2002 Jetta GLS

I might be interested in this, though my husband automatically writes off any diesel engine as not powerful enough. Off hand, anyone have a subjective notion of what the Jetta TDI's 100 HP with 177 lb-ft torque translates to in gas engine horsepower? I have the Jetta VR6 with about 170 horsepower (don't know the torque off hand), and I'd like to not lose much sense of power on the next car. Don't know that the TDI could come close looking at the numbers, but maybe it's not comparing apples to apples. Also, we go on long road trips, and I wonder if one has trouble getting diesel pumps, or do most pumps have a diesel nozzle?

What is an MAF/iirc, and how hard is it to fix?

You mean rotaries were inherently unreliable? Just yesterday my husband was yearning for his old RX7 rotary and he said was the perfect engine (for its time).

Is the VR6 now only available on the GLI? I am reading conflicting information about whether you can still get a GLS with a VR6. If not, what was the last year a GLS had a VR6?

Thanks

Peak power is less, but the power is more "accessible". In other words, it will feel strong at lower rpms that you would use in normal street driving, but won't have as much high revving power (because it cannot rev as high as a gasoline engine). I.e. don't expect as good 0-60 times, but drivability at normal street rpms should be good. With your gasoline engine car, how often do you go above 4000rpm?

It isn't difficult to find diesel pumps on a road trip. Many of the small towns on the freeways "in the middle of nowhere" have truck stops which sell diesel fuel. It may be harder in unfamiliar urban areas, though.

That's interesting. VAG has a very long history of making reliable turbo engines, I know many of them still running healthy after 20 years and many many kilometers. As for this particular 1.8T, I do not know any specific problems with it. You can find it in a lot of cars here, for example Golf, Audi TT, Audi A3, Audi A4, VW Passat and many others. Everybody seem to be happy.

Different people have different tastes. For example, here in europe it is usualy the other way round: "why anybody would wand an V6 when a

1.8T is available" :) There a lot of rational and irrational causes.

Yes, Bosch apparently made a design error. But there is another producer of MAF'a called Pieburg. Some of the models are interchangeable with some Bosch models, but are much more reliable, e.g. do not fail anymore :)

Simply do a testdrive, peoples subjective perception is very different. Just keep in mind, that diesel engine has a different character.

iirc is "If I Remember Correctly", and MAF is "Mass Air Flow" sensor, which sometimes has a habbit to go south. But I think, should be covered by warranty, just ask your dealer.

Yes and no. Rotaries are just too delicate for everyday use, that's why first almost every company rushed to design them, but soon decided, that this does not make much commercial sense. They are very expensive and difficult to design and produce. Mazda just selected them as their "speciality", a way to distinguish itself from others. Aside of this, I think they also do not see much sense in rotary engines, that's why they offer them only in limited volume "cult status" cars, such as RX.

100hp. Horsepower is horsepower, gas or diesel.

The 177lb-ft of torque is similar to the VR6's torque. The 100hp means that the TDI (as is the case with most diesels) aren't rev-happy. The difference is likely to be that both the TDI and VR6 are doing to feel the same in normal to moderate driving. Aggressive driving will mean that the VR6 will rev better and be happier at higher RPMs whereas the TDI will not.

I don't recall exactly either but most VW VR6s have been in the 170s I believe and maybe the 24V version getting a little higher into the 180s on torque.

The TDI should feel like your VR6 except when winding it out big-time. For example, my Eurovan VR6 is 140hp and somewhere in the 170s on torque and it feels just fine in normal driving and feels like far more than 140hp would suggest (esp. in a more-than-two-ton vehicle). It only falls short with pedal-to-the-metal driving (and has a relatively low redline...around

5300-5500rpm) where it runs out of breath because lower hp and high torque generally means an engine that is designed for low to midrange "oomph" but not "drive it like you stole it" driving.

AFAIK, it's the supporting components. Lots of people are reporting minor repairs and glithces.

Less rpms, longer life, more torque, no lag... Unless the turbo saves tons of weight and gives better mileage, it's not worth it. The TDI does accomplish the latter, which is why turbo-diesels are all the rage in Europe. Gas turbos - not as much.

Nice to know.

That's because HP is a made=up nonsense term derived from a specific formula that is applied to... torque. Torque is the real measurement of your engine's power. Horsepower is how fast it can go/get there when the gearing is taken into consideration.

So, off the line, up to about 30-40mph, they are identical. Up a hill as well, or carrying people. Only the top speed is different - the TDI takes a few seconds more to wind itself up.

Yep. For example, my Eurovan, despite "only" 140hp, can cruise up a 10-mile grade with A/C on and 4 people and luggage aboard on a summer night in the desert on cruise control at 75mph and not break a sweat and didn't even have to kick down to 3rd gear. Chugs along like a locomotive.

And Mazda bought the fairly refined (at the time) rotary technology patent liscences off of VW actually... Who got it from NSU (Ro80) which they acquired. VW fixed the oil burning, the sealing and some of the pollution problems, and NSU taught front wheel drive to VW/Audi group.

I've not heard of turbo failures with the 1.8T either...

With all the development Volvo and SAAB have done with gasoline turbo

4-bangers (5 and 6's too for Volvo) in the 80s and 90s I would think the turbo-4 is a pretty reliable engine by now... VW can buy the same turbo's the two Swede's use (pretty sure they make nothing in house) and VW can make an engine just as good as any of them.

