How reliable is a 2011 or 2012 Jetta 2.0 gasser?

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
With used car values being at an all-time high, I have a chance to trade my subcompact 2009 Hyundai Accent for a slightly larger car. I can get a 2011 Jetta S for $17,265 that will get pretty much the same fuel economy as my Accent, have a little more room inside, and have higher crash safety scores.

The 2.0 is the only gasoline engine I am considering given the poor reliability and so-so fuel economy of the 2.5 I-5 engine. I know this engine makes only 115hp, so it leaves the performance of a Jetta somewhat underwhelming, but it's an economy car. I'm used to 110 horsepower from my Accent. This engine is old enough to belong in a museum instead of a new 2011 car, but does it have a good reputation for being robust and reliable?
 

dieseldorf

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 11, 2000
Location
MA
TDI
ex- 1996 wagon, ex-2000 Jetta
This engine is old enough to belong in a museum instead of a new 2011 car, but does it have a good reputation for being robust and reliable?

You've summed it up nicely right there. It's ancient and is completely outgunned by anything else out there. Does it make the engine bad? No, certainly not. That old 2.sL0 has a pretty solid reputation. I had a MkIII Jetta w/5 spd. No issues ever, fuel economy seemed to hover right around 30mpg, city or highway. It's just that the engine has sort of an argricultural feel to it...almost like it should be in a Subaru.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
You've summed it up nicely right there. It's ancient and is completely outgunned by anything else out there. Does it make the engine bad? No, certainly not. That old 2.sL0 has a pretty solid reputation. I had a MkIII Jetta w/5 spd. No issues ever, fuel economy seemed to hover right around 30mpg, city or highway. It's just that the engine has sort of an argricultural feel to it...almost like it should be in a Subaru.
A few reviewers have had slight struggles getting VW to provide S base trim cars to them to review. It's as if VW is embarrassed they had to cost-cut so much that they stuck a boat-anchor 2.slow engine under the hood to get under the $17,000 base price point. SOHC 8v engine? Next I suppose I'll find out the fuel injection is still BATCH FIRED . . .

At any rate, I don't care about the lack of horsepower. Another big question - this engine used to have a timing belt in previous cars, right? The VW specifications page says it now comes with a timing chain.
 

dieseldorf

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 11, 2000
Location
MA
TDI
ex- 1996 wagon, ex-2000 Jetta
Next I suppose I'll find out the fuel injection is still BATCH FIRED . . .

Ohhh, wait. This is the car they've fitted with rear drum brakes, isn't it? For me, that instantly disqualifies the vehicle from consideration. There are just too many other modern choices out there at this price point.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Ohhh, wait. This is the car they've fitted with rear drum brakes, isn't it?
Yes, rear drum brakes. VW states that with 90% of the stopping done by front brakes that no one driving will know the difference. I don't care as my current car has rear drum brakes. Still, I couldn't figure out what VW saves by using drums in the rear. When ordering batches of parts to make something like 250,000 or more cars a year, what is the incremental part cost savings of a single set of rear drum brakes when compared to discs? It has got to be something like a $2 savings per car . . .
 

WVU TDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Location
Beckley, WV
TDI
2013 Passat SE 6m
Chiming in to agree with the fact that drums/discs on the back of a FWD econo car don't make a damn bit of difference.
 

dieseldorf

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 11, 2000
Location
MA
TDI
ex- 1996 wagon, ex-2000 Jetta
Yes, rear drum brakes. VW states that with 90% of the stopping done by front brakes that no one driving will know the difference. I don't care as my current car has rear drum brakes. Still, I couldn't figure out what VW saves by using drums in the rear. When ordering batches of parts to make something like 250,000 or more cars a year, what is the incremental part cost savings of a single set of rear drum brakes when compared to discs? It has got to be something like a $2 savings per car . . .

Yeah, that's my perspective too.

