Is it worth Owning a TDI anymore?

dieselpony said:

I think people often compare TDIs to the wrong cars. Particularly this generation TDI. If someone is happy with Focus or Elantra vs. a TDI, there's really no reason to get Jetta or Golf TDI. It's in a different class. Maybe not "officially," but from the moment you pull the door open to noticing the interior fit and panel textures to the superbly tuned electric power steering, they are in a different class. More comparable to much higher priced cars, like the previous poster who traded a BMW 3 series.

Now, the latest generation Jetta may have lost a little of the premium feel, but there are still the Golf and JSW, and Passat I would argue, that have the premium feel.

Click to expand...

agreed...when I shopped I looked at a 1 series, and a B200 MB (NA in USA). Both were a solid 10K more money in canada equipped the way my Highline golf TDI is. Sorry Oil H..... Elantras and Civics are NOT in the same class. My Golf looks like a bargain compared to its "real" competitors, and I get a diesel with massive torque and range and fun to drive although I am sure the 1 series is fun to drive also but sucks if you want to bring home a couch compared to my hatch.... But I will agree with you that they (CRs) "may" be pricy after the first 100K or so....but look at all the fuel I saved vs my 2 examples considering both these cars mandate PREMIUM and in canada Premium is a solid 80c to 1 dollar MORE per gallon than Diesel. Hey....my Golf is starting to look like a steal.

I never said I'd rather have an Elantra or a Civic... (my driveway is 100% full of Volkswagens, thank you very much). But FOR THE MONEY, they are great cars. Tight-walleted people seem attracted to TDIs for MPG and nothing else, only to find out the hard way they made a financial mistake later on.

Most people who purchase a new car keep it for 10 years, they dump it after 5 or 6. The majority of people driving 10+ year old cars purchased them used. And many of those people couldn't care less about how the car drives (they wouldn't know the difference driving a Camry or an S-class). It is just a tool, A to B, nothing more.

No way I'd even consider any Volkswagen if I weren't an enthusiast.

How's that go, I own VW's because I like to work on cars? I think that might apply to you! Most of the mechanics I know don't have as much fun working on their own cars. Just because it is too much like work for them?

I actually don't have to do much to my own Volkswagens... that is why I have to have 8 of them (currently) to make certain I have at least something to tinker with in my free time. My DD Golf is now on a 20k service interval.

I am also a perfectionist... possibly a bit OCD. So many things I do to them are off the wall to some. I installed a new set of Bilstein shock absorbers on my 1993 Eurovan I recently purchased. The original shocks were still OK, but I wanted a bit of an upgrade I guess. I also clearcoated them before install, cleaned and clearcoated the front mounting brackets while they were off, cleaned all the fasteners and cleared them as well.

I am a nut job, LOL.... at least I have fun. How many people do you know that actually get PAID to do what they love to do? I always tell folks I don't work. I have a hobby with a paycheck.

oilhammer said:

I never said I'd rather have an Elantra or a Civic... (my driveway is 100% full of Volkswagens, thank you very much). But FOR THE MONEY, they are great cars. Tight-walleted people seem attracted to TDIs for MPG and nothing else, only to find out the hard way they made a financial mistake later on.

Click to expand...

I have no complaints. My costs so far include 3 sets of tires (.014/mi.), cam replaced at 120K (.008/mi.) two timing belts (.01/mi), a clutch replacement last week at 180K (.005/mi.), oil/filter changes (.005/mi.) and an average fuel cost of .08/mi. No brakes yet, they look to have another 20,000 miles to go. Total operating cost is slightly more than 12 cents per mile which is 1 cent more than a 34mpg Civic uses in fuel alone. As a bonus I'm not driving a Civic.

Maybe I'm just lucky. I've read the horror stories and prepared myself for the worst. After taking care of two of them (thanks oldpoopie!) I couldn't be happier.

straightliner said:

I am really questioning this guys! Specifically 09 and newer

* Diesel is so expensive.

