Good News. VW sales rise 72% in US in early Sept.

According to Bloomberg.com news service on Sept. 12, 2005:

"Volkswagen AG's U.S. sales of its namesake brand rose 72 percent in the first 10 days of September as record gasoline prices prompted buyers to trade in sport-utility vehicles for small cars and demand more diesel models, the brand's top U.S. executive said."

full story here:

formatting link
This bodes well for VW, but one doubts they can produce the diesels already in demand in Europe and elsewhere. FWIW, the new Passat and Jetta GLI (the best Toyota VW ever made, IMO) are getting good reviews in the auto press also.

Reply to
jpmccormac
Loading thread data ...

I don't know if you can really say that, can you? After all, VW has made a very deliberate move away from being an economy-car brand in the US, and toward being an upscale brand. I would think they'd be feeling a little sheepish about the Phaeton and Touareg about now. The new Jetta is bigger and heavier, and is not an especially economical car anymore. Strange as it seems, a 72% spike in VW economy-car sales may actually be a black eye for them.

Reply to
Brian Running

Time will tell. The memory of the US consumer is short and if gas prices drop a little, they will forget about being economical, I think.

No more sheepish than Ford and GM or Chrysler, all of whom have been losing sales and market share.

True, but if you're driving an Escalade or Navigator, the Jetta may seem like an economical alternative. :)

Reply to
jpmccormac

Wonder where? In our dealer area all VW sales dropped off big time.

Reply to
Woodchuck

Well, have you ever seen a new model get poor reviews from the auto press? Not that I can recall, The automotive press never exposes the warts until they're telling you how much better the NEXT new model is compared the one they gushed over a year or two before. They're not stupid-- new models mean lots of new advertising.

No doubt VW makes a good first impression on buyers. But mediocre-to-poor reliability, high repair costs, and erratic dealership experiences cost them repeat buyers. Don't get me wrong, I'm on my third VW ('03 Passat GLS) , but the reliability issues concern me to the point it may be my last. What is telling is that when you mention to people you own a VW, many have a story about how they know people who own one (Jetta or Beetle, usually), and how they have been told how unreliable they are. Reputation on the brand via word of mouth is not too good.

I, for one, wish VW would focus more on getting the basic build and long-term reliability of their products up to decent levels, and not on giving me a Jetta that looks like a Camry. I think VW has lost much of its core supporters over the past few years, and if they can't attract new buyers to their new models, the company will face some serious difficulties in the future.

Reply to
CS

jpmccormac wrote: : According to Bloomberg.com news service on Sept. 12, 2005:

: "Volkswagen AG's U.S. sales of its namesake brand rose 72 percent in : the first 10 days of September as record gasoline prices prompted : buyers to trade in sport-utility vehicles for small cars and demand : more diesel models, the brand's top U.S. executive said."

Rose in comparison to what? 2004 wasn't a good year for VW

formatting link
sales from January to October 2004 down 13.5 percent. As of August 2005, they were down 19% for this year...
formatting link
A few months back I took the GTI over the the local VW dealer to talk about buying a new Jetta wagon... wouldn't even give me a price unless I committed to buyiung that day... I left...

On the other hand, for those complaining about service costs, it costs me $90 for a oil change at the Porsche dealer for my Porsche, but only $24 for a oil change from the VW dealer for my VW... I'm not sure the VW dealer is that much more expensive than a independent...

Reply to
Chicago Paddling-Fishing

I agree about the moving away from really well though out, inexpensive cars. It seems like the new Jetta is targeted to someone cross-shopping and Acura or Lexus. Based on what I saw, it comes accross well, but what is available for those of us cross-shopping Honda, Toyota and the like.

If you want to read more, here is a short synopsis of my recent new car purchase experience:

Had a 94 Passat that was getting a little long in the tooth. It still has pretty low mileage (ie 101K) but wanted some expensive repairs (ie Needed to replace the chain tensioners and the front suspension needs new tie rod ends, and maybe some bushings to tighten it back up). Just wasn't worth it for the age of the car.

Stopped by my local VW dealer (Northland in Cincinnati). Up front, I have to say that these people have always treated me very well. No games, and the consistently stepped up to the plate over the life of my Passat (10yr/100K warranty, that I ran to the bitter end). Could have had a 2005 1.8T Passat GL 5spd cheap ($17.9K), but the car left me a little cold, versus my 94 VR6. Yeah, it got out of its own way with plenty of verve, but the engine seemed ill suited to the car. No torque till 3500 RPM, then it poured on. I also have some long term reliability questions regarding an engine pumping out almost 100 HP/l. BTW, what happens to the great manual VW seats? Its no longer possible to change the rake on the bottom cushion. There were no other manual transmission Passats on the lot to try. Eleven years ago, at least 50% of the Passats had a MT.

