popular engine.

Unfortunately, VW hasn't really commited to N/A performance engines. You might have noticed that the $31,000 R32 is the only car in the current lineup using this methodology. The 200Hp VR6 is now only avaliable in the GTi, and it's added weight and higher fuel consumption offset whatever MINOR performance advantages it may have.

Turbocharging small engines IS a viable way getting high-performance, just look at the 911 TT aganist the Corvette or Viper. The old addage about their being "no replacement for displacement" is an outdated one. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Yea, you're right. I'd much rather have an engine without turbos. If I'm lucky, it'll be three times the size, get half the gas mileage and be 5x as loud. All for the same level of performance by turbo-4 is getting me right now. How about that new Subaru Legacy 2.5T? Fully loaded with leather and AWD for less than $36k, and 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Quick enough to rival Pontiac's 350Hp, LS1 powered GTO. Steve Grauman

I test drove so many other cars when I bought my GTi, my head spun. NONE of them were as good. And the "real" cars mags like C&D have never had any major problems with the drive by wire throttle. Steve Grauman

This is hilarious. You guys are the ones up in arms defending the TDi. Sounds like bunch of current and/or former TDi owners trying to defend their purchases. How dare some "kid" come onto the NG and question the quality of the car you've purchased? LOL!

So SCC isn't? Their Honda-obsession is just a conincidence? Their obvious bias towards Japanese cars isn't a product of who buys their ads? They aren't making less of an effort with the VW because they don't like it as much anyway? I'm really sorry I insulted those of you who choose to dump cash on TDis. If you really want to believe that the 1.8T is really just a bad engine that's been overhyped, that's fine. But you might have noticed that C&D PRAISED the 1.8T, even while relegating the GTi to 3rd place in a 3 car comparison. Wow, that sounds like marketing-driven test results to me!

Even if that's true, the other 2 cars in that C&D comparison would have had an equal amount of prep work as the GTi. And neither of them were as quick, and neither of their engine's recieved the praise that the 1.8T did. It's the most populat engine in the VW/Audi lineup, and has been essentially since it's introduction in 1997. If you want to argue with the millions of people here and in Europe that all saw the 1.8T for the quality engine that it is, you go ahead and try. If you're happy with your TDi, that's wonderful. And you can justufy it all you want. Say that I'm just a dumb kid, that nobody really needs a 1.8T, that it's not really that great an engine anyway, that "grownups don't need to drive like that". I'll know that in the back of your minds, you all know that you bought the TDi for it's economy, and that you know the 1.8T is a superior engine. And wether you need it or not is irrelevant, some part of us always wants to have a quicker car. Steve Grauman

1) 911 engines ain't that small anymore. In the 997, the largest engine is now 3.8 liters, pretty large for a six. 2) 911 engines may have power, but they don't make gobs torque down low the way the Vette or Viper do. 3) The new Vette has a combined city/hwy mpg of 22.6, compared to 18.2 for the 911 Turbo, and 20.6 for a normally-aspirated 911. 4) Compare the price of a Vette to that of a 911.

I have as much respect for the 911 as the next guy, but the large-displacement approach can also produce highly desirable results.

-- Mike Smith

It's TDI (all caps). Get it right.

Superior? I judge my cars on a whole lot more factors than their 0-60 times. There as so few opportunities to accelerate at full throttle in every day driving what difference does it make? Maybe having a "faster car" is what your ego needs. Not mine.

What the hell for? We're mired in traffic, whether it is in town, on the freeway, or rural roads. All you ever get to do is follow the guy in front. I'd rather have a more comfortable car, a quieter car, a safer car, a car that handles better on snowy or icy roads. I don't need "quicker".

What difference does "quicker" make? Does it get me where I want to go any sooner? How much time could a "quicker" car save me in a day? None. It's all about ego.

This post kind of said that for us...not that your dumb...but that you are a kid. (;^D)

When I was 21 I would have agreed with you, but now that I am a dumb old fart, I don't.

You'll understand some day. I'll be honest with you, I look at how easy it is to change an oil filter or spark plugs more than I do 0-60 times. If I want neck snapping acceleration, I'll get a bike...for the real world, there are things I am more concerned with.

3.8 Litres is still pretty small in comparison to 6.0 in the new C6 Corvette and 7.0 for the Viper. The 911 Turbo produces enough power to wipe either of them from the raod. Besides, it's not always neccesary to turbocharge with a company as adavced as Porsche. The 380Hp GT3 has a naturally aspirated flat six, and can do the 0-60 dash in 4.0.

They pull very strongly down low thanks to a well designed engine and the clever operation of the Variocam system. If all you want is the kind of power that melts tires, there are much less expensive ways to do it than either the

911 or the Corvette.

Of course this may change when the C6 and 997 are offically out. And this isn't typical of an American V8.

Absolutely. But you're paying for a lot more than just speed when you buy a Porsche. Compare the build quality.

Of course it can. What I'm arguing is the notion that turbocharging a smaller engine isn't as viable a way to get power. The RS6 makes 450Hp from a 4.2 litre V8. Compare it to the 400Hp Z06, which has 5.7 litres on tap and a much gruffer approach. Steve Grauman

So do I. That's why when I examined the 1.8T aganist the other engines in VW's lineup, I noticed that in addition to being more powerful than the 2.0, it gets about the same gas mileage. It doesn't need to be pushed as hard getting on the freeway or when attempting to pass, and it doesn't carry as many revs when cruising at 60-65, making it quieter. It's also a lot easier to make the car move up steep grades. That's all beside the fact that the car is quicker, and will be worth more in resale. Of course I'm sure you guys will all tell me that none of that matters, right? And I'm just buying the more powerful engine to play boy racer.

You can read my above statement. While other performance figures matter very little to me, a car's ability to acclerate matters A LOT to me. I spend a lot of time in my car, especially on the highway. It's ability to get up to speed quickly and easily once on the highway and pass without big noise or effort are important to me. The TDIs I drove were needed noticeablly more time/room to do this. It's 2004, I shouldn't need to be planning every pass like I would've in a 1967 Beetle, making sure it's got 2 miles to get the speed.

Well the Golf/GTI is the most comfortable and solid car in it's class, IMO. It's also among the safest, with curtain and side airbags and a 5 star crash-test rating. And it's neither loud nor a gas guzzler. And these traits are all true of my 1.8T. So why not have a little more power too? It's not like I'm advocating having a 400Hp hatchback. Steve Grauman