* The expensive maintenance that is required.

* Timming belts at 120K intervals

* DPF replacement also at 120K?

* Poor fuel mileage (mine is a 09)

* New sales are also down.

How does everybody else feel?

Click to expand...

In a vacuum, I think a case can be made in any direction. If you compare it against other vehicles: then really it is a case of the costs per mile driven.

Power_Not_Speed said:

I have no complaints. My costs so far include 3 sets of tires (.014/mi.), cam replaced at 120K (.008/mi.) two timing belts (.01/mi), a clutch replacement last week at 180K (.005/mi.), oil/filter changes (.005/mi.) and an average fuel cost of .08/mi. No brakes yet, they look to have another 20,000 miles to go. Total operating cost is slightly more than 12 cents per mile which is 1 cent more than a 34mpg Civic uses in fuel alone. As a bonus I'm not driving a Civic.

Maybe I'm just lucky. I've read the horror stories and prepared myself for the worst. After taking care of two of them (thanks oldpoopie!) I couldn't be happier.

Click to expand...

I agree I wouldn't want to drive a Civic either, however you left out the most important part of the cost... the purchase price. A 2006 Civic would have cost far less to purchase and maintain in that same time period. And most can get close to 40 MPG (even my sister's 2004 got 38, and it was a slushbox).

Resale value changes things somewhat, but since the real gem of owning a Volkswagen is the longevity (gas or diesel) I tend not to think much of this. At any rate, the difference in purchase cost is substantial, especially when you consider if you want a TDI engine in your Volkswagen you MUST get a higher trim level. Not everyone wants or needs all that stuff.

oilhammer said:

however you left out the most important part of the cost... the purchase price. .

Click to expand...

It's amazing how often that happens.

If you are the type of person who will keep a car for 12 years or more and maintain it religiously, a Tdi might be a good choice. Otherwise, no way. Fuel economy is not so impressive. If you love the way Volkswagen's handle and feel, well they make gassers too.

There used to be a clear, compelling case in favor of the Tdi. Ten years ago.

oilhammer said:

...however you left out the most important part of the cost... the purchase price.

Click to expand...

WutGas? said:

It's amazing how often that happens.

Click to expand...

Since you mentioned it the 2006 TDI with Pkg 1 which is roughly the EX equivalent, though the EX has cloth seats, was priced at $24000 and according to KBB is worth $7100. A 2006 Honda Civic EX sold for $18,400 new and with 180k miles is now worth about $6400. The difference in depreciation favors the Civic by about $5,000, or 3.6 cents per mile.

My cousin has a 2007 Civic and says she gets around 24mpg around town and about 38 hwy. Factor in maintenance, tires and and any repairs (though I don't know what repairs a Civic would need besides brakes) and the cost per mile between the two is still very close. I expect the advantage going with my TDI the more I drive it.

I was away from home for six months a year the first few years I owned my car and now drive it about 35-40000 miles a year. I still feel the 30% premium when new, though with the Pkg 2 it was somewhat more than that, will pay off in the long run. And for me that's what it's all about.

As far as buying cheap, my neighbor commutes about 130 miles a day in a Kia Rio. He's had 2 and sold the 2003 for $1400. I've driven it since then and at 230,000 miles it's completely and totally used up.

You get what you pay for. Then again, I'm just a bit biased.

I think there can just be so many variables involved in a car choice that what makes sense to one may not make any sense to another. I just feel that these cars (Volkswagens, especially the diesels) are GREAT cars, I just want people who purchase them to do so with more in mind that MPGs.

