Chevy Cobalt vs TDI Golf or Jetta?

[Ski in NC]

Short trips are probably harder on gassers than diesels. The diesel puts way less condensation in the oil and the muffler than the gasser does.

Short trips are not optimum for either.

But the reality is that when I need to make a short trip, I'm not going to make a long one just for the car.

I run my tdi on scads of 3 mile trips. Oil stays clean and muffler is not rotted. Gassers EAT mufflers with nothing but short trips. And the underside of their oil fill caps are coated with yogurt.

The only downside is heat is just barely going in three miles on the tdi. Gassers make heat much sooner.

 

[SootFoot]

My wife's driving style is very short trip pattern. Its because her current place of employment is so close to home. About 5 miles. She literally takes the long way, though, to run the car a little bit longer. But once or a few times a week for her errand and shopping runs, she's driving it all over the place so it probably evens out. 12,000 miles/yr on avg roughly.

 

[ChippedNotBroken]

The only downside is heat is just barely going in three miles on the tdi. Gassers make heat much sooner.

Not a big deal in NC, you wouldn't want to live with that in Buffalo. Brrrrrr, free cryo in january.

 

[oilhammer]

Couple observations:

The "Mexican" Volkswagen vs. "American" Cobalt argument is flimsy at best, as the Cobalt is based on a global GM Delta platform which is largely German anyways (Opel). And the ECOtec engine it uses was largely developed by Saab (Swedish) and Opel, with some help from Lotus (UK).

The manual transmission is from Getrag, the same German company that supplies most BMW manuals and even some for some older Kia Sportages.

And throughout the car, like most modern GM cars, is Mexican, German, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, and even some Korean bits so it final assembly makes it no more or less American than a Mexican Volkswagen is Mexican.

The Cobalt is due to be replaced by an even more homogenized global platform, and the model sold here will be called the Cruze.

That said, I think the Cobalt represents a decent value for the money, however until the crooks at GM pay back all the taxpayer money that they stole from us, they won't ever get one single penny of my business ever no matter how much improved they become.

 

[TornadoRed]

The Cobalt is around $7-8 K cheaper than the Mexican made Jetta. What would be the benefit of purchasing a Jetta TDI over a Cobalt? I plan on driving both of them into the ground.

Purchase price is not included in a calculation of the operating cost of any vehicle -- depreciation is. If the Cobalt depreciates $9000 in five years and 100k miles, but the Golf TDI only depreciates $6000, then it does not matter how much each one costs initially.

And it does not matter if you plan to drive either one "into the ground" -- the decision to pay for an expensive repair may depend on whether the Cobalt or Golf is worth more than it costs to fix. The Cobalt will reach that point much sooner.

 

[jerryofva]

Purchase price is not included in a calculation of the operating cost of any vehicle -- depreciation is. If the Cobalt depreciates $9000 in five years and 100k miles, but the Golf TDI only depreciates $6000, then it does not matter how much each one costs initially.
And it does not matter if you plan to drive either one "into the ground" -- the decision to pay for an expensive repair may depend on whether the Cobalt or Golf is worth more than it costs to fix. The Cobalt will reach that point much sooner.

Not true on depreciation. If you drive your car into the ground it is the opportunity cost of the repairs that determines your choice to repair or scrap not the residual value. By the time your car gets into the mid 150ks the difference in residual value is small relative to the purchase price of a new vehicle and it will generally still be cheaper to repair then to buy a new a car.

 

[TornadoRed]

Not true on depreciation. If you drive your car into the ground it is the opportunity cost of the repairs that determines your choice to repair or scrap not the residual value. By the time your car gets into the mid 150ks the difference in residual value is small relative to the purchase price of a new vehicle and it will generally still be cheaper to repair then to buy a new a car.

Would you pay $3000 to install a new transmission in a $1500 car? Even if it is cheaper than a new car?

 

[g-man]

Cobalt or TDI

I just recently bought a Jetta TDI - Absolutely LOVE IT !!!