Also tried the new Jetta, and as someone else surmised, it is the best Toyota they ever built. Really nice interior, but there was an obvious disconnect between the driver and the road. Yes, I realize it has driver-by-wire throttle and steering. On the other hand, the new suspension seems great, although tuned way too soft. Yeah, they have a GLI version, but way too much coin. Older VW's were always crisp, even in the base models. They new 2.5l, 150 HP motor seemed far more appropriate for the car than the 1.8T in the Passat. Curious how the long term reliability is going to work out. Didn't want to be a guinea pig for something I'm likely to keep the next 8-10 years.

I ended up with a Mazda 3s hatch. I'm still getting used to the rice racer exterior, but every drive puts a smile on my face. Really reminds me of MKII GTI with a bit more horsepower. The seats aren't as good as the early manual VW seats though. The 2.3l 160HP motor is hardly overkill. The torque curve is so smooth that it seems unexciting, but a glance at the speedo, and at the receding cars in the rear view, indicate its quicker than it feels. Same with the suspension. It really seems to soak up the atrocious Cincinnati city streets, even better than the stock suspension on my old Passat, yet it has the steering response and handling of something closer to a go-kart. The VW's still have better interiors, but the Mazda 3s was the most fun I could find in a sub $18K (actually paid $16.9K) ride that would hold all three of my children in the back seat.

In some ways I'm sad its not a VW. It will be interesting to see if VWoA will bring over something to slot below the Golf/Jetta range for those looking for something a little more basic. I'm also interested in seeing if they will bring in some of the more powerful TDI powerplants with the cleaner diesel in 2006. With the recent drastic increases in fuel prices, I have seen several publications, that were previously derisive of TDI's, mention them as viable, high MPG competition to the more exotic and expensive to purchase/maintain hybrids.

David Glos

Reply to
DLGlos

David,

Thanks for the comments on the Mazda 3s hatch. Your comments reinforce many others I read; I'm pleased that you compare it favorably to MKII GTI. I've looked closely at the 3 as a replacement for my '96 Golf GL but just can't part with the VW - yet.

- John McCormack

Reply to
jpmccormac

Mazda3 was high on my list before I bought a used '03 Passat GLS in January. It will be in for its third visit to the dealer next week, all electrical problems. If the problems continue, I'll be looking at the Mazda again.

Reply to
CS

Mazda3 was high on my list before I bought a used '03 Passat GLS in January. It will be in for its third visit to the dealer next week, all electrical problems. If the problems continue, I'll be looking at the Mazda again.

Reply to
CS

John,

I won't tell you buy a Mazda, but do at least take one for a spin, along with anything else that might be remotely within your interest level. I don't get to shop for a new one very often, and when I do, I tend to look long and hard.

I looked at it as objectively as I could (the Mazda was only 1K less than the more than nice enough 1.8T 5spd Passat, which was cheaper than an 06 Jetta) and decided I liked the snappiness and handling of the Mazda more than the fine Teutonic Passat interior. I still think the Passat was a fine ride, and probably would have been my choice if most of my miles were interstate, but it didn't put a big s**t eating grin on my face. The 1.8T was also the wrong drivetrain for a car that large. I'm sure it would have been fun in something a few hundred pounds lighter.

If long tern reliability ratings have any merit, I'm likely to have fewer significant issues with the Mazda than I would have had with the Passat. Although, as I indicated, my 94 has been pretty decent. However, I am a bit miffed that the VR6 motor needs chain tensioners at 100K miles. Makes the price of replacing a timing belt in one of the 4 cylinders look like chump change. I have a buddy that is a BMW mechanic, and he indicates a tensioner on a reasonably maintained BMW straight 6 is a non-issue for 200K miles. Will have to see if it becomes and issue on the 2.3l Mazda 4cylinder, which is also chained. I will change to synthetic immediately following break-in, just as I would do with any modern car.

I will still watch VW, in particular their TDI technology. Once we get to clean diesel in 2006, I'm convinced this makes more sense than hybrid power trains. Other manufacturers, specifically Chrysler, are starting to take notice too. Of course, I realize they are tied to Mercedes, which has always been a leader in passenger car diesel technology, even if they are not always for sale on our side of the ocean.

This go round, VW just didn't have what I was looking for in a relatively inexpensive to purchase and maintain city car with snappy handling. VW seems to have forgotten that most of their die hard customer base came from those wanting an inexpensive to purchase and maintain car with Farfegnugen (anybody remember that term? I think Mazda has sucessfully co-oped it with their "zoon zomm" speak). They are producing cars aimed at their more affluent, aging customer base. But, what about aging customers like me that are perfectly happly not spending all available dollars on wheels. And, where are the next generation of VW fans going to come from if they don't have something inexpensive, reliable and fun to pull the 20somethings in the front door? The ones that need to spend the extra dollars, to fit in with the Lexus, Acura, and BMW crowd, should be shopping at the Audi dealership next door.

