First MKV Jetta sighting

I saw an MKV Jetta on the road for thew first time two days ago, a 2.5
that appeared to have a nice level of equipment, although I was on the
highway and could not get a very good look. I read several preliminary
magazine reviews that seemed top complain endlessly about how "slow"
the 2.5 model is, but this one seemed to be cruising at 85 without any
hitch and with 170 ft. lbs. and a 6 speed tip, I imagine it's not any
slower than a Nissan Sentra 2.5 automatic or the woefully slow Civic
1.7 and Corolla 1.8. I'm not quite sure why it seems these days that a
car has to have an ultra quick 0-60 time to get a good review.

"Steven Grauman" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> I saw an MKV Jetta on the road for thew first time two days ago, a 2.5
> that appeared to have a nice level of equipment, although I was on the
> highway and could not get a very good look.

I understand that the new Jetta officially went on sale today in the U.S.
(according to Automotive News), so I'm sure we'll be seeing more on the road
here soon.

> magazine reviews that seemed top complain endlessly about how "slow"
> the 2.5 model is, but this one seemed to be cruising at 85 without any
> hitch

Years ago I had a friend with a Chevy Sprint 3-banger that also occasionally
cruised at 85, but overall I wasn't too impressed with the car's
performance.

> I read several preliminary and with 170 ft. lbs. and a 6 speed tip, I
imagine it's not any
> slower than a Nissan Sentra 2.5 automatic or the woefully slow Civic
> 1.7 and Corolla 1.8.>
> I'm not quite sure why it seems these days that a
> car has to have an ultra quick 0-60 time to get a good review.

Because if they don't, people tend to refer to describe their products as
"woefully slow". More importantly, that's how the auto and oil companies
make their money, convincing people to spend large portions of their income
for performance that they don't need and rarely if ever use.

--
Kent
1987 VW GTI 8V, original owner, 222,000+ miles

Well a 2.0L Jetta can do 85MPH quite readily... hell my TDI will cruise at
100MPH all day (if the laws let me...). 9.1 Seconds to 100Kph for the
automatic 2.5L Jetta - it's honestly not that bad, and VW's have never been
great in a straight line, at least the one's I've driven... I bet it feels
faster when you drive it, probably has really strong midrange power.

You also have to remember the mags are testing fresh Jetta's, Volkswagen
engines are really tight when new - Our 2.0L took around 10K Kms to really
feel as lively as it will get, my friends TDI took almost 15-20K Kms to
really feel like it was running as quick as possible.

Tomorrow I have been invited to my dealer for a special preview of the new
Jetta :-) (1 day early, dealer is open on the Sunday just for this event)...
Hopefully there will be test drives availible - I'm looking at maybe getting
this new Jetta around this time next year, so hopefully it's good (or else
I'll probably get a Volvo S40 2.4i, with my discounts on the Ford X-plan (4%
above cost) I can get one for Jetta money)
"Steven Grauman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I saw an MKV Jetta on the road for thew first time two days ago, a 2.5
> that appeared to have a nice level of equipment, although I was on the
> highway and could not get a very good look. I read several preliminary
> magazine reviews that seemed top complain endlessly about how "slow"
> the 2.5 model is, but this one seemed to be cruising at 85 without any
> hitch and with 170 ft. lbs. and a 6 speed tip, I imagine it's not any
> slower than a Nissan Sentra 2.5 automatic or the woefully slow Civic
> 1.7 and Corolla 1.8. I'm not quite sure why it seems these days that a
> car has to have an ultra quick 0-60 time to get a good review.
>

"large portions of their income
for performance that they don't need and rarely if ever use."

It's sentences like this that I think about when I am stuck behind a V6 or
V8 powered car that is accelerating at about 2kph every second, and is
merging at 60kph on a 100kph highway....

If my automatic TDI can make nearly 110-135kph by the end of most highway
onramps, I don't see how anyone can be having trouble with a 0-100kph
time.... I have, on paper, the slowest car that is currently sold with the
exception of the Smart ForTwo.
"Kent" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven Grauman" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> I saw an MKV Jetta on the road for thew first time two days ago, a 2.5
>> that appeared to have a nice level of equipment, although I was on the
>> highway and could not get a very good look.
>
> I understand that the new Jetta officially went on sale today in the U.S.
> (according to Automotive News), so I'm sure we'll be seeing more on the
> road
> here soon.
>
>> magazine reviews that seemed top complain endlessly about how "slow"
>> the 2.5 model is, but this one seemed to be cruising at 85 without any
>> hitch
>
> Years ago I had a friend with a Chevy Sprint 3-banger that also
> occasionally
> cruised at 85, but overall I wasn't too impressed with the car's
> performance.
>
>> I read several preliminary and with 170 ft. lbs. and a 6 speed tip, I
> imagine it's not any
>> slower than a Nissan Sentra 2.5 automatic or the woefully slow Civic
>> 1.7 and Corolla 1.8.>
>> I'm not quite sure why it seems these days that a
>> car has to have an ultra quick 0-60 time to get a good review.
>
> Because if they don't, people tend to refer to describe their products as
> "woefully slow". More importantly, that's how the auto and oil companies
> make their money, convincing people to spend large portions of their
> income
> for performance that they don't need and rarely if ever use.
>
> --
> Kent
> 1987 VW GTI 8V, original owner, 222,000+ miles
>
>

"Rob Guenther" > wrote in message
...
>It's sentences like this that I think about when I am stuck behind a V6 or
>V8 powered car that is accelerating at about 2kph every second, and is
>merging at 60kph on a 100kph highway....

