First MKV Jetta sighting

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. I read several preliminary 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 and with 170 ft. lbs. and a 6 speed tip, I imagine it's not any slower than a Nissan Sentra 2.5 automatic or the woefully slow Civic

1.7 and Corolla 1.8. I'm not quite sure why it seems these days that a car has to have an ultra quick 0-60 time to get a good review.
Reply to
Steven Grauman
Loading thread data ...

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.

imagine it's not any

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.

Reply to
Kent

Well a 2.0L Jetta can do 85MPH quite readily... hell my TDI will cruise at

100MPH all day (if the laws let me...). 9.1 Seconds to 100Kph for the automatic 2.5L Jetta - it's honestly not that bad, and VW's have never been great in a straight line, at least the one's I've driven... I bet it feels faster when you drive it, probably has really strong midrange power.

You also have to remember the mags are testing fresh Jetta's, Volkswagen engines are really tight when new - Our 2.0L took around 10K Kms to really feel as lively as it will get, my friends TDI took almost 15-20K Kms to really feel like it was running as quick as possible.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

"large portions of their income for performance that they don't need and rarely if ever use."

It's sentences like this that I think about when I am stuck behind a V6 or V8 powered car that is accelerating at about 2kph every second, and is merging at 60kph on a 100kph highway....

Reply to
Rob Guenther

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.
Reply to
Matt B.

IMO if you have a slow car... you can't be afraid to put the pedal right to the floor... most people don't on big, powerfull cars... I tend to floor my diesel more then most probably would (cuz I love seeing grey smoke come out the back, maybe) and have no trouble... I realize that I am accelerating at about 2/3 of the max rate of most family sedans... but that's basically all the speed anyone needs.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

The 2.5 runs very well overall, but if one needs more... then the 200hp 2.ol turbo is just around the corner.

Reply to
Woodchuck

Is my intuition completely off, or does 2.5 liters seem like an enormous displacement for such a low peak HP figure? For instance, the 2.8 liter VR6 displaces only 12% more, yet makes 30% more peak HP.

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?

Reply to
1.8 Turbo

I've read in several places that the 2.5 is detuned a bit and is capable of more.

Horsepower isn't everything though. while it's 150@5000 rpm it's also

170ft-lbs. of torque. 24V VR6s are 195 (only 14% more).

It's not a meager increase. The 2.0 four is 115hp and 122 ft-lbs. The 2.5 is a 40% increase in torque over that engine and 30% more HP but it's only

25% larger. That's a huge improvement.

Horsepower isn't everything. The torque figure suggests this engine should have pretty good punch.

Reply to
Matt B.

Imagine how understressed that motor is going to be though! They have a timing chain installed on it too for longevity... It's 1/2 of a supercar engine (Gallardo, or Murcheilago - forget which... whichever has the V10 - the 2.5 is one bank of that engine). The electrics are made by the same company that does the work for Toyota (there's gotta be some Bosch stuff in there... maybe my salesman meant radios, switches, modules etc).... That engine is going to last a LONG time i'm thinking.

My salesman also said it's incredibly tuneable... the engine is stock tune is really restricted - he said, excpect to see tuners getting 200Hp with almost no effort, and probably more than 250 with heavier tuning... Bet you could bolt a turbo on it or something.

Remember there's a 200Hp Turbo FSI engine coming, with apparantly so little turbo lag, most can't feel it. I've seen/read reviews from Europe on the new GTI (with this engine) and the reviewers were falling in love with that car.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

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.

In any case, I know that the Jetta's performance will be *close* to that of the Sentra SE-R and probably equal to or better than the performance of the Sentra 1.8, the Civic EX and the Corolla LE.

Reply to
Steven Grauman

VW(oA) is claiming it is, at least the head design.

Reply to
Matt B.

VW supposedly claims that the Jetta's I5 is indeed derived from the V10 in the Gallardo. Meanwhile, think about this - Audi has an I5. Then Lambo becomes an Audi company. Then, lo and behold - Lambo's next car has a V10 in it. Could it be that the V10 is based on the I5, rather than the other way around?

Which engine do you think is smoother and quieter? I'll bet the I5 is. I'd imagine it makes its torque at lower rpm than the Nissan engine, too. Plus, by starting out with this new engine in a relatively low state of tune, they have lots of "headroom" to increase power over the life cycle of the engine. Maybe in three years we'll see the same engine "magically" making 200 hp.

Maybe they didn't want to have a six-cylinder as the base engine - would've carried the wrong impression for the Jetta's "tweener" image.

-- Mike Smith

Reply to
Mike Smith

Certainly possible. Audi also showed twin-turbocharged, FSI equipped version of that V10, making 600 horsepower, in their Nuvolari concept back in 2003. I'm wondering, since they seem to want every one of their engines to be FSI equipped, if they'll eventually move that version into the Gallardo.

Reply to
Steven Grauman

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.

-- Mike Smith

Reply to
Mike Smith

Speed is only one market segment. I think of all the cars my friends have and not one friend has bought a car for straight line acceleration in years. Prius, Jetta TDI, Passat Wagon, Altima, Dodge

4x4 PU, Chrysler m>compared to 8.4 second 0-60 times for both the Chevrolet Cobalt LS and

Jim B.

Reply to
jimbehning

VW's aren't really geared up for a good 0-60 time... they seem geared to get up to higher speeds and maintain them.

Plus VW engines seem notoriously tight... Our 2.0L could barely get up to

80kph on onramps when it had 100kms on the odometer.... a year later with 11K on it, it's quite a bit faster... My friends PD-TDI was sluggish when new as well.
Reply to
Rob Guenther

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!

Reply to
Steven Grauman

"With a claimed 0-to-60 time of 9.1 seconds for the five-cylinder automatic"

Performance Ratings (mfr's est): Zero to 60 mph..... 8.8-11.6sec

8.8 for the manual I5, 11.6 probably for the automatic I4 diesel.

So those are VW's numbers... and VW is conservative, I was talking to my friend, the VW salesman - who has driven the car at their course on it (they also had a Volvo S40 2.4i, Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, and a couple other cars there - he said he liked the Jetta better then the base Volvo, I didn't ask him about the other cars - I was only interested in the Jetta vs the Volvo - but those other Japanese family sedans aren't really high on the fun to drive levels) and the car was driven on a proper racetrack, he said the Jetta was a blast to drive, and he only got to test an automatic.

He said I would be stupid to "waste" $5000 more on the Volvo (I can get it for probably more like $2000 more then a base Jetta with the PAG discounts I can get, through Magna International) - saying it seemed not quite as solid, not quite as roomy, and with only base suspension and tires, not that sporty... And that the Jetta does as good (possibly better in side impacts) for crash tests. - That Volvo runs the 0-60 at 8.5 seconds, with a 168Hp inline 5, with manual tranny.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Since I have never driven in LA but I have been driving for the last

27 years merging on occasion. I can come up with 600,000 miles I have driven which I know is not much but I have driven a bit. I have pulled a horse trailer with a Toyota pickup, I have driven a dump truck, I have driven a diesel passenger bus, aircooled VW's and Porsches, Suburan towing a 32' trailer, 67 Fury towing a 67 Hilo tailer, a 2003 TDI Jetta wagon with a slipping clutch, 70 Nova with a 250, a Aspen with 225 and other vehicles. None of those vehicles accelerate like a 68 Camaro with a 350, headers and all that hot rod stuff, a 72 Polara CHP with a 440 and manual steer>I understand that speed isn't the major factor for many people when

Jim B.

Reply to
jimbehning

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.