I've looking to buy a 2004 Jetta. Last week I test drove one with the 1.8T engine. When I asked the salesman if it required premium fuel he said no. Is this really the case?
Also, is there a huge difference in performance between the 1.8T and the
2.0? I've owned turbos in other cars before, and the durability of turbo engines was an issue in the past but I suspect they've got most of the bugs worked out by now. True?
I should add that an automatic trans is a requirement, since my wife will be driving it occasionally.
premium is "recommended for maximum performance". In other words, you have the option of throwing away horsepower and efficiency if you want to save a few cents at the pump. Kinda defeats the purpose if you ask me.
If you really have so much faith on VW knock sensors. The is a premium engine.
I have a chipped 2.0L with a TT exhaust and I can keep up with 1.8T especially if it's a slush tranny (automatic).
Turbos are very reliable as long as you don't overheat or run your oil low. Once that happens they fall apart fast.
VW makes the worst automatic. You will regret owning the slushmobile. If you need an automatic, Toyota's electronically controlled automatic tranny is supposed to be the best. The Toyota ECT design is being used by most of the other automobile OEMs. The CVT (continuous variable trans) is still pretty new so I don't now the reliability for them.
Odd that you would say that VW's Automatic Transmissions are so bad....When my Jetta was in it's accident, I had a Toyota Corolla as a rental....what a POS...Sorry...after having driven this car for 2 weeks, I wouldn't buy one after owning a Jetta...the Corolla had the worst automatic transmission...it shifted to early, didn't kickdown quickly....never again would I drive a Toyota.
Don't let the salesman kid you.... the 1.8T wants premium fuel.
And as far as difference in performance, the Turbo fares poorly when hooked up to an automatic. She really wants to learn how to drive a stick. It might take a week or two, but she'll love you all the more when she's driving her new 1.8T Jetta.
Well, I have similar complaints about the Tiptronic in my Passat - slow and mushy. Switching to Tip mode helps but not much. I've heard the Tip chips available from various sources can help a lot, but I'm a little hesitant as I've only had the car for 18 months - wouldn't want to have warranty problems...
I had a 2002 Jetta GLS 1.8T with the triptronic. Owners manual states you should put the premium gas in it but I switched back and forth with mid-grade and premium.
I got rid of it because I really didn't like the triptronic automatic 5 speed. I may have been unlucky with the one I got but it had weird shift points. There were times it up and down shifted when it shouldn't have. I tried having it reset several times.
I would never tell anyone to get one. As a matter of fact, I drove 2 with manual transmissions and they were little rockets!!! I know you don't want a stick so I would go with the 2.0.
I traded the 1.8T in on a 2003 Jetta GLS TDI with a manual. I love this car.
Well I have and my suspension and brake system with is not stock allows for this. The A4s weigh so much more and its obvious you never have driven anything else that would make you pee your pants. So I can see why you think your Jetta is fast.
Well, in my defense, my 99.5 Golf was $7500.... I couldn't pass up a deal like that for an ex company car that was maintained exactly as required by the book... I'd have gone standard (or DSG when it comes) if I was buying new.
What exactly is wrong with the trannies? They seem reliable... I've never heard of major problems with VW auto's, just that they are unpopular.
It shifts as smoothly as the Civic (far smoother then the Civic under full load) I did driver training in, and the 4 speed auto in my parents Volvo 960 (yah, its 11 years old... GM tranny in it).
The only gripe I have is that it causes my diesel to spin uselessly at 4000 rpm when I gun the throttle to pass someone... if I push the throttle in smoothly it's better.
Now answer my questions, are they just annoying in their operation (cuz I may tend to agree with you in some cases) or are they failure prone?
I can't see anyone who WANTS an automatic to be utterly disapointed...
All OEM automatics are generally short lived. The older ones more than the newer ECT units. The clutches wear out, torque converters etc. It's just that nobody over in Europe would even think of getting an automatic. Third world countries do not have automatics in their society. Lazy americans love automatics. I get bored driving them. They have a higher failure rate and this is a known fact.
yes. See above. If you want an automatic that is heavy duty then you would have to get a CAT diesel engine and Allison auto tranny. This is just my opinion because even the Allison automatics are weak compared to manual truck trannies. In any market, automatics are just not has reliable.