If you're considering a Cobalt over a TDI, please DON'T. Way Too many reasons to mention here...don't get me started!
(Believe me, I could make a very detailed list describing why NOT to go with a Cobalt) Go with the VW.

If for whatever reason you're still leaning towards a Cobalt, then PLEASE get a Corolla or Civic instead, but just stay away from the Cobalt or you'll regret it.

my 2 cents.

 

[jerryofva]

Would you pay $3000 to install a new transmission in a $1500 car? Even if it is cheaper than a new car?

I would if the next best alternative to buying the same number of expected miles is more then $3000. Would you pay $4000 (net) for the additional miles just because the residual value is $1500?

 

[oilhammer]

Would you pay $3000 to install a new transmission in a $1500 car? Even if it is cheaper than a new car?

Yep. If the car was in otherwise good working order and that $3000 was going to keep it roadworthy again for the foreseeable future.

See, "value" of a car is simply ethereal. It only matters if you sell it. Just like when people say they "lost" money in the stock market. You only actually LOSE money if you sold your stock for less than you paid. If you simply keep that stock, in the hopes that the market returns, then you have not "lost" anything.

I do not think any well-cared for Volkswagen in decent operating condition will ever lose enough value to make it not worth fixing unless the car's body has become so bad from rust or damage (accident, etc.) that it simply canNOT be set right.

But what happens is people's cars (no pun intended ) become a self-fulfiling prophecy: they take really good care of them when they are new, every last little anything that could possibly be a problem when it is on someone else's dime or at least the owner thinks it is gets attention (warranty work), and it gets pretty babied and pampered. Then, after it is paid off, the warranty runs out, it has a preconceived notion of obsolesence tagged upon it my someone THEN it starts to get neglected.

Well, pretty soon the car IS a worthless pile of crap, and all the neglect piles up, and then suddenly you have a car that needs $10k worth of work and that looming "value" word rears its ugly head. This is where people like me come in. I save cars like this all the time, I buy them for next to nothing...sometimes they are had for nothing at all...and I go through and fix them up and often use them for a little while or sell them and make a few hundred bucks.

But these are almost always cars that are in awful shape to begin with. If they were in otherwise perfect shape, the owners would generally not be faced with the question of sinking a bunch of money into something not worth that much.

I paid $11,860 for my Jetta brand new. I will see it to a half million miles easily and never spend that much again on it. Even if tomorrow the engine 'splodes and I have to rebuild/replace it, it can still be done for a fraction of what a replacement car would cost, and since I have cared so well for my car over the 18 years it has been in service I feel it is certainly worth fixing whatever comes up to keep it happily moving down the road.

 

[Diesel_Mikey]

I had been holding out for the return of the Golf TDI, but I had to shop sooner than intended due to circumstances beyond my control, so I went with the Jetta. I haven't regretted it yet...the utility of the Golf's hatch would have been nice, but I've managed all right without it.

In your case, where the alternative is the Cobalt, which isn't available with a hatch anyway, it's hard to see what the drawback of a Jetta would be vs. a Golf. Which is not to say either TDI is necessarily the right car for you, but it does sort of take the body style issue out of the equation, no?

I won't go into the country of origin issue because I'm running late for work (oops), but the bottom line is you should try out both cars and make sure you're choosing what's right for your needs.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

I see what oilhammer describes all the time. Customers who have either just purchased a car that's been neglected, or who've either through ignorance or lack of cash let their own car go without maintenance. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the cars don't perform well, become unreliable, and then the owner gets unhappy with the car and trades it in. I regularly talk to customers who have had non-working turbos for months or years. Or suspension with 200K on it.

As IBW ages I think about how to make sure I don't have a break down somewhere far from home, and look at repairs and replacements as preventive as well as fixing what's broken. If you persist at this it's gratifying what a pleasure an older car can be to drive. And it is less expensive. Low insurance, low personal property tax (we are in MA) and no payments. I like that last part especially.

