new Rabbit and fuel economy

then look at the VW diesels. Or like everyone else who says Honda's are better.

So am I. I wish VW would return to its roots. Why not a 1.6L gas option in the US? Why no gas vehicle with a 35 MPG hwy rating? I wonder how they'll price the Diesels upon their return to the US market

-- I'm afraid I already know the answer to that question, though. I'm really kicking myself for not taking a Diesel Jetta when I bought my most recent one.

VW seems to be taking a leaf from GM's book and pretty much ignoring the peripheral market and going straight for the average. Problem with the 'average' is that it is not anything in particular such that any part or piece that goes into it will have a happy response.

The Phaeton boggles my mind. Bluntly, if I had to spend $50,000 - $80,000+ on a vehicle, it would not be an indifferent jelly-bean looking Phaeton with a honking big engine. But I guess they decided they needed to be in the "Luxury" segment much as the SUV segment... can a new Minivan be far behind?

I also doubt that they will move (much) towards smaller engines (under

2L) excepting diesels. I expect that their logic is that in order to hang on all the bells and whistles required for the North American market (AC/Auto/Clean Engine/ extended sustained highway speeds) they may as well not offer too many combinations and permutations. As it is, I believe that VW is holding onto the NA market by a slender thread... better than it was a few years ago, but not too many sharp yanks from breaking if they are careless.

Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA

It's entry-level, yes, but where has VW claimed it's an "economy" car? :) I've never seen it advertised as such.

VWoA I think has really mis-positioned the Rabbit...or at the very least has caused a lot of confustion with it. The problem is that they took what is a relatively large car (relative to the other VWs in the world where two cars are slotted below the Rabbit/Golf...the Polo and Fox are the next one and two sizes down) and forced it into entry-level status in the US. That means that people do one of two things:

1. See it as a bloated entry-level car that fails to be particularly MPG-frugal.
2. See it as a great value in that it is more car for the money than any ,990 car in the USA has a right to be.

Most people, and probably you too, have seen it as #1. Few see it as #2.

Unfortunately, yes. The Rabbit is geared towards 20-somethings and first-time car buyers and not towards mileage-conscious folks. It is unfortunate that the Polo or Fox have not come to the US since the market is ripe for cars such as those (in the Versa/Fit/Yaris class). I believe the problem is that VW was caught with its pants down...small fuel efficient and low-MSRP cars arrived from the Asian brands and VW had nothing to offer the US and just slammed a low price on the Rabbit hatch and that's their "solution". Don't get me wrong...the Rabbit is a fantastic car for the price and it's on my list to shop in the coming year, but VW is forcing the Rabbit into a class where it's easily misinterpreted as something that it isn't.

But to some degree, buyers in general need to recognize that inexpensive MSRP and fuel economy are *not* synonymous. In most cases they are (cheap cars are usually fuel-frugal ones) but to be honest, VW has never claimed the Mk5-based Rabbit to be a mileage-based car. It's simply a well-equipped small (but not mini) car at a very, very competitive price.

I'd be surprised if one did. The only engine that might come (and I believe it's still unconfirmed) is the 2.0 TDI (it's headed for the Jetta for sure but VW AFAIK won't confirm or deny it for the Rabbit so far...I contacted VWoA and just got a generic "look for the TDI engine in more models in the future" response).

But Matt, there's absolutely no reason that VW cannot put a smaller, four-cylinder engine in that car. VW is more than capable of dropping a

1.6-liter 4-banger into the Rabbit and Jetta and producing better mileage numbers. Beyond that, fuel-economy-wise, my main gripe with VW is a gripe that applies to every other manufacturer in the world, except Lotus: Excessive weight. A car like the Rabbit ought to weigh in the neighborhood of 2200 pounds, and instead, it's around 3100 (!). We lose fuel economy, acceleration, braking and handling as a result. What we gain does not make up for those losses, in my opinion.

Yes there is.

They *could* put one in there, but what would happen if they did?

What do you really think you're gonna get for acceleration in a 3100lb car with a 1.6L engine?

Back to my original statement...the Rabbit is not designed as an entry-level economy car. It's really the third car up from the bottom rung in VW's worldwide lineup and artificially knocked down to bottom-rung status in the US. But kicking it down two notches just by slapping a sub-$15K MSRP on it doesn't make it lose 800 lbs., does not mean a 1.6L engine is suitable for it, and that's why it still needs a powerful (and therefore large) engine to move it around acceptably for US consumers tastes. Look at the (normally aspirated) 1.6L engines that are out there...they're about 110hp tops, barring expensive add-ons like turbos or superchargers (which would be expensive and inappropriate for an entry-level car). Nobody would buy a Rabbit with a 1.6L wheezer.

I somewhat disagree w/your statement about 2200lbs though. I do agree that cars need to shed weight wherever possible across all manufacturers. However 2200lbs is Mk2 Golf territory. You do have to allow some room for airbags, chassis strength, etc...look at all the things that a Rabbit has that are mandated safety features. It's not reasonable to expect it to have more in it than a Mk2 Golf yet weight the same. But to pass 3000lbs when other manufacturers' cars in the same class are about 2800-2900 is a bit porky.

The car would get better fuel economy. That's what we're talking about, isn't it?

But we weren't talking about acceleration. We were talking about people assuming that a cheap, entry-level car is going to have good fuel economy. No one's shopping that segment for fast acceleration. If you're saying that there would be a limited market for a car with a 1.6L engine and good fuel-economy numbers, that may be true, but with gas prices where they are, it's a growing market. No one buys Toyota Corollas for acceleration, but it's the second-biggest selling car on the planet. And it gets great fuel mileage.

God forbid that we should ever have to give up acceleration! We all know how important that is.

Clearly you do not drive on the east coast, with specific reference to I-95 corridor, the entire state of New Jersey and the entire city of Boston.

Expressions that are apt are:

Merge or die! Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way! Don't like my driving? Then stay off the %^&*( sidewalk! Yield? Gonna make me?

As the former Greyhound Bus Driver once said after 5,000,000 accident free miles: Drive like the other guy's crazy!

The original Rabbit did quite nicely however :(

I miss small, light cars.

nate

(still love my 944... would also like an early 'roccet or maybe a Volvo P1800)

Sure, 30 years ago. Try and sell that car in America today.

-- Mike Smith

I'd buy one. I miss my GTI.

nate

If you were willing to spend $10,000 in 1984 for a GTI then you would be willing to spend $15,000 in 2007. The annual inflation rate from

1984-2007 was 100%. Well read the numbers as you like but things cost twice as much now as they did in 1984. That would make a $15,000 GTI a bargain.

But it's not the only thing people are going to look for in a car.

Wrong. They're not shopping for *high performance*. But if a car feels slow, people are not going to want it. These days, if an econobox can't beat about 10.5 seconds 0-60, that's slow by US standards. I'd have a hard time believing that a 3100lb Rabbit is going to do 0-60 with a 1.6L and about 100-110hp on tap.