Re: A5 Golf

I'm OK with the 5-door but the 3-door definitely looks Honda (the rear side window shape is what does it).

It'll help to be in person to see on and get a better idea of what it looks like.

TBerk

I hava A3 and the reason I bought this machine it the styling. I was really fascinated. And the A5....I think it's still a real nice guy. I like their strategy to keep their dash board style throught quite several generation and for this A5, it looks like a mixture of golf and new beetle. How you guys think?

Yeonsang.

T Berk wrote:

I hated the way Porsche's 996 Turbo looked when I first saw pictures before it's debut. Same thing for the standard 996 Carrera when I first saw pics of it with the "updated" front-end styling that incorporates the Turbo-style headlamps. Low and behold, I've long since seen both in person, and love them. I think that pictures can oftentimes be misleading. But VW has some big issues to deal with, styling aside. The GTi (and even the R32 which is slated for a not-to-far-off MKV based replacement) are being outpaced by the similarly priced competition from Subaru and Mitsubishi. The Passat is still my favorite mid-sizer overall, but the Maxima outperforms all but the W8 which is 5 to 6k dollars more expensive than a loaded Maxima 3.5, and not any faster! We'll not even talk about Honda's new Accord. VW is gearing up to be forced out of the American market altogethor if they can't soon match the price:performance ratio being setup by recent Japanese entries. Even the lowly Golf 2.0 is outpowered and outpaced by Honda's Civic EX! I won't debate that VW has them all licked in terms of interior quality, but is that enough? Audi faces a similar problem with the A4, which I love, but is starting to look a little limp-wristed by comparison to the 3 series, and especially, the new G35. If VW can maintain their interior-quality standards, and beef-up quality control, and performance, people will be more willing to pay a little more for them. Otherwise, their fate is sealed.

Is their strong identity in the new Civic and Corolla to the ones from the

70's??? Hell no... Why would you want to buy a new car that looks 20-30 years old. The A4 was a much bigger step forward from the older models then this one, this shouldn't be a shock to anyone at all. Its an A4 with Touareg and Pheaton styling cues, refined rear suspension, nicer interior, and more rear space.... they made a great car, now bear in mind I have only read the same things you have, perfect.

Yes, they lack in terms of price:performance. I raised this issue with the service manager at my dealer, he agrees, but he can't really see how they could lower the price by a lot. He said they are built quite a bit better then the competition, especially in terms of the interior. You really have to look at the areas of a car where you would normally never look to inspect for quality, then you will see why VW costs more then the Japanese (labour costs and shiping etc aside).

VW would have to trim in the areas where no one cares, they can't really rely on volume production to save money as they are high volume cars (Golf and Jetta, Passat sells pretty well as well)

It's interesting, we have an old Golf, a new Golf, and an old Volvo. The new Golf costs almost 3 times as much as our old base model (when new almost 30K for a loaded TDI GLS)... a new base model is almost 2 times the price. Meanwhile the price of the comparable Volvo wagon (1993 965 vs a 2003 V70

2.5T) is about the same (39000 in 1993 vs 43000 in 2003). But if you look closely at the two cars you can see where Volvo is saving money, if they didn't they would have died in North America.... but their cars never really got shittier, just cheaper to make in the areas you would never notice (they are still a hell of a lot better then most cars tho).

I went to the autoshow this year an inspected all the Japanese/American/Korean cars that compete with the Golf. The Japanese have bland interiors, with plastics that cost much less, and you can see cost cutting at work in many places (but you have to look... sometimes not very far tho), the Koreans actually use nicer plastics sometimes, but the labour is also cheaper, they skip on some aspects tho... as in I wouldn't feel quite as safe in a Korean car than a Japanese car. The American cars have very cheap interiors, the fits are done to a loose tolerance, but every material is of very sturdy grade material, and it will do the job... it just isn't as pretty. The cars are built solidly enough, but they just don't "dress to impress", their engines are also in most respects dated designs, unless its a very new model, suspensions and brakes on all these cars except some of the Japanese models is outdated by European standards. A lot of cars are using Disk/Drum with no ABS, and especially no 4 channel brake distribution, ABS seems to only be availible on top end models on many of these cheaper cars, as are a lot of other features.

If VW stripped their cars down to the levels of some of the competition, then yes they could save people a lot of money.

I think the biggest problem right now with VWs are the base engines. 115hp from a 2.0L 4 isn't good at all. They need at least 135hp in the base, with slightly more power at a fairly inexpensive upgrade price. Then again, isn't that 2.0L engine basically a refined version of their original engine from

It isn't just the interiors. It's the actual car itself. The materials and quality of finish is better everywhere on the car.

