New VW Passat is bigger and cheaper

[mbpnewbie]

I don't get why Americans like bigger cars. Maybe it's the old mantra of bigger is better? Myself, I have a honda civic Si. It's a fun car to drive; a little lift-off oversteer when you want to fool around, good handling and road holding when you want to go fast. It may only have a measly 160 hp, with 130 Ft/lbs torque, but it'll get me from 0-60 in under 7.5 seconds (almost 2 seconds quicker than a v6 charger) if I do my part massaging the short-shift 5-speed. Super stable even at top speed (140 mph) Best part? I put 10 gallons in when the fuel light comes on, and I'm good to go for another 300 miles. Super easy to park because it's so small... AAAND it's a honda, it'll run forever

Ok, I rambled a little bit... If anything, VW should be sending us more of its european fleet. Give us more R32's and sexy sexy sciroccos. Send us some phaetons if you want a larger car, or better yet, why not get an estate?

 

[DiamondGCoupe]

I am curious as to why diesel never caught on in the US despite most automakers producing diesel models.

Noise.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

It's worth noting that SUV and truck sales are growing again as the economy slowly recovers. All the hype about green vehicles that came out at the height of the recession might evaporate if people have money to burn again. Americans won't stop buying V6 and V8 SUVs until fuel prices permanently cross the $4/gal threshold.

All the talk about diesels and hybrids may yet be premature in the US.

 

[revelated]

Back in the 90s, auto magazines in the US criticized the Jetta for being too small (similar criticisms were leveled at the underrated Mondeo sold here as the Contour). I always like the in-between size of the Jetta, but apparently most Americans prefer larger cars.

I would like to think I'm wrong, but most Americans seem to correlate size and quality, i.e. bigger cars are better. People can't understand why anyone would buy a smaller car when a bigger one could be had at the same price.

I have owned three "small" cars. A 1988 Ford Tempo, a 1990 Geo Storm, and a 1995 Ford Probe. All three were solid cars. However I have not bought a small car in many years for one reason. It's not that "big" cars are better because they're big. It's because generally speaking, the gas mileage on most smaller cars isn't better than those of standard sedans. In some cases it's worse. Case in point: Nissan Versa vs. Nissan Altima 2.5SL. The Altima destroys the Versa in real world mileage. Plus you get the added room and comfort and features. The price is only slightly higher in terms of monthly payments.

 

[JoeG4]

I don't get why Americans like bigger cars.

So we could make you feel better about yourselves driving small cars.

More likely: In Europe and Asia, the cities were built before cars, so they have narrower streets. In the US, some big cities were built before cars, but most were built for wagon/car/whatever traffic and since there was so much empty space, they made more room for it.

I know, there is empty space in other countries. Got that. I also know that some people think we should live like sardines, but not having to worry about your neighbor's rowhouse catching on fire and burning yours down, or their filthy habits getting you sick is nice. It's also nice to not hear your neighbor flushing the toilet and/or what show they're watching on TV.

Yes, I understand if you live in a 350 year old building made out of 24" thick plaster/cement/adobe walls you won't hear your neighbor. OTOH, you probably don't have to worry about the ground shaking under you.. well, you might have to worry about the volcano nearby exploding into your house or something but.. that's different right?

Anyway, long story short, small cars fit small streets better.

In the US, small cars aren't a necessity, and since they're cheaper to make than big cars, they tend to be sold for those who want a new car but can't afford a bigger car. Aside from the 50s/50s/70s, I don't think size was really seen as a luxury thing - right now this country is choke full of people ashamed to be considered American that would love to have a tiny, really expensive European car to show how not stereotypical fat american they are XD

 

[Disc Golfer]

Yo my fu<kin dick is bigger and cheaper, line up you ****in idiots.

 

[MCMarshall]

The back of that car looks like a BMW. I quite like it, still not a fan of the new VW front grills though unfortunately.

One car I'd love to see in the US (as I may well end up living there one day) is the Ford Mondeo sold in the European market. Absolutely love the design of that car for a saloon/sedan.

 

[snberk103]

There is an interesting phenomenon of "steadiness" (my words). As engines get more fuel efficient, people buy bigger/more powerful cars. Today's engines (per some measure I forget that makes sure the measure is for similar power/weight ratios) use something like a 10th of the fuel to produce the same power as engines from the '70s. The unheralded success story is that engine engineers have done the same thing with the internal combustion engine as electrical engineers did with electronics.

Similar thing for the areodynamics.

It's us, the consumer, that buggered up the fuel savings. We wanted 6 cylinders instead of 4, and 8 instead of 6. We wanted torque, power, and speed. We wanted trucks instead of cars. We wanted vans instead of station-wagons. Then we added all the electrical things (which rob an engine of power). Power windows, brakes, steering, computers, GPS units, DVD players, AC, heated seats etc.

So - as engine efficiency improved we added things that needed power, so that our mileage rates stayed "steady". We are getting more - for the same.

Same thing happens for freeways. It has been known for a long time that building more roads doesn't make traffic flow better - it merely allows for more cars. People will live, on average, about 40 minutes from work. If you build a new freeway to cut that commute time to 30 minutes.... they move 10 minutes further out.

I lived in city with no highways... Vancouver, BC (if you don't count the 5km or so of the #1 that cuts through the NE corner). Has been in the top 3 to 5 (usually at #1) ranked most liveable cities in the world for a number of years now.

We now live in the country, and a Passat has no appeal to me. Though we do drive a Smart Car. We love taking it to the US where there are far fewer of them. We get stopped at gas stations by people who are curious about it, and who think it's a toy. I just tell them that my $25 fill up will take me close to 500km (~300miles) - as they are hitting the $100 mark on their top up - that they do every couple of days. Hee Hee. We also get discounted street parking in Victoria, free hotel parking at some locations in Victoria, and preferred parking at some malls and in Sidney.

 

[takao]

Similar thing for the areodynamics.

really ?
looking at _production_ cars:
Toyota Prius from 2009: drag coefficient: 0.25

Tatra 77a from 1935: 0.21
Rumpler Tropfenwagen from 1921: 0.28

the late 30ties were actually the high point in aerodynamics being the focus in automobile manufacturing: there are countless of other examples from the time which simply never made it into production because of the war:
like the BMW K1 prototype which also achieved a value of 0.23 despite being a full 4 door saloon

another interesting car: the Fiat Turbina prototype: which had a coefficient of 0.14 (a record for 30 years) but any further development shelved because of problems with the expieremental fuel gazzling overheating turbine engine

 

[snberk103]

really ?
looking at _production_ cars:
Toyota Prius from 2009: drag coefficient: 0.25

Tatra 77a from 1935: 0.21
Rumpler Tropfenwagen from 1921: 0.28

the late 30ties were actually the high point in aerodynamics being the focus in automobile manufacturing: there are countless of other examples from the time which simply never made it into production because of the war:
like the BMW K1 prototype which also achieved a value of 0.23 despite being a full 4 door saloon

another interesting car: the Fiat Turbina prototype: which had a coefficient of 0.14 (a record for 30 years) but any further development shelved because of problems with the expieremental fuel gazzling overheating turbine engine

Thanks! That was fun following up on some of these early cars. Some of them are just gorgeous. It is amazing and inspiring that engineers working with slide - rulers and wind tunnels (and without fancy computers) could achieve the same kind of drag coefficients on their designs that modern supercomputers can come up with.

However - I still think my point stands ("Steadiness"). While small production cars may have been aerodynamic - the industry average was not. In fact I could argue that as engine efficiencies improved, industry wide, aerodynamics got worse because the overall mileage stayed much the same (or improved slowly).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I have owned three "small" cars. A 1988 Ford Tempo, a 1990 Geo Storm, and a 1995 Ford Probe. All three were solid cars. However I have not bought a small car in many years for one reason. It's not that "big" cars are better because they're big. It's because generally speaking, the gas mileage on most smaller cars isn't better than those of standard sedans. In some cases it's worse. Case in point: Nissan Versa vs. Nissan Altima 2.5SL. The Altima destroys the Versa in real world mileage. Plus you get the added room and comfort and features. The price is only slightly higher in terms of monthly payments.

Part of that is due to engine choices in the US: because many of the engines used by foreign car companies are not federalized, and because US carmakers largley ignore the small car market, we don't get the most efficient engines for small cars.