Anyhow, that would instantly disqualify the car. It's so friggin' archaic and I hate working on drum brakes.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Anyhow, that would instantly disqualify the car. It's so friggin' archaic and I hate working on drum brakes.
I will never work on the brakes. There are enough shops near me with rates low enough. If I have problems or parts wear out, brake jobs for drums can be had for under $100 with parts included in that cost or not much more than that.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Aren't you going to look at any other cars?
I have looked a bit, but don't like what I see from other manufacturers in similar models.

I checked out a Mitsubishi Galant because the local dealership is offering 120% of KBB "Good" value for trade-ins, but the base price of Galants has gone up a bit from the psychological $20,000 price point that mid-sized sedans are at. And the Galant has not offered a manual transmission for quite some time.

Mitsubishi faces an uncertain future in the USA. MMNA exists solely to be a tax write-off for Mitsubishi-UFJ (largest bank in Japan). Mitsubishi gets to act as the owner and supplier for MMNA, which enables them to use all kinds of accounting tricks for tax write-offs. As soon as these tax write-offs become marginal or non-existent, MMNA will exit the auto business in the USA.
 

tdi90hp

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2002
Location
Canuckland
TDI
2011 Golf TDI 6 speed(gone but NEVER forgotten)
my accountant has 2 new 2slos....loves em....200 bucks per month lease in canada
 

compu_85

Gadget Guy
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Location
La Conner, WA
TDI
... None :S
A 2.0 Mk6 jetta will be faster than a 2.0 mk4 jetta... the mk6 is lighter. I drove a TDI, and thought it was a nice driving car.

Even the 2.0 is SPFI, and is drive by wire :)

-J
 

EJS

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Location
Northern VA
TDI
2009 Jetta
Anyhow, that would instantly disqualify the car. It's so friggin' archaic and I hate working on drum brakes.
What's the matter, you don't like the "wang...bang..wang...whump.....bang" joy of getting the drum off? :D Made me hate brake work almost as much as exhaust work :D
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
That 2.0L gas engine is a VERY good engine. Sturdy, simple, reliable. Easily the best engine choice in that car bang-for-the-buck.

My 1991 Jetta has drum brakes, too. 430k miles and 20 years later, they still work like new. I do not see what the big deal is. The car stops fine.

Besides, he is coming from a base Accent. Which I feel is an excellent entry-level car, but clearly not endowed with many "features", so even the most basic Jetta sedan will still be much more "loaded" up.
 
Last edited:

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
That 2.0L gas engine is a VERY good engine. Sturdy, simple, reliable. Easily the best engine choice in that car bang-for-the-buck.
I had assumed as much. After almost 20 years I was sure that nearly 100% of any concerns had been ironed out of that engine to the point that it's almost Chrysler Slant-6 reliable.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
I had assumed as much. After almost 20 years I was sure that nearly 100% of any concerns had been ironed out of that engine to the point that it's almost Chrysler Slant-6 reliable.
It actually only dates back to 1998, when the EA113 family of engines first came to be (at least in this country). It shares no parts with the earlier EA827 based SOHC crossflow ABA 2.0L used in the A3 cars.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
It actually only dates back to 1998, when the EA113 family of engines first came to be (at least in this country). It shares no parts with the earlier EA827 based SOHC crossflow ABA 2.0L used in the A3 cars.
Ah, is that why the discrepancy in valve actuation? I think I was reading specs on the EA827 where it said timing belt, because the VW website specs for the 2011 Jetta says timing chain.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Only the 2.5L is cursed with a chain.
Strange that vw.com would say timing chain.

I am going to the dealership today even though they only have slushbox cars on the lot. I will physically check under the hood and in the instruction manual to see what the specifications say there.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
Strange that vw.com would say timing chain.

I am going to the dealership today even though they only have slushbox cars on the lot. I will physically check under the hood and in the instruction manual to see what the specifications say there.
Yeah, the website is wrong, been covered here and on vortex before.

It is essentially the same basic engine as the AVH/AZG/BEV/etc 2.0L but has its own intake manifold. I have driven one with a manual and found it plenty adequate to do its job, not driven one with a slushbox.
 