I drove my Passat this morning, had to swap cars with a friend (he cannot drive a stick so I had to leave the Golf at home.... yes, his man card has been stamped). Anyways, getting out of my 127k mile 8 year old Passat and getting into his 63k mile 4 year old Corolla is a real in-your-face eye opener. Not that the Corolla is a bad car, I've serviced it since new, and it has needed a couple items addressed (leaky water pump, failed accessory belt tensioner) it has been reliable. But to drive it? Argh... yeah, awful. But here's the thing... he doesn't care. Other than the remark after driving our Passat the first time "wow, this thing really moves!" he really doesn't see nor appreciate the much nicer car. Even knowing it cost nearly TWICE the money, he won't see or ever know why. To folks like me, and many of us on this board, it is night and day. But not everyone is like that. For him, the $14k NOT spent is a good thing. I'm sure he's satisfied with the 33 MPGs the Corolla can get. I'd bet most Corolla owners are.

oilhammer said:

I agree I wouldn't want to drive a Civic either, however you left out the most important part of the cost... the purchase price. A 2006 Civic would have cost far less to purchase and maintain in that same time period. And most can get close to 40 MPG (even my sister's 2004 got 38, and it was a slushbox).

Resale value changes things somewhat, but since the real gem of owning a Volkswagen is the longevity (gas or diesel) I tend not to think much of this. At any rate, the difference in purchase cost is substantial, especially when you consider if you want a TDI engine in your Volkswagen you MUST get a higher trim level. Not everyone wants or needs all that stuff.

Click to expand...

One can say what one will about the Civic A/T, but I own a 2004 Civic/2003 Jetta TDI 5 speed side by side. One reason for the 2004 Civic @ that time was that neither the 2004 or 2003 Jetta TDI A/T transmission offered any advantage, ergo (longer story short) 2004 Civic. For the purposes bought (commuting 27/54 R/T miles ) 38-42 mpg, 48-52 mpg. 145,000/178,000 miles, cost per mile driven is slightly more for the Civic. Resale values for both are very very good.

(Even Honda says this but )The consumables have both cost more and continue to wear faster for the Honda Civic than for the Jetta TDI. The costs were 12,564 vs 18,000. Indeed they are totally different animals. Since I went into both trades with eyes wide shut so to speak, I am not dissappointed in the least with either.

What "consumables" are we talking about? Just curious, since oil, oil filter, air filter, tires, brake linings, ATF, are all cheaper on the Civic.

oilhammer said:

What "consumables" are we talking about? Just curious, since oil, oil filter, air filter, tires, brake linings, ATF, are all cheaper on the Civic.

Click to expand...

Sure, this was never rocket science for me. Add up two columns/ miles= cost per mile driven: major tune. To help to normalize the costs, (aka like miles) the major tune mileages of 110,000/120,000 and 100,000 miles were used.

The whole Civic 110,000/120,000 service plus front rotors and brake pads cost 947. I would have delayed the interval if not for the the squeak from the brakes telling my wife there might be an issue. Like miles for the Jetta was far less @ app 650 (brake pads and rotors not needed). The math indicates .00789/008609 vs .0065 cents per mile. aka 21% to 32.4% ... more. Pads for the Jetta TDI (same commute, same drivers) pads and rotors swaged to go to a min of 250,000 miles @ 178,000 miles.

Oil and filter are done on 20,000 miles OCI's (vs 30,000 miles on Jetta TDI). I would have no issues running 30,000 miles OCI's, but the oil filter is not specified to run 30,000 miles like the oem VW filters and the Civic uses oil far more than the Jetta TDI, so it is easier to change oil at 20,000 miles rather than add oil and change again @ 30,000 miles. Air filters on 2x factory recommendations, oem tires got 74,300 miles (112,300 on Jetta TDI) brake pads and rotors only 120,000 miles, rear drums and shoes est to go 260k, ATF is 120,000/90,000 vs life in TDI/5 speed trans. TB/WP change, valve adjustment and gaskets changes etc 110,000 miles, spark plug and timing. All these things, you as an auto mechanic know about. So this is not rocket science for you either I suspect.

I personally was surprised at how much longer the valve adjust and timing belt and water pump change took over the TDI's.