 

[McBrew]

I considered the Cobalt (not too seriously, though) when I sold my Golf TDI. The biggest fault I could see right away was that only the SS model was available with stability control and the base model doesn't even come with ABS! That's pretty sad, considering all cars will have to have stability control by 2012.

 

[jasonTDI]

200k, 7 sets of ball joints, 5 sets of tierods.....

7 additional cases of make-up oil!

 

[ruking]

7 additional cases of make-up oil!

I know you are half way kidding on this one. I am still amazed @ 125,000 miles the 03 TDI uses app .5 qt of make up oil in a 25,000 miles OCI ( Delvac One 5w40 CI-4 specifications, aka Mobil One TDT 5w40) .

(Side by side) On a 04 Civic with 93,000 miles, it uses app .5 to .75 qt in a 20,000 miles OCI. We do push the TDI's harder than the Civic.

 

[Concat]

Next step is to go to a Cobalt forum and ask them But in all seriousness, and as biased as this place is, the Cobalt is just not a good car.

And it may be made in Mexico, but that doesn't mean it isn't up to VW's standards. It's still German engineered and they still have to be within all specified tolerances. It's not like they are making the cars in straw huts on a marijuana plantation. I think I read somewhere that the VWs TDi's take twice as long to put together as a Focus or similar sedan... google that and see what you come up with.

 

[NB_TDi]

I usually make fun of a friend of mine who drives a 07 Cobalt. Every oil change he is replacing bushings.

Oh well.

 

[TornadoRed]

See, "value" of a car is simply ethereal. It only matters if you sell it. Just like when people say they "lost" money in the stock market. You only actually LOSE money if you sold your stock for less than you paid. If you simply keep that stock, in the hopes that the market returns, then you have not "lost" anything.

I must respectfully disagree. Whether you are in the stock market or not, each day your net worth fluctuates as your current assets rise or fall in value, and the present value of your future earnings rise or fall. Paper losses are the same as realized losses. If you are still holding on to the Citicorp shares or AIG shares or General Motors share that you bought five years ago, you have lost money -- just see what happens if you try to borrow money against those shares.

Then, after it is paid off, the warranty runs out, it has a preconceived notion of obsolesence tagged upon it my someone THEN it starts to get neglected.

Well, pretty soon the car IS a worthless pile of crap, and all the neglect piles up, and then suddenly you have a car that needs $10k worth of work and that looming "value" word rears its ugly head. This is where people like me come in. I save cars like this all the time, I buy them for next to nothing...

That "worthless pile of crap" was worthless before the previous owner put it up for sale. It did not suddenly drop thousands in value because it was offered for sale, it gradually lost value over a period of years.

You probably have some notion of what a car would be worth after you fixed what needed to be fixed. And what it would cost to repair. So you would not bother buying and fixing a car unless the value afterward is greater than the cost to buy and fix.

A car like the Cobalt will reach the point of "not worth fixing" much earlier than any TDI, and probably much earlier than gas-engine VWs too. That fact is reflected in the rate of depreciation and in the resale value, and must be taken into consideration even by those who plan to drive a car "into the ground".

 

[oilhammer]

The GM/AIG type stocks are not the norm, though. And you STILL only "lose" when you go to cash in. Even if the value never returns, you technically never lost... and who knows, 20 years from now some worthless GM stock you have now may actually be worth something. But I understand your side, and agree.

I would never borrow money against that. And I pay cash for all my cars.

And yes, the devaluation of a car is certainly a gradual thing, and that is where the self-fulfilling prophecy comes into existance... if you treat it like crap, before too long, it will BE crap.

I own a 1982 Vanagon GL. It sold new for around $12,500. A lot of money in '82. It is in good working order, but what is it really worth now? Maybe $3000 high end? And that is only because there is an enthusiast following for old Buses. But to me, it may as well be priceless because I cannot buy another one, unless I go out and spend a similar amount on one like mine and then not know what I have, or buy one for cheap and recondition it to be like the one I have. The monetary value on it is irrelevent. It is worth to me what it is worth in its usefulness, and nothing more. 7 passenger box that can haul over a ton of cargo, can pull a medium trailer/car dolly, can inhale vast quantities of large lumber and building supplies, camping equipment, wheelchairs, strollers, mulch, dirt, scrap metal, etc. To me it may as well be worth its weight in silver.

