First Drive: 2008 Volkswagen Jetta TDI - Previews

milehighassassin said:

Here in Colorado I feel a turbo is must have. At least for a small motor.

Too much of a power loss with elevation.

Click to expand...

I don't know I do just fine with mine up here . In my 25-30 hp / 35-45 lb-ft Up HERE my 1991 Jetta 1.6L D .

40-45 city / 32-38 highway mpgs-( what I see running around @ 30-65 mph city / 65-80 mph highway ) on the front range/high plains of Colorado powered by 1.6 L IDI diesel engine 52 hp/ 71.5 lb-ft @ sea level desinged in the mid 70s .

0-60 @ sea level with times in around 11 secs , 16-18 secs up here . I have no trouble living with that as most Americans could do if they chose to . I might add that is up here where the normal freeways speeds are 60-90 mph .

Ooh, a rabbit diesel would be great as I could maybe, just maybe retire my work car and get one of those! Cool! (btw my work car is a 1999 saturn sl2 with 131000 miles on the clock)

gck

11 seconds? At sea level?

Bull****.

More like 17.5 for a Golf 2-dr base model (the lightest.)

I dream of a totally different kind of Rabbit than you guys.

I want a fully loaded, sport suspension having, R32 feature containing, 2 door, 6 speed, 2.0 (or bigger!) TDI Rabbit.

Make it white in color w/ the black leather interior and black 18" rims please.

Am I asking too much?

Americans don't really mind small sporty cars but they really don't like cheap, nonfeature having cars. We like them to feel luxeriorious. (sp?)

rotarykid said:

I don't know I do just fine with mine up here . In my 25-30 hp / 35-45 lb-ft Up HERE my 1991 Jetta 1.6L D .

40-45 city / 32-38 highway mpgs-( what I see running around @ 30-65 mph city / 65-80 mph highway ) on the front range/high plains of Colorado powered by 1.6 L IDI diesel engine 52 hp/ 71.5 lb-ft @ sea level desinged in the mid 70s .

0-60 @ sea level with times in around 11 secs , 16-18 secs up here . I have no trouble living with that as most Americans could do if they chose to . I might add that is up here where the normal freeways speeds are 60-90 mph .

Click to expand...

Where is up here?

You are definetly lighter. Today's cars will continue to gain weight because of things like airbags, navigation, 8-speaker stereo's, heated seats, airbags in seats, side impact beams, etc.

I don't want a car that struggles going over the passes, and that if I get slowed down because a semi has not gotten out of the left lane while doing 30 MPH.

milehighassassin said:

Where is up here?

You are definetly lighter. Today's cars will continue to gain weight because of things like airbags, navigation, 8-speaker stereo's, heated seats, airbags in seats, side impact beams, etc.

I don't want a car that struggles going over the passes, and that if I get slowed down because a semi has not gotten out of the left lane while doing 30 MPH.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Also, baring the few urban areas the traffic density is so low in Colorado you can indeed probably get away with whatever. But, at least here in NE Ohio my approx 8.5 second 0-60 Elantra 5sp is sorta iffy right before and after rush hour at times. Its like NASCAR out here then. Nice as can be during rush hour tho, they just go all Jekel and Hyde bracketing those times for some reason.

If its not merging into fast traffic or watching for being boxed by trucks.... Then its being (sometimes dangerously) cut off down town if you leave even a teeny bit of room between you and the car accelerating ahead of you.

Southwest Denver .

rotarykid said:

Southwest Denver .

Click to expand...

Do you travel I-70 into the mountains much?

I drive Fort Collins to Vail EVERY weekend(Friday) and back on Sunday/Monday.

I don't think a motor like the one you have will cut it.
Elevation is 11,500' at one point.


BTW...

Wanna sell your car?

I need a car to run around town in.

I am simply saying for the driving I do over the passes at 65-80 MPH, you need more oomph and a turbo is the answer.

rotarykid said:

Southwest Denver .

Click to expand...

I also asked because you have "N.C." listed.

Suns_PSD said:

I dream of a totally different kind of Rabbit than you guys.

I want a fully loaded, sport suspension having, R32 feature containing, 2 door, 6 speed, 2.0 (or bigger!) TDI Rabbit.

Make it white in color w/ the black leather interior and black 18" rims please.

Am I asking too much?

Click to expand...

We get the R-line exterior/interior styling packages, so just move to Europe.

