VW Jetta!

[Vinsanity]

What? A 115 hp 2.0? in 2011? What the fuck?

I'm more worried about the return of that engine in a much heavier car than the gen.4 that we last saw it in

[MX793]

I'm more worried about the return of that engine in a much heavier car than the gen.4 that we last saw it in

With how they're cheapening the car out (torsion beam suspension), it might not be that much heavier.  In fact, I'm starting to wonder if this car isn't actually based on the MkIV.  Wouldn't be that hard since the MkIV is still in production and for sale in some parts of the world.  Don't they even sell a facelifted version of it in Canada alongside the MkV as a lower cost entry in the market?

[ifcar]

With how they're cheapening the car out (torsion beam suspension), it might not be that much heavier.  In fact, I'm starting to wonder if this car isn't actually based on the MkIV.  Wouldn't be that hard since the MkIV is still in production and for sale in some parts of the world.  Don't they even sell a facelifted version of it in Canada alongside the MkV as a lower cost entry in the market?

Its shape is very obviously MkV. I don't think that's plausible.

[MX793]

Its shape is very obviously MkV. I don't think that's plausible.

It's just bodywork.  The current Town Car looks nothing like it did in the 80s, and its on the same platform (that one's particularly easy since it's body-on-frame).  The last iteration of the J-body looked nothing like the first iteration, and that too was based on the same platform.  The SN95 Mustang's underpinnings were based on those of the Fox Mustang that preceded it.  Not sure anyone would know just from looking at the body shape.

I question how easy it is to retro-fit a twist-beam axle to a platform that was designed with a multi-link suspension.  Seems to me it would be easier to start with a twist-beam using platform and stretch it a bit and update the skin.

[2o6]

It's just bodywork.  The current Town Car looks nothing like it did in the 80s, and its on the same platform (that one's particularly easy since it's body-on-frame).  The last iteration of the J-body looked nothing like the first iteration, and that too was based on the same platform.  The SN95 Mustang's underpinnings were based on those of the Fox Mustang that preceded it.  Not sure anyone would know just from looking at the body shape.

I question how easy it is to retro-fit a twist-beam axle to a platform that was designed with a multi-link suspension.  Seems to me it would be easier to start with a twist-beam using platform and stretch it a bit and update the skin.

Grapht it from a cheaper variant of the Jetta V. Caddy, Touran and others use torsion beams.

[MX793]

Grapht it from a cheaper variant of the Jetta V. Caddy, Touran and others use torsion beams.

Touran uses the same multilink as the Golf V.

And the Caddy uses a stick axle with leaf springs (dead or live axle depending on if its FWD or AWD), not a torsion beam suspension.  I don't think a torsion beam is even sturdy enough for the type of commercial van load ratings the Caddy has.

[2o6]

With how they're cheapening the car out (torsion beam suspension), it might not be that much heavier.  In fact, I'm starting to wonder if this car isn't actually based on the MkIV.  Wouldn't be that hard since the MkIV is still in production and for sale in some parts of the world.  Don't they even sell a facelifted version of it in Canada alongside the MkV as a lower cost entry in the market?

Jetta loses ~150 lbs.


This doesn't help, you still are stuck with the 2.slow and the 2.5. The "good" engines are priced out of the market!

[MX793]

Jetta loses ~150 lbs.


This doesn't help, you still are stuck with the 2.slow and the 2.5. The "good" engines are priced out of the market!

According to the LeftLaneNews article, the 2.0T and 2.0 TDI will also be offered.

[2o6]

According to the LeftLaneNews article, the 2.0T and 2.0 TDI will also be offered.

At a much higher price.

[MX793]

At a much higher price.

So?  That's how it's always been.  The VR6 and 1.8/2.0T motors have been the pricier, upmarket engines since at least as far back as the MkIII.  Original MSRP for a MkIII GLX VR6 (IIRC, the only way to get a Jetta with something better than a 2.slow at the time) back in the late 90s was a little over $20K.  Not exactly attainable for somebody on an economy car budget.

[2o6]

So?  That's how it's always been.  The VR6 and 1.8/2.0T motors have been the pricier, upmarket engines since at least as far back as the MkIII.  Original MSRP for a MkIII GLX VR6 (IIRC, the only way to get a Jetta with something better than a 2.slow at the time) back in the late 90s was a little over $20K.  Not exactly attainable for somebody on an economy car budget.

Considering the competition (and the fact that the 2.slow is old an lacking the HP) the Jetta makes no sense.


I think it's going to fail.

[MX793]

Considering the competition (and the fact that the 2.slow is old an lacking the HP) the Jetta makes no sense.


I think it's going to fail.

I suspect the 2.5 is going to be the engine in the vast majority sold, with the 2.slow really only being offered for price bragging rights (how many of the stripper, 1.6 Versas do you think they actually sell?) and sold to those who feel they just must have a new Jetta and the 2.slow is the only one they can afford.

[Raza]

Why, why, why won't they give us the 1.4 twincharge?

[Vinsanity]

Why, why, why won't they give us the 1.4 twincharge?

I'm guessing that engine isn't cost-effective to sell in N.A.

[Galaxy]

I think one reason why VW is loath to offer the super efficient engines in the USA is because they are optimised to run on premium fuel. 

[MX793]

I think one reason why VW is loath to offer the super efficient engines in the USA is because they are optimised to run on premium fuel. 

