Golf VI to get smaller TDI (1.6 90/105 hp)

Mike_Van · Jun 16, 2008

...not that we'll see these, but German consumers will be able to choose a Golf VI with...

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/vorschau-vw-golf-vi_717079.html

Includes slide-show.
From the bottom of the article (translation):

'...Diesel: [the current]
2.0 TDI CR (Common Rail) 110 PS,
de-tuned 140-PS-Motor, being replaced in 2009 with -

1.6 TDI, CR, 90 PS/105 PS,
2.0 TDI CR, 140 PS,
2.0 TDI CR, 170 PS...'

PlaneCrazy · Jun 16, 2008

Never mind the diesels: take a look at the smallest 1.4 TSI. Output is 122 hp, torque is 148 lb-ft, 1500-4000 rpm.

According to the VW France website, this sucker is rated at:

8.2 L/100 km city (29 mpg)
5.2 L/100 km highway (45.5 mpg highway).

It's rated the same on the highway as the new 2.0 CR TDI. It would be a great base engine in the Golf instead of the current boat anchor that they specify for N. America (the 2.5 L 5-cyl).

They could offer this cool little engine as the "base" gas engine, and the 2.0 CR TDI as the "more powerful optional engine".

Of course, I'd love to see what the 1.6 90 PS and 105 PS engines could do, fuel-wise.

I am very much in favour of a trend towards smaller and more efficient engines. The 1.4 TSI should give adequate performance and very decent highway fuel economy.

Mike_Van · Jun 16, 2008

The 1.4 TSI would be an excellent base engine.
It shall be offered as a Passat engine as well, in Germany.
In fairness, the base Passat engine there has been a 1.6 gasser.

My guess it's significantly costlier to build than the 2.5 'boat anchor.'

milehighassassin · Jun 16, 2008

MK VI Golf will not be coming to the U.S. because of failing dollar (exchange rate). VW cannot make a profit.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/15/report-volkswagen-golf-mk-vi-not-u-s-bound/

donfromnaples · Jun 16, 2008

We heard and we are not happy campers. I wouldn't be surprised though to see a new Rabbit here in 2010. I would like it to have diesel option, and then by 2012 a diesel hybrid powertrain.

unixb0y · Jun 16, 2008

As I understand it, the point of the MKVI was to drive production costs MKV down.

The MK6 was going to be a cheaper evolution of the MK5.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121295991392455457.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"Volkswagen AG plans to cut production costs of the next-generation VW Golf by about €1,000, or about $1,600, per vehicle as part of a cost-saving program at Europe's largest auto maker by sales, according to people familiar with the matter."

It seems resonable to think that VoA is going to build a factory for the MK6 in the US. That factory will not be online for a little while longer (2010-2012).

Lug_Nut · Jun 17, 2008

milehighassassin said:
MK VI Golf will not be coming to the U.S. because of failing dollar (exchange rate). VW cannot make a profit.

Is this an opportunity to get the Polo or Pointer?
Why not? As the Honda Civic grew and grew with each (de)generation there was a need seen for an entry level car to fill what the Civic had been. The Fit was brought in.
VW might just choose to follow suit now with the entry level Golf grown fat and expensive. Drop the Golf, keep the Dasher/Quantum sized Jetta as the mid level, the Passat as the big car, and bring in the Pointer line-up, three door hatch, 5 door wagon, pick-up, as the entry level. Already designed and tested, built on this hemisphere for lower shipping costs, and with fuel costs not expected to drop, consumer disposable income being squeezed, this might just be what VW can use to up their sales numbers.

PlaneCrazy · Jun 17, 2008

Why would they not build US-bound cars (and presumably Canada-bound ones as well) in the Mexican and Brazilian facilities, like they did with the MkIV Golf/Jetta?

My guess is that we'll see the MkVI... eventually.

I wonder if Canada will see it now that VW Canada and VW USA are divorced? The MkVI Golf, 1.4 TSI base, 2.0 TDI optional, basic stripped model available (wind-up windows, etc), would be a nice entry-level VW. The City models are a stop-gap and are getting long in the tooth, based as they are on a 1998 design.

vwmk4 · Jun 17, 2008

Looks like the same old story we the USA is not going to get the good stuff as usuial. And VWOA wonders why sales are what they are. Well then thers the non VW service.

milehighassassin · Jun 17, 2008

IT sounds like we won't get it because the dollar is weak. VAG can make more money shipping them to Europe instead of selling them in the U.S.