The only issue I see with keeping an older car in good working order and worrying about its perceived value is if you were hit by someone else and insurance or something gets involved. And yes, in that respect the Cobalt (or any GM vehicle really) in 15 years is probably only going to be worth $500 in payout on an insurance claim. This is the only worry I have with my older cars, specifically my Volkswagens, when it comes to value. Otherwise, money is just useless bits of paper.

We are fortunate to nowadays have far superior rust protection than what was once available, even the Japanese cars are better. So longevity in all but the worst of the rustbelt areas really boils down to taking proper care of the mechanicals. Most cars' that have not been severely wrecked end of life cycle is NOT because the car could not be made to go any longer, it is because a human made the choice not to bother with it. Heck, I was just at a local salvage yard grabbing a bit for one of my Toyotas, and the truck I was pulling the part off of was clearly in better cosmetic shape than mine, and it had 100k miles less on its odometer. Let's face it, we just live in a wasteful society running rampant with gross consumerism.

It's funny, the question of "is it worth it" would probably have a very different answer if so many Americans (and others) were not so addicted to 'buying' things with someone else's money (credit). This Eaglebishi I just got and fixed was had for the price of the tow bill of $60. The guy did not want to spend the ~$1000 or so it needed to be fixed, but he went out and financed $14k on a new Elantra and now has a payment than in only 4 months will have exceeded the price to fix his old car. So which was the wiser decision? And judging by the way he treated his old car, his new car will be in piss-poor shape before it has even been paid off. I just do not understand that mentality, and I think it is probably to blame for a lot of the folks lately getting into the financial pickle they are in.

So I just spent $60 + $800 + some time to fix this old car up, have already put 2000 miles on it, and will likely drive it through the winter and possibly sell it in the Spring.... and it is 100% paid for, which to me is the most valueable car of all.

 

[BadMonKey]

OilHammer; I think the fact that you are mechanic and have the resources/time muddies the waters. Keeping your vehicles in tip top shape is much easier for you then the average person.

There are other issues on the repairing vs. replacing mentality. Too me some of the modern conveniences and safety options sell me on upgrading. I like stability control, airbags, ABS, climate control, bluetooth, and modern suspension systems. I'm not going to allow my wife and child tolling around town in a 80'ish car for both reliability issues and safety issues. I'm guessing that's the same reason you drive the old car and your wife drives the new one.

The credit issue you speak of is a problem only if the finical institutions are not properly vetting their clients. Paying cash for a car is not always better then financing it. With the dirt cheap rates currently going on with the automakers and an economy on the return you should be able make more than 5-7% with a moderate 3-4 year investment.

 

[oilhammer]

I take care of my customers' cars the same as I take care of mine, so long as the let me. Most do.

And my wife drives all of our cars, even the ones without the electronic granny stuff. We cannot even fit my son's wheelchair in the B5, so "Oh my goodness" I drive my wife and children around in a 27 year old Vanagon that not only has no ABS, SRS, EDL, ESP, etc. but does not even have an air conditioner!!! Imagine the humanity!!! It does have intermittant wipers, a handy feature that was standard on our GL model along with the velour seats.

Proper driving skill and competant road manners go further than all the electronic wizardry, IMHO. But if you want to upgrade to a newer car for those features, that's cool, but that is the reason, not because it makes economic sense to do so.

And for that matter, buying a new car really does not make much economic sense either, no matter what the reason. Largely due to depreciation, but there again if you are not concerned about depreciation then it makes little matter.

I have never been offered "free" financing for any of the 5 Volkswagens I have purchased new. But if I was, then yes keeping that $28k in the bank growing at least some interest would be wiser. But generally the free financing is on less coveted (gas) models. I did get 6 months free financing on my JD lawn tractor 11 years ago, though.