The valve adjustment and timing belt should NOT take anywhere near as long, so that is consfusing to me as well. The 1.7L engine in the 2004 Civic calls for about 1.2 hours less labor than a BEW, and the parts of course are less, too.

I hear ya on the oil burning, that is a common Honda issue... and often results in catalyst failure which is certainly an added cost.

Brakes are always a bit of a mystery, as some people tend to go through them quickly while others don't. Volkswagens, as a general rule, seem to be pretty good on that count.

And the 2004 Civic was available with a manual gearbox, too. So that comparison bit is somewhat apples-to-oranges.

In all honesty, though, if you purchased a new Honda anything and had an end-of-use target in mind, you can pretty much neglect it quite a bit and it won't matter. I've seen Civics and Accords with over 200k miles on their original timing belts... I wouldn't expect (nor have I ever) see that with a Volkswagen.

oilhammer said:

The valve adjustment and timing belt should NOT take anywhere near as long, so that is consfusing to me as well. The 1.7L engine in the 2004 Civic calls for about 1.2 hours less labor than a BEW, and the parts of course are less, too.

I hear ya on the oil burning, that is a common Honda issue... and often results in catalyst failure which is certainly an added cost.

Brakes are always a bit of a mystery, as some people tend to go through them quickly while others don't. Volkswagens, as a general rule, seem to be pretty good on that count.

And the 2004 Civic was available with a manual gearbox, too. So that comparison bit is somewhat apples-to-oranges.

In all honesty, though, if you purchased a new Honda anything and had an end-of-use target in mind, you can pretty much neglect it quite a bit and it won't matter. I've seen Civics and Accords with over 200k miles on their original timing belts... I wouldn't expect (nor have I ever) see that with a Volkswagen.

Click to expand...

The timing belt and water pump really had ZERO signs of outlier wear other than being several years old and doing 117,000 miles. The shop and owners stuck to the original quote despite the extra time involved. Given the experiences with the Honda/VW TB/WP, it would seem safe to go up to 150,000 to 200,000 (total mileage of 270,000 to 320,000 miles) on the now currently new TB (Civic 26,000 miles) They did a great job. I am sure you would not recommend much beyond 100,000 (say 120,000 miles) for the 03 VW Jetta TDI TB and WP. The Civic coolant is NOT lifetime like VW's.

Yes, I would agree, the brake pads and rotors are a bit of a mystery. I understand Honda uses the Aisin brand as a "sub" vendor, aka oem. Or should I say the Aisin brand was listed as an OEM part. Aisin brand provides top quality products. So again, I am not dissatisfied in any way. I just wish we had caught the front brake pad before the noise as we probably could have used the rotors for one more cycle. At the same time, I can only report what happens to me anecdotally. The corrollary would be if you presented me a bill for 947 and I was only willing to pay 650 because some mechanic I have read told me that Civic repairs are cheaper !?

Like I said I was inclined to consider a 03 TDI 01M A/T. From what I have read on this web site and others, I probably dodged a HUGE structural bullet, by not getting the 01M A/T !!!!!!! Dumb luck is a good thing ! I could have been moaning and groaning about how crappy VW's are with a $4,000+ A/T repair bill.

I do have to say I have watched Drivbiwire (any number of times) do a T/B and water pump change in as little as 2 hours.

nicklockard said:

If you are the type of person who will keep a car for 12 years or more and maintain it religiously, a Tdi might be a good choice. Otherwise, no way. Fuel economy is not so impressive. If you love the way Volkswagen's handle and feel, well they make gassers too.

There used to be a clear, compelling case in favor of the Tdi. Ten years ago.

Click to expand...

could not disagree w/you more...the gassers are dogs besides the 2.0T and it has plenty of issues of it's own.....the reason to buy a TDI is NOT because of the fuel economy but precisely because of the "way" they drive....CR drivers understand....