dieselsRus
Veteran Member
As soon as you can sign up for one, I'm going to be on the waiting list, I emailed VOA when they would have a new body jetta wagon tdi last year! Finally it's here!
At the bottom of the article there is a link to the 2008 VW Jetta TDI Sedan. In that article they stated:Vectorer said:No word about what trannys will be offerred.
Let's hope that VWoA did not advocate the DSG as being a "suitable substitute" for the manual gearbox that many of us would want to buy. Not all North Americans have to deal with bumper-to-bumper freeway traffic everyday. More than a few of us like to row the stick. The DSG may be able to shift more efficiently than I can, but after driving one, my preference remains the manual...even if the cost difference did not exist. The DSG is $1000US more than the stick.
AND...if a stick is offered, give it a clutch robust enough to handle *all* of what what the engine is capable of producing... DON'T make that mistake, again.
We will see.
V
Volkswagen has announced its plans to return the Jetta TDI to the diesel dogpile in the spring of 2008. Powered by a new 2.0-liter four-cylinder making 140 hp and 236 lb-ft of torque, and either a six-speed manual or DSG automated manual transmission, the 2008 Jetta TDI will be cleared for sale in all fifty states.
I am sure a good number is also interested in the '08 BluMo Passat, although it very likely will hit $30k+ with a very few options easily.dieselsRus said:nobody here is interested in the blue motion diesel passat wagon and sedan coming out spring 08?
What a retarded idea. In the old days, the van was driven by a 1.6l flat-four with 70 odd hp. It was not exactly a sports-car, but it would haul 8 construction workers and a 2ton trailer to the job-site (now, the version with the inline4 1.6l aspirated pre-chamber diesel was a different story, that one barely moved by its own volition and a strong headwind would slow you below the 55mph minimum highway speed).DickSilver said:VW has always seemed to feel that it is best to sell the high-end models of things in the USA. Like the ill-received Eurovan with the thirsty V6 automatic.
It wouldn't fit with the premium luxury image they are trying to sell in the US.I too wonder why they never offered that vehicle with the 2.5 litre TDI and a plain stick shift.
VW just like most of the german manufacturers have lost their collective minds.The re-entry of the Golf-labeled Rabbit shows some recognition that there are lots of potential VW buyer out there who will buy a less-expensive good quality vehicle.
But comparing the space that is lost, notice that it is space that is rarely used. In exchange, the sloped back might improve the aerodynamics.jimnms said:Umm, the writer should have done a little more research, the Jetta Wagon isn't anything new.
The way they've sloped the back, it looks like it will have less cargo room than my '05 Wagon.
Don't do it, man! Don't change a thing.wait4TDIPD said:It looks like I can finally turn my 96 B4 into an experiment and make it a grease car..... 96 B4 PP520 RC euro codes and fogs CCV filter 114k mi....looks boring..but has guts..
Mini vans have be positioned, from the marketing stand point, for the soccer moms. Do you think any of those moms would be able to manage the manual tranny, her cell phone, and a few kids in the back? I guess VW did a little research and probably did not find enought market share to sell a striped down version.DickSilver said:VW has always seemed to feel that it is best to sell the high-end models of things in the USA. Like the ill-received Eurovan with the thirsty V6 automatic. I too wonder why they never offered that vehicle with the 2.5 litre TDI and a plain stick shift. Or the 1.9 TDI Touran.
The re-entry of the Golf-labeled Rabbit shows some recognition that there are lots of potential VW buyer out there who will buy a less-expensive good quality vehicle. Maybe now that 50-state diesels are coming, they will seek a broader market.
For me, retired and no kids at home, I still will only buy something with the carrying capacity of a station wagon. Just for Home Depot items and the like, where I can choose between stuffing thins in the back, carrying them on the roof rack, or hitching up a cargo trailer. I will never have use for just a sedan.
Actually the first thing I noticed was that the space lost is space that I use quite often. Letting the back seats down isn't an option because I usually have one or two people sitting back there when I'm carrying the large item.TornadoRed said:But comparing the space that is lost, notice that it is space that is rarely used. In exchange, the sloped back might improve the aerodynamics.