Acceleration is important to a certain extent because of things like
merging, etc. where you do need to be able to get out of a situation where
if you were any slower you'd be in harm's way. However acceleration is one
thing and cruising is another. My 139hp VR6 (yes, detuned from the 172hp
from other VR6 VWs of the time) Eurovan is over two tons and while it'll
never win a stoplight race, it cruises effortlessly and gracefully at
75-80mph up a 6% grade even with four people and a load of luggage for a
weekend aboard and A/C going in desert heat.

IMO if you have a slow car... you can't be afraid to put the pedal right to
the floor... most people don't on big, powerfull cars... I tend to floor my
diesel more then most probably would (cuz I love seeing grey smoke come out
the back, maybe) and have no trouble... I realize that I am accelerating at
about 2/3 of the max rate of most family sedans... but that's basically all
the speed anyone needs.


It is nice to feel fast tho, but it isn't necessary... as I said before,
VWs... and seemily most European cars aren't great at 0-60 times and quarter
mile runs (japanese cars were... maybe still are, geared to hit highway
speed quickly... German cars seem to be built to cruise at high speeds all
day, but take a while to get there).
"Matt B." > wrote in message
news:d89%d.6690$uk7.3010@fed1read01...
> "Rob Guenther" > wrote in message
> ...
>>It's sentences like this that I think about when I am stuck behind a V6 or
>>V8 powered car that is accelerating at about 2kph every second, and is
>>merging at 60kph on a 100kph highway....
>
> Acceleration is important to a certain extent because of things like
> merging, etc. where you do need to be able to get out of a situation where
> if you were any slower you'd be in harm's way. However acceleration is
> one thing and cruising is another. My 139hp VR6 (yes, detuned from the
> 172hp from other VR6 VWs of the time) Eurovan is over two tons and while
> it'll never win a stoplight race, it cruises effortlessly and gracefully
> at 75-80mph up a 6% grade even with four people and a load of luggage for
> a weekend aboard and A/C going in desert heat.
>

The 2.5 runs very well overall, but if one needs more... then the 200hp 2.ol
turbo is just around the corner.

"Steven Grauman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I saw an MKV Jetta on the road for thew first time two days ago, a 2.5
> that appeared to have a nice level of equipment, although I was on the
> highway and could not get a very good look. I read several preliminary
> magazine reviews that seemed top complain endlessly about how "slow"
> the 2.5 model is, but this one seemed to be cruising at 85 without any
> hitch and with 170 ft. lbs. and a 6 speed tip, I imagine it's not any
> slower than a Nissan Sentra 2.5 automatic or the woefully slow Civic
> 1.7 and Corolla 1.8. I'm not quite sure why it seems these days that a
> car has to have an ultra quick 0-60 time to get a good review.
>

Is my intuition completely off, or does 2.5 liters seem like an enormous
displacement for such a low peak HP figure? For instance, the 2.8 liter VR6
displaces only 12% more, yet makes 30% more peak HP.

I'm aware of the flaws in this line of reasoning...but perhaps someone could
explain to me the rationale for using a 5-cylinder motor with such a meager
increase in power over a cheaper 4-cylinder with a similar displacement?

"1.8 Turbo" > wrote in message
...
> Is my intuition completely off, or does 2.5 liters seem like an enormous
> displacement for such a low peak HP figure? For instance, the 2.8 liter
> VR6 displaces only 12% more, yet makes 30% more peak HP.

I've read in several places that the 2.5 is detuned a bit and is capable of
more.

Horsepower isn't everything though. while it's 150@5000 rpm it's also
170ft-lbs. of torque. 24V VR6s are 195 (only 14% more).

> I'm aware of the flaws in this line of reasoning...but perhaps someone
> could explain to me the rationale for using a 5-cylinder motor with such a
> meager increase in power over a cheaper 4-cylinder with a similar
> displacement?

It's not a meager increase. The 2.0 four is 115hp and 122 ft-lbs. The 2.5
is a 40% increase in torque over that engine and 30% more HP but it's only
25% larger. That's a huge improvement.

Horsepower isn't everything. The torque figure suggests this engine should
have pretty good punch.

Imagine how understressed that motor is going to be though! They have a
timing chain installed on it too for longevity... It's 1/2 of a supercar
engine (Gallardo, or Murcheilago - forget which... whichever has the V10 -
the 2.5 is one bank of that engine). The electrics are made by the same
company that does the work for Toyota (there's gotta be some Bosch stuff in
there... maybe my salesman meant radios, switches, modules etc).... That
engine is going to last a LONG time i'm thinking.

My salesman also said it's incredibly tuneable... the engine is stock tune
is really restricted - he said, excpect to see tuners getting 200Hp with
almost no effort, and probably more than 250 with heavier tuning... Bet you
could bolt a turbo on it or something.

Remember there's a 200Hp Turbo FSI engine coming, with apparantly so little
turbo lag, most can't feel it. I've seen/read reviews from Europe on the new
GTI (with this engine) and the reviewers were falling in love with that car.

Like one poster said, look at the torque figure... that's definately
displacement showing itself there... this is going to be a good engine - I
have to book myself in for a test drive of the new Jetta next week, I'm
thinkin' :-).
"1.8 Turbo" > wrote in message
...
> Is my intuition completely off, or does 2.5 liters seem like an enormous
> displacement for such a low peak HP figure? For instance, the 2.8 liter
> VR6 displaces only 12% more, yet makes 30% more peak HP.
>
> I'm aware of the flaws in this line of reasoning...but perhaps someone
> could explain to me the rationale for using a 5-cylinder motor with such a
> meager increase in power over a cheaper 4-cylinder with a similar
> displacement?
>