You have to remember that VAG has to stay competitive with their pricing in the U.S. because of the huge market.

II_Kings_9_20 · Jun 17, 2008

milehighassassin said:
IT sounds like we won't get it because the dollar is weak. VAG can make more money shipping them to Europe instead of selling them in the U.S.

You have to remember that VAG has to stay competitive with their pricing in the U.S. because of the huge market.

OK, what was their excuse 5, 10, 15, and 20 years ago when the dollar was strong?

vwtodd · Jun 17, 2008

MK VI Golf *WILL* be coming to the U.S. next fall

milehighassassin said:
MK VI Golf will not be coming to the U.S. because of failing dollar (exchange rate). VW cannot make a profit.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/15/report-volkswagen-golf-mk-vi-not-u-s-bound/

Here we go:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=127288

impetus19 · Jun 17, 2008

With the dollar weak.. it is the perfect time for VW to invest in some additional plants here in the US...

GoFaster · Jun 17, 2008

HAH ... Same old story: When it comes to VW either planning something or planning to cancel something ... don't believe ANYthing until it shows up (or doesn't) in showrooms.

milehighassassin · Jun 17, 2008

impetus19 said:
With the dollar weak.. it is the perfect time for VW to invest in some additional plants here in the US...

They don't need additional plants. They are meeting production numbers fine, it has to do with the fact that they can sell the cars for more money back in Europe, apperhantly they are not cutting the MK VI, so it won't matter.

RabbitGTI · Jun 18, 2008

PlaneCrazy said:
Never mind the diesels: take a look at the smallest 1.4 TSI. Output is 122 hp, torque is 148 lb-ft, 1500-4000 rpm.

According to the VW France website, this sucker is rated at:

8.2 L/100 km city (29 mpg)
5.2 L/100 km highway (45.5 mpg highway).

It's rated the same on the highway as the new 2.0 CR TDI. It would be a great base engine in the Golf instead of the current boat anchor that they specify for N. America (the 2.5 L 5-cyl).

They could offer this cool little engine as the "base" gas engine, and the 2.0 CR TDI as the "more powerful optional engine".

Of course, I'd love to see what the 1.6 90 PS and 105 PS engines could do, fuel-wise.

I am very much in favour of a trend towards smaller and more efficient engines. The 1.4 TSI should give adequate performance and very decent highway fuel economy.

Don't know about the 2.5 being a "boat anchor". Once mine loosed up, I'm seeing 23 city and 33 hwy on 87 octane. Sure I'd like a little better mileage, but this motor is going to last forever.

lbhskier37 · Jun 18, 2008

RabbitGTI said:
Don't know about the 2.5 being a "boat anchor". Once mine loosed up, I'm seeing 23 city and 33 hwy on 87 octane. Sure I'd like a little better mileage, but this motor is going to last forever.

It is a boat anchor because the 3.4L V6 in my Saturn Aura, a much bigger car, easily gets better than 23 city and 33 hwy. Any my Aura isn't alone, Malibu, Camry, Accord, Altima, Impala can all get similar mileage to the Rabbit but with bigger more powerful engines. The 2.5L is an aweful engine. The worst comprimise, the fuel economy of a V6 with the power of a 4cyl.

Mike_Van · Jun 18, 2008

'The 2.5L is an aweful engine. The worst comprimise, the fuel economy of a V6 with the power of a 4cyl.'

That joke, an oldie but a goodie, has been around as long as the first VAG inline 5.

My family had a 1986.5 Quantum GL5

RabbitGTI · Jun 18, 2008

lbhskier37 said:
It is a boat anchor because the 3.4L V6 in my Saturn Aura, a much bigger car, easily gets better than 23 city and 33 hwy. Any my Aura isn't alone, Malibu, Camry, Accord, Altima, Impala can all get similar mileage to the Rabbit but with bigger more powerful engines. The 2.5L is an aweful engine. The worst comprimise, the fuel economy of a V6 with the power of a 4cyl.

Sure your 3.4l V6 bests 23/33, sure it does

LOL. The inline five is a sweet motor that pulls like hell at low revs and has typical five cylinder smoothness. Ever drive an in-line motor.....did'nt think so.

RabbitGTI · Jun 18, 2008

Mike_Van said:
'The 2.5L is an aweful engine. The worst comprimise, the fuel economy of a V6 with the power of a 4cyl.'