I really don't like how so many can't appreciate a good interior, seats that are properly designed, and controls that are very functional, and of course, the sound system that competes with (or beats) the quality found in some luxury cars.

I don't think VW will go under any time soon, but they will lose sales in the USA. But apparantly the A5 has multilink rear suspension, more room, and an inline 5 150hp engines in the base model. I think this is a step in the right direction.

Remember in Europe a small car doesn't mean it is an econobox inside... Audi, Mercedes, others all have small cars over there.

I love driving in a car that looks like an Audi inside, it's very nice, all my friends think my Golf is incredible.

..... I should really check out one of these WRX's you talk about.... I've read so much about them, yet I have yet to see the inside of one.

..................ahem.........I have a 1993 'made in Tennessee' Nissan Altima that cost me about $16k ten years ago when I bought it new. It has four wheel disc brakes with four channel ABS, a multi-link independent rear suspension mounted on a vibration isolated sub-frame, 205/60-15 tires (2500 lb curb weight), driver's side air bag and a double overhead cam - 16 valve - 2.4 liter engine that has a timing chain instead of a belt. It burns regular gas and doesn't burn any oil after 160k miles. My eighteen year old daughter left home for college with it last week.

Tim Rogers

'91 vanagon '86 vanagon '77 beetle '70 beetle '66 beetle

I'm not arguing any of this. Part of what sold me my GTi was the fact that it was head and shoulders above the competition I test drove from several Japanese automakers. But people look at the GTi, and see a car like mine, that stickers for $21,800 (what mine was at, just for the sake of conversation) and does 0-60 in 6.5 (according to a C&D test). Then they look at the SRT-4 and WRX, which sticker about the same, and both break 6 seconds 0-60. Build quality is becoming meaningless to American buyers, They want something inexpensive, and quick in a straight line, quality be damned.

The A5's suspension was designed, in part, by ex-Porsche designers that also helped Ford design the suspension for the SVT Focus, which has great handling. So it's probably a given that the A5 will handle better. But better than the MKIV Golf, and good enough to lay the groundwork for a WRX-beating GTi may not be one in the same. We have yet to see.

It does have more room, a major plus. A good friend of mine was forced to pass up both the Jetta GLi and the Anniversary Edition GTi because he can't fit in either of them. We know that the Jetta is due for a major upgrade in the next year, which will probably entail an upgrade to the MKV platform, which will be great. I'm curious to see how long the Beetle and still-fresh Beetle Cabrio remain with the "old" platform.

VW has been making an I5 for the European market for several years, and it's never come across the Pond in our direction. I'm betting nothing will change here. I heard the 2.0 would carry on as the U.S. spec base engine for another year while VW finalizes a replacement. This irritates me, because the old I5 from the Audi 90 was a great engine, similar in power to the current 170Hp

1.8T, and without the Turbo-Lag.

.............It's a GXE which I think was the middle one of three models. You're right though about the four wheel discs with ABS being an option. The air bag was standard I think. Never the less, in '93 there wasn't anything else like it for $16k. Other models that I looked at back then included the Civic, Mazda 626 and Jetta. The service dept. at the local VW dealer here has a poor reputation which scared me away from the Jetta.

: out to get all the usefull features. I am pretty sure the 4 wheel disks with : 4 channel ABS was not standard equipment on the base model. You probably : have a top end model, and it may have even been an option.

It's true then and now that ABS is optional on the Altima... Nissan seems unconvinced that this is actually a crucial feature for people spending $20K on a car.

In 1993 I don't think it was as crucial, especially if the car used 4 wheel disk brakes (and they were balanced properly so the fronts or the rears wouldnt prematurely lock up), but I think it is a good feature nowadays, on cars worth $20K ~> $28K Canadian probably.

In 1993 I believe a passanger airbag was mandatory in Canada (not sure about the USA), the other cars you mentioned were okay in 1993, I never liked Civics tho, 626 seems like a very generic car, and the Jetta... well, the dealer probably sucks which throws a lot of people off (US VW and Volvo dealers seem to be really bad in particular, from the stories I have heard)

...I thought a GXE was t>

Well I am an American buyer who has been shopping for the last month or so and I can tell you for a fact that build quality is amongst my highest criteria with only safety features being foremost. See my "I bought a 2003 Jetta" thread for details.