The other thing is the insurance. I carry the absolute cheapest bare minimum required by Missouri law on my licensed vehicles. Never needed it, don't plan on needing it, so why pay more for it? Can't do that if a bank owns your car. We also have personal property tax here, which is quite pricey on newer cars, but after a few years it drops down to almost nothing because the state devalues the car down to the minimum and it stays there. This is why I can afford to have 6 licensed and insured cars... they are all so cheap to own!

 

[thebigarniedog]

Well, I can only add that I have been impressed with how VW has assembled the cars that I have owned (mk3, mk4 & mk5). I am not talking about the idiots who work at the dealerships, I am talking about the assembled final product. It is designed well and holds up well. VW seems to design redundancy into most of their parts that allow them to continue to function despite the fail wreaked upon them.

I do not share the same opinion about GM products. The inlaws have bought various GM vehicles. The problems they have had are legion --- but they know better then me . I will also add that the Chevy Cobalt is crapware. A co-worker bought one about the same time as I bought my 2003 Jetta. His is a rusting two door pile of crap slapped together with the minimum ability to hold it's own fail in place. There is simply no comparison between a cobalt and a vw.

A smart man once said that a rickety arse ride is better then a well dressed walk --- well maybe, but I think I would rather walk then own/drive a cobalt.

 

[thebigarniedog]

.....The other thing is the insurance. I carry the absolute cheapest bare minimum required by Missouri law on my licensed vehicles. Never needed it, don't plan on needing it, so why pay more for it? ......

I'm not up on Missouri law (so I apologize up front), however, minimum insurance is usually a bad idea (in Ohio minimum insurance is $12,500 per person and $25,000 per accident). This Ohio minimum amount will not cover all but the most basic of injuries brought about by the teenage driver. I'm not talking about carrying comprehensive or collision coverage, I am talking about coverage against the unisured driver or the minimally insured driver.

IMHO you should have at least $100,000 per person and $250,000 per accident uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Minimum insurance will cover none of the cost of a serious accident caused by an uninsured or underinsured driver (think teenager or some fool racing a modded 1.8t on the roadway).

 

[oilhammer]

Liability coverage here is $50k minimum, IIRC. I know you can bond out with that amount and not have to carry coverage at all. My wife and I drive well enough and safe enough I feel confident in this decision. But yeah, if I took out a busload of orphans or smashed some guy's brand new 911 to pieces I would certainly be sued for the difference. I could also be sued if I shot a burglar breaking into MY house it seems, as long as there are lawyers there is always a chance of that. Heck, I could be struck by lightning tomorrow while taking a leak in my back yard.

edit:

Missouri requires as a minimum coverage up to $50,000 for all persons injured in an accident, subject to a limit of $25,000 for one individual, and $10,000 coverage for property damage (just found that online).

 

[BadMonKey]

Liability coverage here is $50k minimum, IIRC. I know you can bond out with that amount and not have to carry coverage at all. My wife and I drive well enough and safe enough I feel confident in this decision. But yeah, if I took out a busload of orphans or smashed some guy's brand new 911 to pieces I would certainly be sued for the difference. I could also be sued if I shot a burglar breaking into MY house it seems, as long as there are lawyers there is always a chance of that. Heck, I could be struck by lightning tomorrow while taking a leak in my back yard.

edit:

Missouri requires as a minimum coverage up to $50,000 for all persons injured in an accident, subject to a limit of $25,000 for one individual, and $10,000 coverage for property damage (just found that online).

Cant say i know your local laws either but I'm not concerned with us hitting something but an uninsured boarder jumper does concern me. Here in CO if a uninsured drunk hits you guess what the medical bills are on you! Sure you can sue some dead beat later buy that dead beat likely doesn't have a dime to his name, the likely reason he doesn't have proper insurance. A hospital will burn through $50K faster then our government.

 

[oilhammer]

Yep. It is a chance we all take.

 

[BadMonKey]

IMHO you should have at least $100,000 per person and $250,000 per accident uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Minimum insurance will cover none of the cost of a serious accident caused by an uninsured or underinsured driver (think teenager or some fool racing a modded 1.8t on the roadway).

