ssamalin
Veteran Member
Hey VW: don't skimp on the steel. Don't play the less steel to fudge the MPGs game. I bought a VW for the clunk. My salesman swung on the door.
The current Golf and Jetta went through EPA emission certification using the lean-NOx catalyst, air-to-air intercooler, and the 2000-bar piezo-operated injectors. Changing any of this would presumably invalidate the emission certification, which means they'd have to pay the cost of re-certifying, and that is a very significant cost. Furthermore, the Mk6 Golf and Jetta have no place engineered into the vehicle to put the AdBlue tank, pump, wiring harness, and controls, which means there would be a re-tooling cost - plus the lead time for getting the parts designed, validating the new system to make sure it doesn't screw up anything else, plus the lead time (and cost) for building the tooling, and it just goes on and on. No doubt someone has done a cost-benefit analysis of just leaving the current system as is for another year until the new engine comes out, versus whatever re-engineering and re-certification costs they would have to pay, and came up "screw it - not worthwhile".I want a MKVI golf with the passat's engine and emission system in it. Is that too much to ask for?
One of the objectives with the MQB redesign is to get a significant amount of weight out of the car - which is desperately needed. But I'd count on this being done by being smart with where materials are being used, not by transforming the chassis into a tin can.Hey VW: don't skimp on the steel. Don't play the less steel to fudge the MPGs game. I bought a VW for the clunk. My salesman swung on the door.
You're wrong, simply.More weight is safer I think.
That approach is NOT VIABLE. Society as a whole MUST reduce its consumption of natural resources and that means vehicle weight MUST come down. And it will.I'd like to hear not that we are reducing weight to increase MPGs, but that we are maintaining weight while increasing safety.
I don't think the timing is going to be that big of an issue since it appears that the Golf VII should be on market about the same time as the Mazda sky-active D and the Chevy Cruise D. Assuming of course that the mazda and chevy actually make it here and that the Golf VII introduction into North America doesn't get delayed by a year, which has happened in the past.Stated differently, it is my opinion that it is a marketing mistake by VW to do this, in that you suppress people from buying the current mk6 design with the current problems and the current tdi engine and you allow people who decide to waite to consider other car options during this time period (ie Mazda/GM 2014 diesel offerings as an example).
The MQB platform can be equipped up to 20. There are MB models that go up to 28, future models ask for up to 32.Hey guys, what about more air bags? Hip, knee? Even Cruze is keeping up with Mercedes with 11. VW is chintzing on safety. I'd pay more gladly.
I see a mile or two better with my golf than the jsw. Not sure that's significant.Folks here report MT uses less fuel, and that the Golf seems to get significantly better FE than the JSW. So weight matters. Adding airbags or other safety stuff will add weight. But I guess we'll get what we get.
Well, not all are "airbags", but "active devices". Seatbelt pretensioners, steering column collapsing devices, active headrest actuators, pedestrian protection hood actuators etc... all add into that count. Frontal airbags count for 2, as they are dual-stage.So airbag count is expected to increase in the MQB?