I'm still a VW-head at heart, just not a very loyal one. ;-) I suspect I'm not the only one.

Dave Glos

Reply to
DLGlos

I have to disagree.

The 1.8T is a wonderful engine, tuned to deliver the punch where you want it in a big barge like a Passat. I'm not denying that more power would be nice, but it's one of the most relaxing cars I've ever driven - and it'll shift quite nicely when you put your foot down.

Reply to
SteveH

snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote in news:1h300wi.1p20iofdj5g97N% snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk:

Which reminds me: Does anybody remember the tap-dance sequence to reinitialize the adaptive transmission if it's learned some bad habits?

Reply to
Bert Hyman

I think that explains why you don't think much of the 1.8T. ;-)

Reply to
SteveH

snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote in news:1h301io.8txqprg2zmr1N% snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk:

You have me confused with someone else; I don't think I've ->ever made a disparaging comment about the 1.8T in my '02 Passat.

Reply to
Bert Hyman

Oooops, sorry, I assumed you were the person I replied to originally.

My point still stands, if someone's only experience of a 1.8T is when it's got a great lump of torque converter bolted to the back of it, then it won't be the same engine it is with a manual box.

Reply to
SteveH

snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote in news:1h301ra.6ezqhxq4pogkN% snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk:

I'm sure you're right, and if the joints in my knees and hips still worked, I'd still be driving a stick.

But even so, I've found the 1.8T to be more than adequate for my needs with the Tiptronic.

Reply to
Bert Hyman

I won't argue that its not "a wonderful engine." But, to me, it just didn't seem right for the car. More specifically, it was sluggish until 3500RPM, then there was a good push in the backside. First gear was also terribly short, the shifter a bit vaugue, and the clutch didn't engage until the pedal was well off of the floor, almost at the resting position. Even the saleperson thought the clutch engagement height was odd. So odd, that he went into the shop to see if there was anything that could be adjusted to put the engagement a little closer to the floor. BTW, he brought the issue up before I did. I've owned a Passat for going on 12 years now, and I like them, really I do. The one I drove just didn't hit me just right.

Again, I'm sure it's a great engine, but a more linear delivery, in my opinion, would have matched the Passat better; even at the expense of a few horsepower. Remember, most of my driving is around town, and my opinion likely would have been different if I were spending more than

45 minutes on the highways each day. In a Jetta or Golf, I'm sure it would have been great fun. There were no 2005 1.8T 5spd Jettas left to examine. The new one was too much of an unknown.

As I'm sure someone will point out, what I ended up buying isn't even in the same class as the Passat. Quite true. My priorities were: (1) crisp handling/fun to drive, (2) sub $18,000 price (yes, the new Passat I examined fit this criteria, with the end-of-year and previous owner discounts), (3) ability to safetly and comfortably convey my two

5 yr old twin daughters and 9 yr old son on short jaunts (we have a boring minivan for more extensive travels with the kiddies), and (4) be reasonably reliable. Almost everything else was on the table.

FWIW, I also looked at a 2005 Honda Accord LX, and it was a non-starter; falling well behind the Passat and the Mazda. Shifter was great, but cheap, cheap tires, and discount level rear drums didn't lead to confidence about the whole package. It also drove like a refined Buick; no praise intended.

David Glos

Reply to
DLGlos

I wonder if we get a different 'chip' than you, because one thing you can't accuse the 1.8T of is being peaky.

The figures say peak torque at 1900rpm, with the turbo making it's presence known from 1500rpm upwards - I'd even go as far as saying it's levelled off by the time 3.5k rpm is showing.

Reply to
SteveH

Umm, maybe....that certainly wasn't the kind of torque curve I experienced in the sample I drove. And, I drove it twice, with at least a half hour mix of city and highway. There wasn't a second example around to compare it to. As another note, I'm not sure "peaky" is the word I would use. Perhaps digital comes closer, it was either moderately sluggish, or pulling like a freight train.

With my older VR6, I can be loafing along at 1800-2200RPM, and it pulls just as willingly as if I had it in a higher gear and spinning

2300-2800RPM. It is only a 2-valve and breathing seems to open up a bit around 3200RPM, but its not dramatic. The new 1.8T I drove wanted to be above 2500RPM for an authoritative response. I suppose I could have gotten used to it, but for that level of coin, I didn't want to.

David Glos

Reply to
DLG

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.