I agree! It cost me a whopping $12 extra a month to add this to my policy for all vehicles and 2 drivers.

 

[jerryofva]

I must respectfully disagree. Whether you are in the stock market or not, each day your net worth fluctuates as your current assets rise or fall in value, and the present value of your future earnings rise or fall. Paper losses are the same as realized losses. If you are still holding on to the Citicorp shares or AIG shares or General Motors share that you bought five years ago, you have lost money -- just see what happens if you try to borrow money against those shares.
That "worthless pile of crap" was worthless before the previous owner put it up for sale. It did not suddenly drop thousands in value because it was offered for sale, it gradually lost value over a period of years.
You probably have some notion of what a car would be worth after you fixed what needed to be fixed. And what it would cost to repair. So you would not bother buying and fixing a car unless the value afterward is greater than the cost to buy and fix.
A car like the Cobalt will reach the point of "not worth fixing" much earlier than any TDI, and probably much earlier than gas-engine VWs too. That fact is reflected in the rate of depreciation and in the resale value, and must be taken into consideration even by those who plan to drive a car "into the ground".

The depreciated value of car is function of many things like basic supply and demand, reliability and ownership costs. However, the basic depreciation schedule is based on an artificial accounting device. The baseline depreciation schedule is based up IRS rules for depreciating a capital asset held by a business. It is a non-linear function that results in the car having zero value for tax purposes after seven years.

For the first three years supply and demand is the dominant modifier. Domestic makes depreciate faster not because of reliability or ownership costs but because of the high turnover in fleet sales. Rental car companies turn over their inventories several times a year and that depresses used car prices. This measure of depreciation is only meaningful if you trade your car every three years.

After year seven the residual value of the vehicle is dominated by supply and demand, repair costs and expected life remaining. This is the reason that high mileage Toyondas have higher residual value then anybody else. People believe that a Corolla or a Civic will have more life left then a Cobalt or a VW whether that is true or not.

That is why the TDI holds its value. A Diesel with 100k is believed to be a lot newer then gasser of the same mileage.

 

[TDIrumors]

True, but he's in Buffalo NY. You're in VA. Your car will get up to temperature much faster in your winter weather. On a 5-7 mile drive in winter in Buffalo it may not get up to temperature at all. This isn't good for the engine, and you won't see the economy that the diesel can offer when used for longer drives. Of course it may not be great use for a gasoline engine, either.

One difference between auto use in Europe versus here is far fewer people over there commute by car. That means the cars are used on less frequent, longer drives. Of course this is a generalization, but is true in many cases.

Finally, if you only drive a few thousand miles a year (fewer than 10K), then why are you so concerned about fuel economy? Why not get a GTI or a 2.5 liter Golf/Rabbit? Either of those cars will get around 30 MPG (the 2.0 does a bit better) and are easier to obtain.

Germany and Northern Europe get cold also, like you say. 30 MPG is not what I am looking for. I want 40+. Preparing for the next fuel surge. Plus I like diesel as you can store 5 gallon cans without the explosive hazard of gasoline.

I get awesome mileage from my Saturn ION I. It has a 5 speed manual and yes it rattles. Numerous warranty service calls for bushings, wheel bearings, and steering column. Mileage is rated at 35. I get every bit of that and then some. City MPG is not so good. The motor and tranny seem really good. It's the rest of the car that stinks. Plastic crap braking all the time. Saturns are huge here in Buffalo due to road salt use. The plastic body parts and all. Road salt use hear has to be the worst in the country. We have mountains of it shipped in every year. Nothing like getting behind a plow dumping salt and hearing it hit all over your new car. It's a sound you will never forget,,,,the sound of accelerated depreciation!

 

[TornadoRed]

That is why the TDI holds its value. A Diesel with 100k is believed to be a lot newer then gasser of the same mileage.

The rest of your discussion of depreciation is irrelevant, but this part gets to the heart of the matter.