Possible next car.

[2o6]

Ahh, OK. The 2.0 is a wonderful engine, though. My mother has that in her Tiguan and acceleration and overall power is no problem. She almost refused to test drive the Tiguan because it didn't have a V6, but she fell in love with it when she drove it.

It's not the 2.0FSI, but the 2.slow found in the old Jetta III. It makes 115 HP. It's a terrible motor.

[TurboDan]

It's not the 2.0FSI, but the 2.slow found in the old Jetta III. It makes 115 HP. It's a terrible motor.

Ohhhh alright. Yeah, that sucks.

[2o6]

Ohhhh alright. Yeah, that sucks.

IIRC, the 2.5 is similar to the 2.slow. Someone said it was basically a 2.slow with an extra cylinder.

[Laconian]

HALF A GALLARDO!!!1[/vwfanboi]

[Eye of the Tiger]

HALF A GALLARDO!!!1[/vwfanboi]

[MX793]

IIRC, the 2.5 is similar to the 2.slow. Someone said it was basically a 2.slow with an extra cylinder.

Could be, but the 2.5 does at least get twin cams and 4v per cylinder instead of a SOHC, 2v head like the 2.slow.

[MexicoCityM3]

How much is a Jetta in the US? I'd consider it as well even with the 2.0

[2o6]

How much is a Jetta in the US? I'd consider it as well.

16K for a basic 2.Slow, but it has a horrible interior and the 2.slow only makes 115HP, with no MPG benefit.

[MrH]

Just drove a rental 2.5 liter Jetta on Friday for a couple of hours.  Absolutely awful, don't bother.

[68_427]

What about a Gold TDI?  Or used Jetta/Sportwagon TDI

[2o6]

Just drove a rental 2.5 liter Jetta on Friday for a couple of hours.  Absolutely awful, don't bother.

I'm upset at the amount of people that have them.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Just drove a rental 2.5 liter Jetta on Friday for a couple of hours.  Absolutely awful, don't bother.

I really have to try one of these for myself, because I can't believe it would be that bad.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Doesn't it sound good?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGoVUb1tdoY

[ifcar]

I'm upset at the amount of people that have them.

It's roomy enough to be a midsize sedan alternative, and it drives better than most midsize sedans. That's the appeal.

[Laconian]

Doesn't it sound good?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGoVUb1tdoY

Bahaha:
"The reason you were suprised at how exotic sounding the car is, is because the motor is 1/2 of a Gallardo motor. 
BBRRAAAAAAPP 7 months ago"

[Eye of the Tiger]

Bahaha:
"The reason you were suprised at how exotic sounding the car is, is because the motor is 1/2 of a Gallardo motor. 
BBRRAAAAAAPP 7 months ago"

Haha!

Yeah, so why is it bad?

[MexicoCityM3]

It sorta is a TT-RS engine sans turbo.

[Northlands]

I don't even know why I am asking, but does anyone here have any experience with a 2012 Chrysler 200/Dodge Avenger? Very low prices on base models right now, but historically I've never liked either one of these cars.

[ifcar]

I don't even know why I am asking, but does anyone here have any experience with a 2012 Chrysler 200/Dodge Avenger? Very low prices on base models right now, but historically I've never liked either one of these cars.

Are they less money than economy sedans? If not, I don't know that they'd be worth the gas mileage premium. Their best points are a smooth ride and -- finally -- nice interior trim.

[Raza]

Just based on my experience, the Mazda3 kind of sucks.  I'm going to ignore the engine and transmission, since I drove the shittiest pairing.  But there are so many poorly designed things:

1.  The key.  Here's a comparison:




So if you release the switchblade in the Volkswagen, the key is already optimally positioned in your hand to enter the ignition and turn it to start the engine.  In the Mazda, you have to hold the key one way to flip the key out and then hold it another way to start the engine.  It's a little thing, but it's annoying.  Yes, you can get used to it, but you shouldn't have to. 

2.  The driver's side grab handle.  There isn't one.  Fuck you.

3.  Trunk/gas cap release.  On the floor?  I know that this isn't the only car to have it, but it was a dumb idea when it was first created and it's a dumb idea now.

4.  The radio controls are incomprehensible.


See that giant knob in the middle?  The power/volume knob, right?  Nope.  That's the tiny little knob down and to the left.

5.  The steering wheel.  Why in god's name does it need that many fucking buttons?  You can order a pizza or a missile strike using those goddamned controls.  And, on the 9-3 spokes, the steering wheel controls are cool little toggle type switches.  Which, by the way, are not anywhere close to flush to the steering wheel, and stick out so far, that every time you try to turn the wheel, you change your radio station or change the volume, and on a minor note, it fucking hurts when your hand hits them.


Okay, so the car isn't fundamentally flawed.  It drives relatively nicely and handles relatively well (like I said, this engine/transmission combination blew, but there are better ones available).  But these little details just show poor design execution.  And it's kind of cramped; were my mother not 4'10", she wouldn't be able to fit behind my 5'8" brother. 

It may be head and shoulders above the Corolla, but it's no Jetta.  Even the new Jetta was more pleasant to drive and had a better designed interior, despite not being as sporty and having clearly inferior steering.  The materials in the new Jetta don't come close to the MkV or MkIV though, nor does the fit and finish, so I can't recommend that either. 

With my money, I'd look at a 2 year old Civic Si sedan in your position (if that's in the 21k range in Canada).

[Raza]

I really have to try one of these for myself, because I can't believe it would be that bad.

I see where he's coming from; they drive decently, but unenthusiastically, and feel like they're built by accountants rather than people with passion.  They drive like a Buick compared the MkV and MkIV.  Steering is ambiguous, brakes aren't great; it's a dedicated A-Ber instead of an everyday hero like the last two generations. 

[2o6]

I see where he's coming from; they drive decently, but unenthusiastically, and feel like they're built by accountants rather than people with passion.  They drive like a Buick compared the MkV and MkIV.  Steering is ambiguous, brakes aren't great; it's a dedicated A-Ber instead of an everyday hero like the last two generations. 

The interior is absurdly cheap, the 2.0L has no place being on sale at all, price is actually about the same as the old model and it looks incredibly bland.

[2o6]

Left field: late year, previous gen Nissan Versa. Roomier than any compact I can think of off hand, and cheap.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I see where he's coming from; they drive decently, but unenthusiastically, and feel like they're built by accountants rather than people with passion.  They drive like a Buick compared the MkV and MkIV.  Steering is ambiguous, brakes aren't great; it's a dedicated A-Ber instead of an everyday hero like the last two generations. 

I was speaking more to the 2.5 I5 rather than that entire generation of Jettas, as I thought he was.

[2o6]

I was speaking more to the 2.5 I5 rather than that entire generation of Jettas, as I thought he was.

It's rough and wheezy, is the problem.

[Eye of the Tiger]

It's rough and wheezy, is the problem.

That is where I am skeptical. I5's are generally smooth at moderate speeds, which is where the 2.5 is designed to run.

[2o6]

That is where I am skeptical. I5's are generally smooth at moderate speeds, which is where the 2.5 is designed to run.

This one is not.

[Eye of the Tiger]

This one is not.

I disagree on principle.

[2o6]

I disagree on principle.

You'll have to get out and drive one, but the 2.5 is rough and wheezy.

[Northlands]

Are they less money than economy sedans? If not, I don't know that they'd be worth the gas mileage premium. Their best points are a smooth ride and -- finally -- nice interior trim.

That's about the only reason why I had asked. They're asking $16500 for them right now.