That joke, an oldie but a goodie, has been around as long as the first VAG inline 5.
My family had a 1986.5 Quantum GL5

In-line five is a compromise between a thrashy four and a smooth six. You get the low end torque and smoothness of a six with better economy than a similar displacement six. It's also low compression and runs on 87 octane. The Jetta it's in cost a little over 16k and gets driven 12k a year, it's a nice package. Of course I'd rather have a Saturn, I really liked the interior quality of the Yugo and it's nice Saturn built a modern version.

lbhskier37 · Jun 18, 2008

RabbitGTI said:
Sure your 3.4l V6 bests 23/33, sure it does LOL. The inline five is a sweet motor that pulls like hell at low revs and has typical five cylinder smoothness. Ever drive an in-line motor.....did'nt think so.

I track mileage every tank. Last tank I averaged 32.5. That was a long trip so mostly highway. I have never had a tank average below 24. There is no reason a car the size of the Jetta shouldn't easily average 30s since GM pushrod V6s in larger cars do it all the time. Ever drive one of those?

RabbitGTI · Jun 18, 2008

lbhskier37 said:
I track mileage every tank. Last tank I averaged 32.5. That was a long trip so mostly highway. I have never had a tank average below 24. There is no reason a car the size of the Jetta shouldn't easily average 30s since GM pushrod V6s in larger cars do it all the time. Ever drive one of those?

Try a tank in the city, all stop and go. What's your city rating?

milehighassassin · Jun 18, 2008

My parents have a 2001 Ford Taurus (V6) that is averaging about 32 MPG. Most of the driving is highway, but to see that motor get that in a dated chassis, there is no reason we are not seeing better numbers from inline 4's.

DRbillZ · Jun 18, 2008

32.5.

You could be averaging 10mpg better..............

tdibigd · Jun 18, 2008

This is a good discourse. I tend to agree with the "why'd they do that" for the VW inline-5. The mileage in the city is nothing to write home about, and despite its decent highway economy it seems poorly timed even for $2.50/gal gas. However, it's far from a boat anchor...give one a test drive.

I'm not sure where the Saturn reference came in...but it's probable that most people here would take a significant mpg hit over having a Saturn visible in their driveway.

lbhskier37 · Jun 18, 2008

tdibigd said:
I'm not sure where the Saturn reference came in...but it's probable that most people here would take a significant mpg hit over having a Saturn visible in their driveway.

Saturn Aura is what I was refering to with the 3.4L V6. Nearly identical car to the Opel Vectra in Europe. Actually quite a nice car, bought it over the 2.5L Jetta since the TDI was non-existant last winter when my car at the time got totaled. Interior was not as nice as the Jetta, but it was cheaper, roomier, more powerful, and better fuel economy. I will probably be getting a TDI next spring, but if GM ever gets its head out of its a$$ and offers the Aura with the commonrail diesel that the Vectra gets in europe I will wait for that.

TheLongshot · Jun 18, 2008

tdibigd said:
I'm not sure where the Saturn reference came in...but it's probable that most people here would take a significant mpg hit over having a Saturn visible in their driveway.

And what's wrong with owning a Saturn? That was my previous car before I bought my TDI. While it might not be the most exciting ride in the world, it was pretty darn reliable for the 7 years I owned it, and it only went away because I totaled it.

Jason

frugality · Jun 18, 2008

RabbitGTI said:
Of course I'd rather have a Saturn, I really liked the interior quality of the Yugo and it's nice Saturn built a modern version.

Saturn hasn't really been known for their interior trim, seats, etc. The Aura is much better than the older Saturns, though.

tdibigd · Jun 18, 2008

TheLongshot said:
And what's wrong with owning a Saturn? That was my previous car before I bought my TDI. While it might not be the most exciting ride in the world, it was pretty darn reliable for the 7 years I owned it, and it only went away because I totaled it.

Jason

Nothing's wrong with it in my book. As I said, most people here probably wouldn't own one.

milehighassassin · Jun 18, 2008

I would own a Saturn, it is a GREAT used car if you are looking for a reliable inexpensive vehicle.

Sure there are not many bells and whistles but KISS comes to mind.

Golf VI to get smaller TDI (1.6 90/105 hp)

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Pre-Forum Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Member

Well-known member

Moderator at Large

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg