First MKV Jetta sighting

First off, I don't think that the 2.5 actually is half of the
Gallardo's V10, what I've read seemed to indicate it was more closely
related to the old Audi I5 than to the Gallardo's V10. Also, keep in
mind that Audi has been seeling a 5 in Europe for close to a decade, so
I'm guessing (atmitedly) that this is really an evolution of that older
5, not half a Gallardo's V10.

Secondly, while the 2.5's 170 Ft. Lbs. of torque is very pleasing to
see, I'm a little thrown (like some others seem to be) as to why it's
only producing 150 horsepower. 160-170 horsepower seems more inline
with where this engine *should* be considering that it's more expensive
than Nissan's Sentra SE-R VSpec, which makes 175 horsepower and 180 Ft.
Lbs of torque without the aid of FSI or the fifth cylinder.

Lastly, I'm not really sure why this new engine was neccesary. It seems
to me that the 12-valve 174 horsepower VR6 (or simply a de-tuned
version of the 24 valve version) would have been the better choice.
More horsepower and more torque from an existing powerplant that VW was
already tooled up to produce, and that wouldn't have needed much time
or money put into development and road testing.

In any case, I know that the Jetta's performance will be *close* to
that of the Sentra SE-R and probably equal to or better than the
performance of the Sentra 1.8, the Civic EX and the Corolla LE.

"Steven Grauman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> First off, I don't think that the 2.5 actually is half of the Gallardo's
> V10

VW(oA) is claiming it is, at least the head design.

Steven Grauman wrote:

> First off, I don't think that the 2.5 actually is half of the
> Gallardo's V10, what I've read seemed to indicate it was more closely
> related to the old Audi I5 than to the Gallardo's V10. Also, keep in
> mind that Audi has been seeling a 5 in Europe for close to a decade, so
> I'm guessing (atmitedly) that this is really an evolution of that older
> 5, not half a Gallardo's V10.

VW supposedly claims that the Jetta's I5 is indeed derived from the V10
in the Gallardo. Meanwhile, think about this - Audi has an I5. Then
Lambo becomes an Audi company. Then, lo and behold - Lambo's next car
has a V10 in it. Could it be that the V10 is based on the I5, rather
than the other way around?

> Secondly, while the 2.5's 170 Ft. Lbs. of torque is very pleasing to
> see, I'm a little thrown (like some others seem to be) as to why it's
> only producing 150 horsepower. 160-170 horsepower seems more inline
> with where this engine *should* be considering that it's more expensive
> than Nissan's Sentra SE-R VSpec, which makes 175 horsepower and 180 Ft.
> Lbs of torque without the aid of FSI or the fifth cylinder.

Which engine do you think is smoother and quieter? I'll bet the I5 is.
I'd imagine it makes its torque at lower rpm than the Nissan engine,
too. Plus, by starting out with this new engine in a relatively low
state of tune, they have lots of "headroom" to increase power over the
life cycle of the engine. Maybe in three years we'll see the same
engine "magically" making 200 hp.

> Lastly, I'm not really sure why this new engine was neccesary. It seems
> to me that the 12-valve 174 horsepower VR6 (or simply a de-tuned
> version of the 24 valve version) would have been the better choice.
> More horsepower and more torque from an existing powerplant that VW was
> already tooled up to produce, and that wouldn't have needed much time
> or money put into development and road testing.

Maybe they didn't want to have a six-cylinder as the base engine -
would've carried the wrong impression for the Jetta's "tweener" image.

--
Mike Smith

<<VW supposedly claims that the Jetta's I5 is indeed derived from the
V10
in the Gallardo. Meanwhile, think about this - Audi has an I5. Then
Lambo becomes an Audi company. Then, lo and behold - Lambo's next car
has a V10 in it. Could it be that the V10 is based on the I5, rather
than the other way around?>>

Certainly possible. Audi also showed twin-turbocharged, FSI equipped
version of that V10, making 600 horsepower, in their Nuvolari concept
back in 2003. I'm wondering, since they seem to want every one of their
engines to be FSI equipped, if they'll eventually move that version
into the Gallardo.

<<Maybe they didn't want to have a six-cylinder as the base engine -
would've carried the wrong impression for the Jetta's "tweener"
image.>>

I guess, but the VW dealer seemed adament that VW was aiming at having
a lower-priced 3-Series in the new Jetta, a 175-180 V6 to compete with
the 325i would have been perfect. Although I guess the 2.0T, while more
than adequate on it's own merits, isn't nearly powerful enough to go
head to head with the 330.

