'04 Legacy GT or Jetta TDI?

I think both are fairly reliable cars. The Subaru has the edge on "little things", the Jetta on the drive train (assuming you go for the manual). The Jetta is smaller in some places. So it depends on what is important to you. FWIW, the Passat is the equivalent, size-wise, to the Legacy - not the Jetta (the Passat will now also be available in a Diesel version in the US). However, it is mostly the rear leg room that suffers in the Jetta (think Forester). I find the elbow and shoulder room fitting my body type better in the Jetta than in the Legacy (YMMV).

All Jettas (including the TDI) handle very well and come standard with traction control and are available with a very inexpensive but great electronic stabilization program (ESP), but not with AWD in North America. On the other hand, the Legacy has AWD and better clearance, unless you get the Jetta wagon (which I would recommend, especially in snow country).

If you can get around in winter tires and FWD (or don't have much snow and ice), the Jetta TDI can make a lot of sense if you drive a lot (>~

20K miles/year). If you drive less, compare to the Jetta 1.8T instead (more power, still reasonable mileage) or the 2.0.

Hope this helps,

- D.

personaly i'd vote for the jetta on quality. i have a legacy, i'm not terribly happy with it. my brother has a gti (same platform as the jetta) and loves it. he has the 1.8T so i can't tell you about real world experiences with the TDI. i've driven the TDI and found it has sufficient power and think it's a pretty good engine. plus the vw clutch and transmission are lightyears ahead of subaru in performance and quality.

my main question is are you leaning toward the great fuel milage for environmental reasons or cost reasons? my next car will probably be a TDI (or big ford/dodge diesel) because diesels are much cleaner and more efficient and better for the environment (hope i didn't just hijack the thread for a big gas vs diesel discussion). and if you're concerned about the environment that's great. but i need to point out that the 65mpg isn't going to save you a whole lot of money. actually, i've never seen 65mpg unless you're talking brittish gallons, i usually see 55 quoted for the TDI. but let's split the difference and say you'll get 60mpg on the TDI. on my legacy, on a good day of nothing but highway driving, i'll get about 25mpg. let's say 20mpg just so that i over estimate everything. that's 40mpg more for the TDI.

in my area gas and diesel are the same ($1.40, but let's say $2)

let's say you drive 10,000 miles a year

10,000miles/20mpg=500 gallons=$1000 10,000miles/60mpg=167 gallons=$333

that's a savings on $667 over 12 months that's only $55 a month (an over estimate!)

now, that's with all else being equal. the problem with the TDI engine is that every 40K miles you need to tear apart the engine and replace the timing belt (or else you WILL destory the engine). that's a rather costly ordeal, i think in the $800 neighborhood (but you should check on that price for yourself).

another thing to consider: if you spend a good deal of time in traffic, it's not good to idle a diesel for a long time. i'd rather not get into the detail here cause it's a bit off topic (google for wetstacking), but you'have to make sure that you manually hold the idle high (1500ish rpm) if you idle for longer than 30-60sec. plus diesels are so efficient, that when idling there is very little extra heat dissipated into the engine so in the winter the heater doesn't work very good when stopped in traffic.

mike

Thanks for the response...

The reason for going for the fuel economy is two-fold. Environmentally, it seams just the right thing to do. Conspicuous consumption (i.e. OB Wagon or worse Cadillac Escalade) is not my style. Saving money, great but not a primary factor. I do like the idea of spontaneously deciding to take a trip and not consider fuel costs.

I live in Canada... Vancouver Island, so we use the Imperial Gallon here also. My 90 Legacy 5spd gets 28 - 31mpg depending on load. This has been steadily logged over many years. My old 86 GL (5spd) gets 24 - 28mpg in spite of being lighter with a smaller engine, though it isn't fuel injected.

Re: The timing belt. I specifically asked the dealer about this. They quoted me 150km (90,000miles) for a timing belt for the 04 Jetta. Previous to 03 the belts required change out at 96,000km (60,000miles). Even the Subarus require belts at 96,000km. Older Subarus needed change at 48,000km (30,000miles). Horsepower spec has also been changed for the 04 diesel from

90hp to 100hp with 177 lbs.ft torque. It seems to me that while highway acceleration may not be fantastic, neither will I be downshifting as often on some of the hill climbs I drive regularily.

I still have to drive the Jetta to get a feel for it.

Does anybody know where the Legacy GT Wagon and the Legacy L-Premium Wagon is built.

Jetta Sedans are built in Mexico, Jetta wagons are built in Germany. Enough reason to go for the Wagon, I'd say.

Is it a given that Turks work better than Mexicans?

As long as the Germans are standing over their shoulder, yes.

I had a '96 VW Jetta, 5 speed, regular gas. It was a blast to drive...I loved the handling and it had very good pick up. The gas mileage at best was 28 mpg on the interstate, very poor considering our '98 Corolla, 5 speed would get up to 40 mpg on the same trip.

My biggest complaints about the Jetta were the consistent problems. My problems were mostly electrical including power window switches, brake lights, instrument lighting. I had to have three different seals replaced at different times. I bought the car new and kept it for 1 year and 7 months, put less than 20K miles on it. The straw that broke the camel's back, I went to the dealer for an oil change and because of a leaking tranny seal, I was forced to wait and got the car back 6 hours later. I drove it across the street and bought the previously mentioned Toyota. Whew!

My Forester, at a mere 9300 miles, has so far proven trouble free.

James '03 Subaru Forester XS-P '03 Infiniti FX35/AWD/Tech Santa Fe, New Mexico

they are build in indiana

and i thought in canada we use metric liter unless it's different in vancouver island

"Harry Wilke" ¦b¶l¥ó news:F%wwb.7445$oN2.4284@edtnps84 ¤¤¼¶¼g...

They are quality built in Indiana. You can visit this site to see what is coming in 05

Chris

Yes of course we use litres here. It's just that nobody seems to be able to get a "mental picture" of litres/100kms. So I converted it for the sake of others. I think most people would be suprised at how low their mileage is if they logged it over several years. When someone says to me I get 35mpg or whatever, with their 1994 Testostaroni, or whatever I know better. I've logged ownership and $/km for years for all my vehicles, including my bicycles. The cost of operating my 1990 Legacy, with insurance, maintenance and fuel is $ 0.26/km. That is excluding depreciation.

The real peeve about metric is you can't seem to get a real pint of ale anywhere. They try to pass off 16oz as a pint... As long as their calling it a pint in Canada it's 20oz dammit. They call it everything under the sun... a mug, a schooner (?), a large, half litre, anything but a 20oz pint.

news:F%wwb.7445$oN2.4284@edtnps84

I guess the question is why are you converting to miles per imperial gallon? I'm in Ottawa, and I routinely convert back and forth from l/100km to mpUSg, for the benefit of comparison. I don't think I've ever seen anyone post mpUKg before.

BTW the conversion is easy: just divide 237.5 by one to get the other.

-- Dominic Richens | snipped-for-privacy@alumni.uottawa.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"