TMI...
This is the nature of the beast. Say no more....
With manual transmissions, you are in control and shift when it is mechanically correct. The automatic forces it's gears and creates more wear faster IMO.
Automatics are here to stay but they are loved by service garages and dealers. They are much more complex and you wouldn't want to have just anyone fix your automatic. They generally get replaced with a rebuild. Sometimes a torque converter goes and can be replaced but if the tranny goes, it's rebuild time.
Well, if they wanted it to be more user and maintenance friendly they would have kept the auto dipstick but now it's completely in the hands of the professional.
I'll stick with my manual tranny. All my vehicles are manuals.
You are a funny guy. I have had manual trannys eat bearings in my Toyota trucks, Friend has had rebuilds of his manuals in his F350s. Another friend had a few trannies in his Jetta GLI before he sold it. Manual shift trannies do not have the market in reliability and superiour engineering.
I owned an automatic back >>>Well, in my defense, my 99.5 Golf was $7500.... I couldn't pass up a deal
First of all i didn't mean to hurt your feelings, start a pissing match or accuse you of having a small penis...
I'm sure your 2.0L is just a nice as any other jetta out there, and i'm sure that the modifications that you have made actually increase the performance of your jetta (unlike some of our honda counterparts!!!). I've owned the
2.0L in a golf and was completely satisfied with the engine.
To stay on topic...
The original post asks to compare a 2004 A4 2.0 auto and a 2004 1.8T auto
With all due respect, once again...
When comparing apples with apples, i seriously doubt (but could be wrong) that changing brakes and suspension components + a new exhaust system and a chip would give you the significant gains it would require to match the overall performance of these two engines. Without going into racing modifications that would make it illegal to drive on the road, my guess is that it would require a supercharger such as the one sold by neuspeed to get the performance out of the 2.0L that is offered for less and with a factory warranty in the 1.8T
I would recommend to the original poster that if he is looking for thrills the 1.8T would be a better choice over the 2.0L
And finally...
I've never driven an F1 Ferrari, but i've had my share of experiences in automobiles that out perform my jetta. I love my jetta and yeah i consider it a fast car but only in comparaison with others cars in its class, but no matter what you drive there will always be a bigger fish in sea.
If you can dish out the extra bucks, get the 1.8T. The performance difference is very noticable, drive the 2.0L and see for yourself. I'm not sure but i believe that the 2.0L does not come with traction control and the electronic differential that makes the 1.8T an excellent choice in front wheel drive cars in snowy areas (i live outside of montreal, quebec, in the hills, and these features have proven their worth).
I had the 2.0L in a A3 golf and find that the difference in fuel consumption between the two engines is negligable (with the exception of the cost difference of premium fuel). I get about 515kms to the tank and do ~50/50 city and highway driving.
My mother has the 1.8t in tiptonic (mine is manual) and her car is just as fun to drive, the transmission is funny at times but i'm not much of a resource on that issue because i'm a stick kind of guy and quite biased (even on my fathers E320 mercedes i find the transmission funny at times). She used to have a 2.0L A4 jetta with non tiptronic automatic and enjoys the extra gump provided by the 1.8T.
The torque curve is flat in the 1.8T and power comes at low rpms (2200 i believe) and tapers off around 5500rpm, which makes it a fun car to drive. Acceleration for around town driving is quite satisfying and even excillerating when pushed. Especially in first and second gear but pushing the car in third gear brings you into impratical and illegal speeds.
Highway driving is nice, but lacks the same power at those speeds that you can enjoy around town, but by no means is unacceptable. If this is important to you look into the V6 models.
Turbo lag is negligible for town driving, and with my driving technique is only noticable at highway speeds but even then it only takes an instant for the turbo to spool up but no need to down shift. This is my fisrt turbo but according to some of my friends that had some early 90's turbo's (dodge&saab) the lag is a joke in comparaison.
As far as i'm concerned this is the best car i've owned to date. I love the jetta no matter what engine is is it, it's a little audi in vw clothing. My only complaints are the quality of the stock 4 season tires, the fact that i can't put 3 baby seats in the back (not vw's fault of course), and the second class service offered by our local dealership (might not be the case
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.