Steven Grauman wrote:
>
> I guess, but the VW dealer seemed adament that VW was aiming at having
> a lower-priced 3-Series in the new Jetta, a 175-180 V6 to compete with
> the 325i would have been perfect. Although I guess the 2.0T, while more
> than adequate on it's own merits, isn't nearly powerful enough to go
> head to head with the 330.

It's not even powerful enough to compete with the new 325i, which will
have 215 hp. However, a 3.2L VR6 might match well against the 330i.

--
Mike Smith

<<It's not even powerful enough to compete with the new 325i, which
will
have 215 hp. However, a 3.2L VR6 might match well against the 330i.>>

I checked some numbers, and boy, the 2.5 IS slow. The 0-60 time is 9.1
seconds according to Car and Driver. Now, given, that was in a
pre-production car with the Tiptronic, but it is a 6-speed tip. That's
compared to 8.4 second 0-60 times for both the Chevrolet Cobalt LS and
Dodge Neon, which are both cheaper, and a 7.7 second time for the
Corolla XRS, which is also cheaper despite being the top-spec model in
the Corolla lineup. With 197 Horsepower and 207 Ft. Lbs., I'm guessing
the GLI should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.8-6.9 seconds,
considering the 200 horsepower GLX VR6 did it in 7.1-7.2. But it'll be
the same money or more than the Cobalt SS (0-60 in 6.1) the Neon SRT-4
(0-60 in 5.9) which are both quicker and the Sentra SE-R Vspec which is
only marginally slower and fully loaded for under $23k, not to mention
the fact that I'm not sure it'll match my GTi's 6.5 second time
(according to C&D) and my GTI is a 2002!. Interior and ride quality are
important and VW has got all of others beat there, but performance is
at least a little important and the new Jetta fails to make the grade.
I hope VW is saving some power upgrades in their back pocket, because
they'll be needed.

Speed is only one market segment. I think of all the cars my friends
have and not one friend has bought a car for straight line
acceleration in years. Prius, Jetta TDI, Passat Wagon, Altima, Dodge
4x4 PU, Chrysler minivan, Subara Forrester, Saturns, and so on.
Nothing that hints at any sort of drag racing. Even the few friends
that have been known to buy sports cars have not bought a sports car
in over 5 years. It may be another 10 years before that is a potential
vehicle for them. Kids out of the house and all. None of my friends
really value fast acceleration. Comfort, room for the kids, ecology
and economy are more important. The guy that drives the Dodge is not
into ecology stuff but he does run a welding business so a truck that
can get to a job site is important.

"Steven Grauman" > wrote:

><<It's not even powerful enough to compete with the new 325i, which
>will
>have 215 hp. However, a 3.2L VR6 might match well against the 330i.>>
>
>I checked some numbers, and boy, the 2.5 IS slow. The 0-60 time is 9.1
>seconds according to Car and Driver. Now, given, that was in a
>pre-production car with the Tiptronic, but it is a 6-speed tip. That's
>compared to 8.4 second 0-60 times for both the Chevrolet Cobalt LS and
>Dodge Neon, which are both cheaper, and a 7.7 second time for the
>Corolla XRS, which is also cheaper despite being the top-spec model in
>the Corolla lineup. With 197 Horsepower and 207 Ft. Lbs., I'm guessing
>the GLI should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.8-6.9 seconds,
>considering the 200 horsepower GLX VR6 did it in 7.1-7.2. But it'll be
>the same money or more than the Cobalt SS (0-60 in 6.1) the Neon SRT-4
>(0-60 in 5.9) which are both quicker and the Sentra SE-R Vspec which is
>only marginally slower and fully loaded for under $23k, not to mention
>the fact that I'm not sure it'll match my GTi's 6.5 second time
>(according to C&D) and my GTI is a 2002!. Interior and ride quality are
>important and VW has got all of others beat there, but performance is
>at least a little important and the new Jetta fails to make the grade.
>I hope VW is saving some power upgrades in their back pocket, because
>they'll be needed.


Jim B.

VW's aren't really geared up for a good 0-60 time... they seem geared to get
up to higher speeds and maintain them.

Plus VW engines seem notoriously tight... Our 2.0L could barely get up to
80kph on onramps when it had 100kms on the odometer.... a year later with
11K on it, it's quite a bit faster... My friends PD-TDI was sluggish when
new as well.