I drove , still do drive a 1.6 L ( 52hp/71.5 lb-ft @ sea level , 25 to 30 hp/40 to 50 lb-ft @ the wheels @ high altitude ) diesel car all over the southeast & the western US @ speeds up to above 80 mph .What a retarded idea. In the old days, the van was driven by a 1.6l flat-four with 70 odd hp. It was not exactly a sports-car, but it would haul 8 construction workers and a 2ton trailer to the job-site (now, the version with the inline4 1.6l aspirated pre-chamber diesel was a different story, that one barely moved by its own volition and a strong headwind would slow you below the 55mph minimum highway speed).
Certainly sufficient in a compact passenger vehicle like a Golf, in the van the non-turbo 1.6 was painful. The turbocharged version (pre TDI) was not a sportscar either, but you didn't have to dread a molehill.rotarykid said:I drove , still do drive a 1.6 L ( 52hp/71.5 lb-ft @ sea level , 25 to 30 hp/40 to 50 lb-ft @ the wheels @ high altitude ) diesel car all over the southeast & the western US @ speeds up to above 80 mph .
The Passat should follow soon. As I understand it, in the new version they put the extra room in the back seats, not the front. Front seats ok I think to 6 ft. 2 or so. Back is fine (05) but a bit hard for longer folks to swing feet in.jimlockey said:Sounds like the tdi will be the same size as my 05 Passat.
A little more room would please me. Now, which auto trans?
People who don't use that space should own the sedan not the wagon. The rear cargo area of my wagon gets used a lot more than the rear seats <insert your own deprecating sex joke hereTornadoRed said:But comparing the space that is lost, notice that it is space that is rarely used.
Most of the minivans, following Chrysler's lead, are also bloated sedans rather than small vans. I dunno about you, but I see more Sprinters in commercial use than I do minivans from ANY manufacturer. Back in the '60s- early '80s, when the big three plus VW offered small vans with actual cargo and load carrying capacity, I'd imagine that situation was different. The T5, of course, is different... a continuation of VW's earlier philosophy, even if it is inferior to the rear-engine/RWD vans in many ways, but the Sharan is the same damn thing everybody else is selling.euromade said:Mini vans have be positioned, from the marketing stand point, for the soccer moms. Do you think any of those moms would be able to manage the manual tranny, her cell phone, and a few kids in the back? I guess VW did a little research and probably did not find enought market share to sell a striped down version.
Try fitting 3 baby seats and 2 adults in any of the new/old station wagons. Doesn't work!istewart said:Most of the minivans, following Chrysler's lead, are also bloated sedans rather than small vans. I dunno about you, but I see more Sprinters in commercial use than I do minivans from ANY manufacturer. Back in the '60s- early '80s, when the big three plus VW offered small vans with actual cargo and load carrying capacity, I'd imagine that situation was different. The T5, of course, is different... a continuation of VW's earlier philosophy, even if it is inferior to the rear-engine/RWD vans in many ways, but the Sharan is the same damn thing everybody else is selling.
I'm assuming that VW's still going through with the rebranded Chrysler minivan deal, but a wagon like this one is a much more well-thought-out idea for a people/cargo mover than a minivan, and will probably sell more at a lower price to boot.
The big difference in volume behind the rear seats is probably coming mostly from the sloping cealing. In the current wagon one can load mountain bikes upright with the rear seats down, might not work anymore with this new configuration!JustLuckey said:In regard to size for '05 Wagon vs. '08 Sportwagen:
2004 Jetta Wagon from Vehix.com
Cargo Volume to Seat 1: 51.9 cubic feet
Cargo Volume to Seat 2: 34 cubic feet
2008 Jetta SportWagen from the original article for this thread:
"Stretched 14 inches beyond the five-door Golf, the Variant adds nine more cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seat for a total of 24 cubic feet. Fold the rear seats, and there’s a full 54 cubic feet of air just waiting..."
So it looks most cargo area in the '08 (with rear seats down). But not much from rear seat to hatch.