When I bought my 1984 GTI Dodge and others were trying to get into what they called back then the "pocket rocket" market. Dodge offered the Omni GLH to compete with the GTI and while it had more horsepower, bigger tires and looked better on paper, it turned out to be an unsophisticated pile of junk. The GTI was refined, simple, not flashy but a car that actually felt and drove like a much more expensive car than it was. The Omni would win in a straight line but the driver would be saying prayers that the car would hold together for the race.

From what I remember, the 318 was not given great reviews in the US trade press. That might be one reason why it didn't do too well. psycho

IMHO the 318Ti also had nothing better to offer than a nicely-equipped Golf. It was far more expensive than a 4-banger Golf yet still had only a 4-banger engine and a tight back seat. A loaded GTI VR6 was the same money and was far more powerful and carried four people far more comfortably. About the only place that the Golf was deficient was the interior quality (back in the era of the 318ti here it was the A3 Golf so the interior and plastics weren't up to the same levels of quality they are up to now).

The Altima of 2003 is still aimed at cars like the Jetta. It has to be, because the Maxima fills the size, power, and price requirements for the mid-sized categorey that the Passat also competes in. The Altima just seems like a step-up in terms of class because of it's higher cost and higher power (in 3.5 trim) when compared to the Jetta. The 4-door Golf is really VW's competitor to the Sentra. It just isn't a very good competitior, seeing as the Golf's only gas-burning engine is the weak 115 Hp 2.0, while the base Sentra gets a 2.5 litre with around 140 horsepower.

I'm an American buyer, and I feel the same way. But sales numbers and statistics are showing that cars like the WRX, which offers AWD and a sub 6 second 0-60 time for about the same price as a GTi, are what's selling the best. I test drove the WRX before I bought my GTi, and the SRT-4 a few weeks ago when a friend was looking at it. I wasn't overly impressed by either car, but the SRT-4 is still a deal, the dealers want like $22,000 for them.

I'd like to see you back this up. The "Goes Like Hell" acronym that was eventually associated with the GLH tag was given for a reason. The car was quick, had competant handling, and was well priced. It may not have been built as well as the GTi, but that's not something many buyers really care about, Otherwise, why would anyone pay $50k for a Corvette?

VW's cars have almost always had the benefit of feeling and driving like much more expensive cars. But they aren't offering the kind of performance that the younger buyers often attracted to VW want. The GTi is still faster than the Tiburon, Celica GT-S, Civic Si, and base-model RSX. But the RSX Type S, Neon SRT-4, and Subaru WRX are all faster, and the SVT Focus out-handles it.

Long term reliability has never been a strong suit for American car companies, especially Chrysler Corp. and it's subsidiary companies. But that doesn't seem to be a detracting point right now. These are cars that attract younger buyers with smaller budgets, who primarily want the car with the best performance:dollar ratio. VW isn't providing this, and they need to be.

The 2.0l isn't a bad engine, as engines go. It's pretty quick, (at least, it is in my Beetle), very cheap to maintain, and has almost bulletproof reliability. It may not be the most fuel efficient engine in it's class, but it still is as reliable as an ox. Since it more or less grew out of the 1.8l engine used in the A2s, it is a well proven engine. Look how many older A2s are still around. Sure the bodies might have taken a dive, but the car still runs. My '90 Jetta runs just as strong as the day it was brought home. The Civic that it replaced had no end of problems right from the get go.

People generally buy VWs for very clear, defined reasons. Statistically, VW buyers are return customers, and know what to expect from their VW. VWs new problem is that they have taken advantage of these customers, in the respect that repeat buyers who have probobly had an A2, bought an A3, than stepped up to the A4. Having had next to no issues with the A2 or A3, the customer gets a bad A4 (which there seem to be a few of). Eventually, people are going to get tired of shelling out $500-$700 for a new Mass Air Flow sensor, or having cup holders fail, or door seals rip, and the list goes on. Any company can only run on customer loyality for so long before they will start to struggle....VW is not far from this point.

- Peter

: The Altima of 2003 is still aimed at cars like the Jetta. It has to be, because : the Maxima fills the size, power, and price requirements for the mid-sized : categorey that the Passat also competes in.

I'd ask three adults to sit in the back of an Altima before I asked them to sit in the back of a Jetta, though. And lengthwise the 2003 Altima and Passat are virtually identical, I seem to recall.

IMO the "family class" consists of the Accord, Camry, Altima, Passat (and others ouf course). The Maxima is positioned more against cars like the Dodge Intrepid, Pontiac Bonneville, etc., i.e. bigger cars but not "full-size" a la Crown Victoria etc.

-- Mike Smith