MR42HH said:

We get the R-line exterior/interior styling packages, so just move to Europe.

Click to expand...

Yeah the solution to all our diesel hopes and aspirations. The only problem, if I lived in Europe it would take me 10 years to decide which diesel car to get, such is the huge variety available! At least in Canada it is easy: if you are rich, get a Mercedes, if you are normal, get a Jetta, and if you are trendy, get a Smart. Hopefully the Rabbit (Golf) will add itself to the mix and the Passat as well.

Meanwhile I will be content with getting 7.4 L/100 km @ 130 km/h in the Passat 2.0T.

As I dream my wandering mind wonders.
If VW were to offer two diesel engine choices in the new Rabbit. One three cylinder at 70 mpg and a four cylinder at 50 mpg. Which one would lead sales?
Heck you'd think they'd do it just for bragging rights. But then they may not want to show Ford the error in their ways until after they go out of business.

Long Range,

Not a bad idea from a marketing standpoint. The only justification not to do it would be that one option may cut into the sales of the other. LOL I think it would make the new Rabbit a bigger sales hit.

There's another reason.

If the 3-cyl is underpowered, it could hurt the reputation of diesels in the US AGAIN.

bhtooefr said:

There's another reason.

If the 3-cyl is underpowered, it could hurt the reputation of diesels in the US AGAIN.

Click to expand...

I think though that some day in the not to distant future, Americans (and I lump Canadians into that description, after all we live in North America too!) will realize that you don't need 200+ hp to cruise comfortably at 65-80 mph. Europeans have been crusing at 80+ mph for decates on 1.4L and smaller micromotors. I mean, my new B6 Passat has 200 hp... and yes it's wonderful; but at 80 mph I get probably around 30 mpg (zero wind, a bit better with a tail wind and a bit worse with a headwind; I did 32 on a round trip road trip that ended yesterday, but had a good tailwind both ways as I came home 5 days later). Well the base engine in the Passat in Europe is only 1.6L, 102 hp (actually I believe that as of now it's been upgraded to a 115 hp FSI). And the BlueMotion TDI has a 1.9L 105 hp TDI. I'd LOVE a BlueMotion over here! I would get about 44 mpg at 80 mph, based on my Jetta's experience.

So if Europeans can drive fast on 100 hp, why can't we, at least those who don't have anything to tow?

PlaneCrazy said:

So if Europeans can drive fast on 100 hp, why can't we, at least those who don't have anything to tow?

Click to expand...

Because in the Americas it's not top speed people are after. It's acceleration. We're limited to a pretty low number. It's not how fast you go, it's how fast you get to the speed limit. I don't disagree that a 1.4L would cruise all day at AutoBahn speeds. But if you have a 0-60 speed anymore than 10 seconds and you're going to get the perception of being 'slow'.

Problem with me is so few people actually USE that extra "power" so what difference does it make if it is there or not? I had to pass (go around on the right) a V8 Dakota this morning on the Interstate in my 10 year old 90hp Passat because he dropped from 80 to 65 going up a hill!

oilhammer said:

Problem with me is so few people actually USE that extra "power" so what difference does it make if it is there or not? I had to pass (go around on the right) a V8 Dakota this morning on the Interstate in my 10 year old 90hp Passat because he dropped from 80 to 65 going up a hill!

Click to expand...

Because americans are stupid. You get a new car. You mash the accelerator. You may only do that once a month. But if it takes 10 seconds it's "slow". So you get your V8 Dakota.

And actually the V8 Dakota while no 'slouch' is not extremely fast...more torquey, and that torque is a nice feeling under your right foot. Oh, wait, that is what diesels are good for... oh but we can't get diesel powered vehicles across the entire car line(s). Doh!

But my point is, and I am sure you agree, that people could do with less but seem to want excess if given the choice. And that is why I think we see so many bloated vehicles on our roads in general.

Problem is, car reviewers seem to buy in to the same BS. Almost always, if there is a choice between a 4 banger and a 6 banger, they will prefer the 6 banger, because the smaller engine is "pokey".

Jason

Yep, that is true. I remember once I coworker did not believe the Caravan was available with a diesel engine/manual trans elsewhere. I quickly found a link to the Euro spec Voyager, and one UK review I read raved about how well the diesel engine ran, how well the manual gearbox shifted, and how frugal the engine was. And the gasser V6 version (which was also offered there) he said was a loser because it was thirsty, was bolted to a manditory slushbox, and likely would have very poor resale value. Never once did he mention that the V6 was "faster" than the diesel, even though I am sure it is.