DasTeknoViking

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Location
Palatine IL
TDI
B4 TDi, A4 R32
Dunno what the fuss is all about the 2.5. We got 3 of em as parts cars with one near 220k miles. As long as you change the oil they don't sludge up and run just great. I like the 5 sound, Group B rally car yO !

I got a family member who's a VW tech and he's at 160k on his 5MT 5door Rabbit with zero issues. It's the TSI motor that's got big issues.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
There are plenty of the 2.5L that are having timing chain issues, though, especially the early ones (they changed the components on the chain drive on the later ones, but we still don't know for sure their longevity).

The belt drives we already know: they (the engines) last forever, just change the belts at the prescribed schedule.
 

DasTeknoViking

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Location
Palatine IL
TDI
B4 TDi, A4 R32
I'm not saying go for the 2.5 because of power, just saying I have seen plenty of them with high miles and no issues.

2.0 was bullet proof, and never thought it was underpowered compared to 1.6/1.5 Civics of the time.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Drove a slushbox 2.0 today.

That transmission is a horrible match for that engine. That car is sluggish and shifts far too much among the gears with the automatic transmission, but I think the manual will be a far better driving experience. I guess that is what you get when you take a meager 115hp and then lose some of that going through an automatic, and it probably didn't help that the AC was on MAX. Torque was a little low - could benefit with some variable valve timing, but VW probably isn't going to add that to such an ancient engine.

The interior seemed fine even with the cost cutting that was done. The seats were a bit narrow with thigh support, but maybe that would break in after spending some time in the seats.

When I drove the car over railroad tracks, it was much more solid than my eggbeater Hyundai.

The storage bin below the climate control did make me think about not buying this car. With my Hyundai, I am never really cramped because my right knee splays outwards in some air space that exists in front of the shifter. There is the 12v sockets there, and an ashtray, and that gives me some room to move my legs around a bit. The Jetta has the storage bin that cuts into that space, and it bulges outwards into both driver and passenger legroom making it somewhat narrow. During the short test-drive I had my leg was up against that storage cubby the entire time, and I am thinking that on long road trips that it will get hot too, making it a bit less comfortable for me as that heat will transfer into my leg and make me sweat a bit as it evaporates off the rest of my body inside the car.

I'm not sure, but I have time to wait and think about it.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
Yeah, the Aisin 6sp autobox does stay pretty busy (at least it should be reliable, if you chose to want one... but clearly the manual is the better choice with this engine anyways).

There won't ever be vario-timing on that engine, as it only has one intake valve per cyclinder, run by one camshaft, the same camshaft that turns the one exhaust valve per cylinder. Simple and efficient, but no gadgetry. They do use the twin-path intake runners though, to improve the bottom end breathing a bit.

I know exactly what you mean about the center console. Unfortunately that is common on most cars nowadays. One reason I miss my '79 Rabbit. Even a fat 6'1" guy like me could fit comfortably in there!
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
The drive-by-wire throttle was a little weird too. I guess I am not used to an accelerator that isn't coupled to a throttle by a cable. It just didn't feel like the car was driving "right" the way the pedal didn't give immediate feedback, and the way the transmission lagged.

Does the automatic transmission have shift logic that adapts to the driver? That might be part of the reason it felt out of sorts when I was driving a car with 17 miles on it.

The way I drive the car might just be more suited to a manual. With my Accent, I know I am limited to the torque that the engine provides. I am used to crawling away from stops around town as I don't usually wring the engine upwards towards the redline unless I am doing freeway driving. All I do is get the car moving in 1st and then lug it a bit in 2nd and 3rd gear. I am used to just putting the accelerator to about 75% and letting the engine slowly build revs as it "climbs out of a hole". This is the first automatic I've driven in about 4 months, so when I hit the pedal in 1st gear the engine spun too high before grabbing 2nd. Then, when I'd drop the pedal as usual, I wasn't used to having a transmission that wouldn't stay in the gear I've chosen - it would downshift a gear or to to get the car moving better. I was just a jerky driver with this car because I wasn't used to it, but I'd definitely get a manual trans model.
 
Last edited:
Top