Re: New jetta opinion poll... GLX or Wolfsburg?

[Khan Klatt <khan@mediaaccess.com>]

At 6:40 PM -0700 4/16/01, David Bergesen wrote:
>Okay, it's just about time to turn in the keys to the 96 GLX in 
>favor of a new car. I'd like some driving impressions from those who 
>have experienced the VR6 and the STOCK 1.8T. Please.
>
>If you have anything good, bad, or ugly to share it will help, since 
>I've only experienced the VR6.
>
>I may opt for a late model A4 1.8T over the 2.8 V6, but for some 
>reason I'd rather take the Jetta w/ a VR6 over the 1.8T. I can't 
>really even explain the phenomenon... From the numbers, all the 
>engines out of the box will do 0-60 in ~7.0 - 7.4 sec., so the 
>performance is pretty flat just based on that (I know, really poor 
>indication).

Hey David-

I've driven several cars regularly in the past four years. My 1997 A3 
Jetta GLX 2.8L VR6, a 1995 Audi S6 2.3L Turbo 5cyl, and my new 2001 
Golf (4d) 1.8L Turbo4cyl. I've loved each car, as each is unique in 
its own way.

Based on my driving tastes, I notice that I tend to like handling 
more than power. The smaller the car, the better the handling. 
Obviously the Audi's 4WD gave that car a significantly different 
feel, however, it was also a much heavier (although much more 
powerful) car.

When I moved from the VR6 to the 2.3T in the Audi, there wasn't 
anything I missed. And when I moved from the 2.3T to the 1.8T, I 
didn't really feel like I missed that much-- after all, the two 
engines are somewhat similar in their torque and power bands. The 
lower weight of the Golf makes up for the lower power in the engine.

When I first started driving the Audi, I thought to myself "I won't 
buy another car without AWD"... but after a test drive of the Golf 
1.8T, I thought to myself that I should have said "I won't buy 
another car without Turbo".

What I like the most about smaller turbo charged engines is that they 
get more power for less displacement. This aspect of it really 
fulfills the "efficiency fanatic" in me. With a smaller engine that 
puts out similar performance, you also have a much lighter car. This 
translates into two things. The engine has to spend less of its power 
simply pulling its own weight. Secondly, with less weight over the 
front tires, you don't have any severe nose-in during hard braking.

Since, as I stated earlier, I prefer handling over power, it's no 
surprise, in hindsight that I eventually had Bilstein/Neuspeed 
Struts/Shocks put on my Jetta GLX. It improved the ride 
substantially. As a sport model, the S6 comes with a sport tuned 
suspension as it is, so no complaints there. I'm not much of a 
mechanic, so when I ordered my Golf, I got it with the sport 
suspension package built in, and while it's a little mushier than the 
Bilstein/Nuespeed setup on my Jetta, it's excellent for what you'd 
expect from the factory, and this means that the "daily driver" 
factor of the Golf is also much better.

So, for me, I'm *really* glad I got the Golf 1.8T. It's less 
expensive, about the same performance, and gives you the enthusiasts 
high of having something different. After all, if you get another 
Jetta VR6, you have essentially what you had before, except the new 
Jetta has what most people might agree is a better interior.

Why not get that improved interior with a new engine, a turbocharged 
one, that gives you a different feeling of VW satisfaction? 
Especially if you're not the kind of guy who likes to wind up the 
engine, the Turbo has a better distribution of power near the low end 
RPM's. Which means you can haul some ass without sounding like you're 
pushing your car to the redline... So, if you, like me, like to get 
to the speed limit quickly, you won't miss anything from your VR6 
with the 1.8T. And, oh yeah, the 1.8T is SO MUCH quieter than the 
VR6. I can hear other cars when I'm at a stoplight... I had to do a 
double take to ensure my engine didn't die!!!

Now, I'm not saying get a Golf over a Jetta (although I'd encourage 
you to consider it). Here are the plusses and minuses..

1. The Golf and Jetta are both 4 door cars, which means lower 
insurance premiums compared to the GTI. (you save 55 lbs with an 
equivalent GTI vs. the Golf, but you pay for it in insurance 
premiums-- those boys on the GTI-VR6 list apparently like to drive a 
little more recklessly than the average 4 door VW driver ;)

2. The 1.8T is less expensive than the VR6, and for power/weight 
distribution, is about equivalent. (You can chip the 1.8T and get 
*stunning* performance increases-- the 2002 model year is supposed to 
come with a 180 (they say it's 170, but they don't want to tick off 
Audi) hp engine off the dealer's lot).

3. The Golf tends to, IMO, handle a little better than an equivalent 
Jetta because the tires are literally as close as you can put to the 
edge of the four corners of the car. While it's not substantial, the 
Jetta does have a couple hundred pounds of trunk jutting out behind 
the back wheels that the Golf does not. The GTI is potentially better 
here because it doesn't have two extra doors, and I believe it has 
the same wheelbase, but *maybe* one inch longer... What the two doors 
(and maybe one inch-- there's contradictory info at vw.com) buys you 
is 55 lbs.

4. The interior is 99.9% the same in front of the rear seats. 
(different air vent louvers, and a slightly different door make up 
most of the differences). So, what it comes down to is cargo, how the 
car looks, and maybe lighting, etc. The rear of the Golf is more 
usable for taller and wider (bulky) items. The Jetta can better carry 
longer stuff inside (like, perhaps skis). Drop the back seats in the 
Jetta, and you can carry longer stuff than you can in the Jetta. Drop 
the back in the Golf and you can carry not only wide stuff but also 
tall stuff (you know, like the chair in the Golf commercials a while 
back). The lighting on both the Golf and Jetta are pretty good stock, 
IMO.

Any way you go, you can't go wrong-- those are the kinds of deals you 
tend to like. :) If I were you, I would think "I've had the VR6, time 
for the 1.8T". And if you have a cool dealer like mine, they'll offer 
to chip your car for you, even if it's a lease (like mine is). No 
worries about turning it in, since the dealer is doing the install. A 
small premium to pay dealer prices to avoid a hassle with the 
warranty. :)

Finally, consider a lease. I went to autos.yahoo.com to their lease 
vs. buy calculator, and found that the cost difference was minimal 
between the two options (like $20)... so, I did a 3 year lease, which 
means I only pay maintenance for 1 year after the 24 month warranty 
is up, and I drive under 12,000 miles a year. In the end, it saves me 
money, and instead of putting my equity into something that will lose 
value during the time I own it, I can save over $100/month and put 
the extra cash into savings/pay off debt.

Anyhow, that's my $2.00.

-Khan
-- 

Khan Klatt                                         khan@mediaaccess.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Access Internet Solutions, Inc.		      888.750.0777 tel
http://www.mediaaccess.com			      425.519.3741 fax
-----------------------------------------------------------------------