Plus, is 9 seconds really slow? - I bet you in real world acceleration it
feels faster then all those high revving cars (maybe not the cobalt...
American engines are torquey).... Corolla's are fast on paper, but come on -
no one drives to 6500rpm and shifts up on a regular basis (especially ppl
who drive Corollas).
"Steven Grauman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> <<It's not even powerful enough to compete with the new 325i, which
> will
> have 215 hp. However, a 3.2L VR6 might match well against the 330i.>>
>
> I checked some numbers, and boy, the 2.5 IS slow. The 0-60 time is 9.1
> seconds according to Car and Driver. Now, given, that was in a
> pre-production car with the Tiptronic, but it is a 6-speed tip. That's
> compared to 8.4 second 0-60 times for both the Chevrolet Cobalt LS and
> Dodge Neon, which are both cheaper, and a 7.7 second time for the
> Corolla XRS, which is also cheaper despite being the top-spec model in
> the Corolla lineup. With 197 Horsepower and 207 Ft. Lbs., I'm guessing
> the GLI should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.8-6.9 seconds,
> considering the 200 horsepower GLX VR6 did it in 7.1-7.2. But it'll be
> the same money or more than the Cobalt SS (0-60 in 6.1) the Neon SRT-4
> (0-60 in 5.9) which are both quicker and the Sentra SE-R Vspec which is
> only marginally slower and fully loaded for under $23k, not to mention
> the fact that I'm not sure it'll match my GTi's 6.5 second time
> (according to C&D) and my GTI is a 2002!. Interior and ride quality are
> important and VW has got all of others beat there, but performance is
> at least a little important and the new Jetta fails to make the grade.
> I hope VW is saving some power upgrades in their back pocket, because
> they'll be needed.
>

I understand that speed isn't the major factor for many people when
picking a new car, but it does come into play, at least a little, for
me. When a car is almost a full second slower than the class average, I
start to wonder if that'll be a big deterrant trying to get up crowded
onramps here in Los Angeles where I'll need to be carrying decent speed
in order to merge safely. At the same time, I re-read the C&D article
and it's not clear to me if that 9.1 second time was actually gathered
via C&D testing or if that's the number VW gave them. VW's factory
numbers tend to be slow, for instance: they give my GTI a 7.1 second
time but C&D tested it at 6.5 seconds, this is normal of VW's times. If
VW rates the car at 9.1 seconds, I have no reason to believe it won't
actually be in the mid-8s, putting it back on par with the class
average of about 8.5 seconds.8.5 isn't exactly sports car territory
either, but a $20-25k dollar compact sedan in 2005 should be in that
area, if not slightly better. It still won't be as quick as a 325i, but
BMW gets as much as $34k for 325is, and it better be quicker for a $10k
price premium over the Jetta!

"With a claimed 0-to-60 time of 9.1 seconds for the five-cylinder automatic"

Performance Ratings (mfr's est):
Zero to 60 mph..... 8.8-11.6sec

8.8 for the manual I5, 11.6 probably for the automatic I4 diesel.

So those are VW's numbers... and VW is conservative, I was talking to my
friend, the VW salesman - who has driven the car at their course on it (they
also had a Volvo S40 2.4i, Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, and a couple other
cars there - he said he liked the Jetta better then the base Volvo, I didn't
ask him about the other cars - I was only interested in the Jetta vs the
Volvo - but those other Japanese family sedans aren't really high on the fun
to drive levels) and the car was driven on a proper racetrack, he said the
Jetta was a blast to drive, and he only got to test an automatic.

He said I would be stupid to "waste" $5000 more on the Volvo (I can get it
for probably more like $2000 more then a base Jetta with the PAG discounts I
can get, through Magna International) - saying it seemed not quite as solid,
not quite as roomy, and with only base suspension and tires, not that
sporty... And that the Jetta does as good (possibly better in side impacts)
for crash tests. - That Volvo runs the 0-60 at 8.5 seconds, with a 168Hp
inline 5, with manual tranny.


"Steven Grauman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I understand that speed isn't the major factor for many people when
> picking a new car, but it does come into play, at least a little, for
> me. When a car is almost a full second slower than the class average, I
> start to wonder if that'll be a big deterrant trying to get up crowded
> onramps here in Los Angeles where I'll need to be carrying decent speed
> in order to merge safely. At the same time, I re-read the C&D article
> and it's not clear to me if that 9.1 second time was actually gathered
> via C&D testing or if that's the number VW gave them. VW's factory
> numbers tend to be slow, for instance: they give my GTI a 7.1 second
> time but C&D tested it at 6.5 seconds, this is normal of VW's times. If
> VW rates the car at 9.1 seconds, I have no reason to believe it won't
> actually be in the mid-8s, putting it back on par with the class
> average of about 8.5 seconds.8.5 isn't exactly sports car territory
> either, but a $20-25k dollar compact sedan in 2005 should be in that
> area, if not slightly better. It still won't be as quick as a 325i, but
> BMW gets as much as $34k for 325is, and it better be quicker for a $10k
> price premium over the Jetta!
>