Interesting what $7/gal for fuel and CO2 taxing will do to someones "opinion".

Funny about American perceptions. Who shapes them? Oilhammer going to show a co-worker about Chrysler diesels may have started some word of mouth around work and around town. Three celebrities came on during Live Earth to talk about their biodiesel set-ups. This reached over 2 billion peeps on air. Car companies putting better diesel products out than we had in the past in the U.S. is going to create a big stir. That 3% diesel market may be as high as 10% by 2011. Not bad. I have had my share of folks shocked that my NB was a diesel at work, at the pump, etc...
I drove a Lotus Espirit that was as fast as any production vehicle in the 1980s and it had a little four banger. I also had a Buick Grand National from 87 to 91 and people were very surprised that a turbo six could get up and move. It is all perceptions. Today, many four banger make the same power as the old sixes, and current sixes put out as much if not more than the old V8s. Diesels are becoming more mainstream in America and if we keep proudly talking about our little four banger diesel engines, the word spreads. Maybe that guy at Oilhammer's job will consider a diesel on his next new car purchase. Who knows? It could happen.

darkscout said:

But if you have a 0-60 speed anymore than 10 seconds and you're going to get the perception of being 'slow'.

Click to expand...

Plus, most Americans are scared to floor the accelerator. Anything more than half throttle, and they feel they are hurting something because the engine gets noisy and the needle on the unknown gauge next to the speedometer goes real high. (That's also why most American vehicles have such an aggressive throttle response -- a mere tap on the pedal gives you a massive burst of acceleration, to make the engine feel "powerful".)

If I for some reason have to borrow my dad's Tracker, I take great pleasure in seeing that little needle go to the big 6 that's just before that red area.

(He doesn't like going over 4000, says it sounds like it's gonna blow up. I disagree. It actually sounds quite decent, and that's with an el cheapo exhaust. )

I read a couple of reviews of my 2.0T Passat that called it "underpowered". This with 200 hp, 207 lb-ft from 1800-5000 rpm, and a sub 7-second 0-60 time...go figure. As it happens it is the most powerful vehicle I have ever owned. My previous record was my 190 hp, 1996 328i. Second most powerful is my plane, which makes "only" 180 hp.

plane?? a piper or a cessna plane ??????? lol

just i think we loose sometimes the sense of conception of the stuffs ,why i need a car with 200 hp if a car with 56 hp transport me at the same sites ?
why i want a mobile phone with great performances if really i want cheapers phone calls and long battery life ?
cheers

Beechcraft actually, aerobatic-certified C23 Sundowner. Although I replaced the door hinges with non-quick release hinges so that effectively quashes the aerobatic certification (it was cheaper).

oilhammer said:

But my point is, and I am sure you agree, that people could do with less but seem to want excess if given the choice.

Click to expand...

That's exactly why I have .205's and RC2 -- because I can. And because with a diesel, it doesn't really hurt the mileage much. I lost 2-3mpg, and wouldn't have even lost that much if I kept my driving habits the same and only used the extra power for passing only.

For the most part, 90hp was adequate. But passing on 2-lane roads took a nice, long, clear straightaway, and occasionally involved a little 'sphincter pucker'. Since the mods, passing maneuvers are much less of a worry. I'm happy to see that the new Jetta TDI's will be 140hp and 236ft-lbs. That should be more than adequate right out of the box. And if we get close to the rumored 60mpg highway -- or at least in the solid 50mpg+ range -- that'll be great.

Sounds like my "first" car given to me by my mom and dad upon graduation from high school: 1980 Chevy Citation, 2.8 2bbl v-6, 3 speed auto (no OD), no AC and a vertically mounted AM radio, it took some balls to pass someone on a 2 lane road but she would run 80mph all day long (speedo only went to 85). If 50 mpg turns into reality when the 2.0 arrives sign me up

2008 Jetta clean TDI video clip test drive

Here is a link to a test drive of the new 2008 clean TDI
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/19/video-popular-mechanics-tries-out-the-new-jetta-tdi/

What do you all think? They said it should get around 50s on the highway and 40s in the city. We all know they pretty much get what they say they get, if not more on the current models!