What octane do they require?  US octane is rated differently than that in Europe.  We average RON and MON, Europe only uses one of those values, I think RON.  The result is that our octane ratings are like 3-5 points lower than the exact same fuel in Europe.

[Galaxy]

What octane do they require?  US octane is rated differently than that in Europe.  We average RON and MON, Europe only uses one of those values, I think RON.  The result is that our octane ratings are like 3-5 points lower than the exact same fuel in Europe.

The 1.2 and 1.4 TSIs run on 98 ROZ (95 RON).

[2o6]

Europe gets a Multilink rear, US gets a Torsion beam.



Why don't they simplify costs and leave the Multilink? The Golf uses a multilink setup, and pretty much the Jetta will/does use the same setup from the Golf.....just leave it be.

[Laconian]

"US Version with hard plastic and simple instruments."

They really think highly of us, don't they?

[the Teuton]

How much better is the interior of the Euro model?

[nickdrinkwater]

"US Version with hard plastic and simple instruments."

They really think highly of us, don't they?

You guys don't want to pay as much for cars.  Something's gotta give

[sportyaccordy]

You guys don't want to pay as much for cars.  Something's gotta give

This is true; however I thought VW buyers were willing to pay that premium. TTAC did a review, and the conclusion was that this current Jetta lost a lot of the Euro appeal that made the older ones worth buying, but doesn't really pay off in the value category either. To me, a 21K 2.5 Jetta w/a nice interior makes more sense than an 18K 2.5 with a shitty interior.

[2o6]

It's irrelevant, the competition is just as nice, and better for the same price.

[MX793]

You guys don't want to pay as much for cars.  Something's gotta give

I think the bigger problem is that VW doesn't have anything that's truly "entry level" for the US market, so they're trying to bring the Jetta down to that price point.  In some markets, VW still sells the MkIV Jetta, alongside the MkV, as the "Jetta City" in order to have something they can market at a lower price point.  Not too different from what Ford's strategy with the Focus has been in the US.  In order to keep the price down where it could compete with subcompacts like the Honda Fit and Hyundai Accent, Ford NA continued to use the older, cheaper MkI Focus platform because they had nothing else to offer at that price point.  Now that they have the Fiesta, they can (and are going to) offer a pricier, more upscale Focus.

Instead of trying to bring the Jetta to a lower price point, VW should be looking at selling the Polo in North America.

[sportyaccordy]

Instead of trying to bring the Jetta to a lower price point, VW should be looking at selling the Polo in North America.

Yep

I know the Polo would do well in the Northeast. It would be the German Mini Cooper.

[Vinsanity]

Yep

I know the Polo would do well in the Northeast. It would be the German Mini Cooper.

technically, the Beetle would be the German Mini Cooper (or would the Mini Cooper be the British Beetle?...)

in any case, the Polo would make a neat basis for the next Beetle.

[SVT_Power]

Yep

I know the Polo would do well in the Northeast. It would be the German Mini Cooper.

So which one would be more German then? The (German) Mini Cooper or the "German Mini Cooper"?

[Raza]

I think the bigger problem is that VW doesn't have anything that's truly "entry level" for the US market, so they're trying to bring the Jetta down to that price point.  In some markets, VW still sells the MkIV Jetta, alongside the MkV, as the "Jetta City" in order to have something they can market at a lower price point.  Not too different from what Ford's strategy with the Focus has been in the US.  In order to keep the price down where it could compete with subcompacts like the Honda Fit and Hyundai Accent, Ford NA continued to use the older, cheaper MkI Focus platform because they had nothing else to offer at that price point.  Now that they have the Fiesta, they can (and are going to) offer a pricier, more upscale Focus.

Instead of trying to bring the Jetta to a lower price point, VW should be looking at selling the Polo in North America.

Which is what I thought they were doing the first time I looked at dimensions for the MkV Jetta.  The Jetta, other than in overall length, is just shy of being the same exact size as the B5 Passat.  Moving the car up the market in size and price meant they had a hole lower in the market; one that they apparently refuse to fill.

[Raza]

Yep

I know the Polo would do well in the Northeast. It would be the German Mini Cooper.

If the Polo GTI were available in 2008 I probably would have gotten it over the Jetta.  It's a shame what's happening to the MkIV, since the MkV is such a damn good car.  It's enjoyable to drive every time. 

[omicron]

I think the bigger problem is that VW doesn't have anything that's truly "entry level" for the US market, so they're trying to bring the Jetta down to that price point.  In some markets, VW still sells the MkIV Jetta, alongside the MkV, as the "Jetta City" in order to have something they can market at a lower price point.  Not too different from what Ford's strategy with the Focus has been in the US.  In order to keep the price down where it could compete with subcompacts like the Honda Fit and Hyundai Accent, Ford NA continued to use the older, cheaper MkI Focus platform because they had nothing else to offer at that price point.  Now that they have the Fiesta, they can (and are going to) offer a pricier, more upscale Focus.

Instead of trying to bring the Jetta to a lower price point, VW should be looking at selling the Polo in North America.

The Polo is quite well-priced in our market - the excellent mid-range 1.2 TSI variant is cheaper than a comparably-sized and equipped Fiesta Zetec, Mazda 2 or Yaris. Not just cheaper, either, but better too, if all reports are to be believed.