Well I finally made it to the VW dealer to try the TDI. I was very impressed with it, even in automatic, which I may get because of some joint problems getting worse with the clutch. I was impressed with the power available for passing, 0-60, etc. along with the good mileage. I could easily switch from VR6 to it, but that's not to say the VR6 isn't a bit more powerful. I did not really like the 1.8 at all after being used to the VR6. I hated the lag then jolt part. The VR6 is just so smooth, and the TDI replicated that better. I'm becoming interested in the diesel option also because I'm learning they are a more simple engine with fewer parts (fewer opportunities for problems) that can last longer and require less maintenance. The Phoenix paper had an article in the auto section about diesels gaining in popularity for these reasons, and added that the government is going to require cleaner diesel by 2006. The article didn't make this clear - is the fuel going to be cleaner but you won't need to update your engine to take advantage of it, or are the engines going to have to be updated to burn cleaner, requiring a new purchase to get the cleaner-burning benefit?) I also admit being a sucker for the boat sound. Problem is I'm not sure I'm willing to shell out for this at this time. We also tried the 2004 GTI VR6. Wow, great car! A little better for my husband because of it being a little smaller, but that is a gem.

Engine last longer? I had the head off my 4 cylinder Toyota pickup with 250,000 because of a water leak. I had a valve job done because I had the head off. The machinist replaced one valve guide. The cylinders still have crosshatch visible. I guess the question is when will this engine get worn? My VW water cooled 4 cylinders have had similar cylinder wear or lack of wear. Well slightly more cylinder wear than the Toyota but stil quite good. Valve guides are a different story. How many people keep their car 15 plus years or for 200,000 miles? If you do I suspect any engine is going to last ok. So maybe a diesel will last a million miles without a rebuild and the 1.8T might only be good for 500,000 miles.

Your diesel engine will run fine with the European spec fuel. You might be amazed that I think I saw 60% of the automobiles in Europe are diesels. Some of those diesels are wicked fast.

If your knees are hav>Well I finally made it to the VW dealer to try the TDI. I was very impressed

Jim B.

I did find a reputable place that will do it for $280 including labor! No-brainer there.

Thanks, I'll look into that.

2005 4 door Golf GL - $169/39 months $1550 due at lease signing(first month plus downpayment and so on) 2005 Jetta 2.0 - $189/39 months $1764 due at lease signing 2005 GLI 1.8T - $229/39 months $1804 due at lease signing

The real "deal" here is the Golf. I think this is the lowest priced lease currently available. Whether or not this is better than buying it and selling it after 39 months to pay off the residual on the loan, I don't know. I think it's pretty close to even.

If you look around, you will find a lot of complains for every car made not in japan. If you look even better, you will find compains about made in japan cars also ;)

Actually, most people here in europe couldn't care less about the torque or turbo lag. Or let's say it another way: those features are not very high on the priority list. The fuel is expensive over here. One liter Super (the "middle" grade) will cost you 1.20 euro in Germany. One gallon is (I think) ca. 3.xx liters, so you will pay about 4euro for a galon or almost 5$. And yes, Germany has by far not the most expensive fuel in europe. The main reason is much better mileage. One liter diesel will cost you ca. 1 euro, and you will need 2 to 3 times less of it. That's why you will find so many diesels in Belgium or France. It is a little bit different in Germany, diesels have big fixed costs in form of yearly "ecological" taxes and generally more expensive insurance. So, it makes sense only if you drive more than ~15000 miles per year, and there are more and more people who are forced to do it.

Let's take Golf3 for example. At that time TDI was sluggish, in comparison with current models. And if you look at statistics, then you will see, that most popular Golf3 models here in europe was 1.4

60Hp, 1.6 75Hp and 1.8 75 or 90Hp. And 1.9 TDI of course for those who drive much. And only few of them are 2.0 or 2.8 VR6, well under 10 percent, I would say. People who can afford VR6 usually buy BMW 3 instead :)

VW is just fine without Volvo or Saab, they have plenty experience with turbos themself. As you probably remember, Audi is a part of Volkswagen, it's basically the same company. And 20 years ago they have introduced a 5 cylinder turbo engine, which was first built into Audi UrQuattro. Later basically the same engine was built into Audi

100, Audi 200 (known as Audi 5000 in some distant parts of the world :)) ~15 years later and many hunderds thousands of kilometers later a lot of those cars are still running (due to galvanised body the corrosion is not a problem). So, I think, the reliability in general is not a problem. Later on, there were some nice 2.7 V6 biturbos in Audi S4, sadly they were superceded by a fat 4.2 V8 in current S4. I think, Americans would better know Audi S1 (keyword - Pikes Peak :)) That was a proper turbo, more that 1000Hp out of a 2.1 liters displacement. They even needed to reduce the power just to make a car somehow drivable :)

I am not sure about Volvo, this company was consistently short of it's own engines for the last two decades or so. For a smaller cars they often borrowed engines from Renault (for example Volvo 3xx series). And in a bigger Volvos you sometimes even find a VW engine, for example 2.4 Turbodiesel in Volvo 740 i think.

As for SAAB, this company specialised on low pressure turbos. The engines newer were too reliable, but not because of a turbo. But, no matter as I regret it, strage management of General Motors will inevitably ruin this company. Actually they have already ruined it.

I would confirm.