Case in point: look at small cars sold in both Europe and the US, like the Mini Cooper, Volkswagen Golf, Ford Focus (different version, but same-ish size) or event the Smart. All of these cars come with smaller, more efficient engines in Europe, either as the base engine or as options. The US versions, however, all use larger, less efficient engines and omit the diesel options entirely. Thus, much of potential efficiency of these cars is wasted.

Therefore, it's not that the Altima is much more efficient than the Versa. Rather, the most efficient engine option in the Altima is as efficient as the rather inefficient engine that the Versa is saddled with here in the states. And it's our own fault, because Americans are stereotyped as demanding more powerful engines without regard to fuel economy.

The new Jetta and Passat are no exceptions - they get more engine choices outside the US.

 

[steve2112]

I don't get why Americans like bigger cars. Maybe it's the old mantra of bigger is better?

Have you SEEN most Americans lately? It's not a matter of want, it's a matter of NEED. Gotta have room for those big bodies.

It's combination of factors people have listed. For the most part, we don't have to deal with the narrow streets that much of Europe and Asia have. Also, I think Americans drive more. Now that I think about it, I would like to see a comparison of average miles driven per year in the US vs. Europe. I wonder how many people in Europe, for example, drive 30+ miles one way to work every day. If you drive that much, you want something with more room and better ride. Also, as pointed out, if the next bigger model provides similar mileage and isn't much more expensive, why not get it?

The same is true with more powerful engine options in the same car. In the new Hyundai Sonata, for example, the turbocharged 4 produces 70+ more HP yet is only rated 1 MPG less. For that small a penalty, why not go for more power?

 

[obeygiant]

Sat in the new Passat at the NAIAS this weekend because of this thread. Its a nice car, roomy, comfortable, kind of "mean" looking on the outside. I liked it.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The whole notion that Europeans drive smaller cars because their streets are narrow is partially myth. Don't forget - Europe has modern cities with divided highways too, just like the US does. It is true that many cities and towns in Europe are more compact because of their age (Americans who live in certain parts of Boston or Philadelphia will be familiar with what 17th century streets look like). But the smaller size of cars in Europe is more closely related to the austerity of the post-WWII years setting a standard of smaller cars, fuel prices being higher, and higher taxes for larger cars.

Sat in the new Passat at the NAIAS this weekend because of this thread. Its a nice car, roomy, comfortable, kind of "mean" looking on the outside. I liked it.

I won't be able to look at one in the flesh till they hit dealers. The success of the new Passat will depend on how many new buyers Volkswagen lures, since that was the purpose of the "decontenting".

As an aside, I wish they'd bring the Golf GTD over here. I would be strongly tempted to buy one.

 

[steve2112]

The whole notion that Europeans drive smaller cars because their streets are narrow is partially myth. Don't forget - Europe has modern cities with divided highways too, just like the US does. It is true that many cities and towns in Europe are more compact because of their age (Americans who live in certain parts of Boston or Philadelphia will be familiar with what 17th century streets look like). But the smaller size of cars in Europe is more closely related to the austerity of the post-WWII years setting a satandard of smaller cars, fuel prices being higher, and higher taxes for larger cars.

Truthfully, this is probably the biggest reason. We Americans have been spoiled by decades of cheap gas and cheap cars.

 

[marshallbedsaul]

love it
I really love the passat CC a little more, but vw is taking a honda's road these days. With the new factory in VA and cutting prices like they are now, but still a VW.

 

[revelated]

Part of that is due to engine choices in the US: because many of the engines used by foreign car companies are not federalized, and because US carmakers largley ignore the small car market, we don't get the most efficient engines for small cars.

Case in point: look at small cars sold in both Europe and the US, like the Mini Cooper, Volkswagen Golf, Ford Focus (different version, but same-ish size) or event the Smart. All of these cars come with smaller, more efficient engines in Europe, either as the base engine or as options. The US versions, however, all use larger, less efficient engines and omit the diesel options entirely. Thus, much of potential efficiency of these cars is wasted.

Therefore, it's not that the Altima is much more efficient than the Versa. Rather, the most efficient engine option in the Altima is as efficient as the rather inefficient engine that the Versa is saddled with here in the states. And it's our own fault, because Americans are stereotyped as demanding more powerful engines without regard to fuel economy.

The new Jetta and Passat are no exceptions - they get more engine choices outside the US.

I simply don't agree with this at all. You're basically saying that the Altima's 4 banger is inefficient which couldn't be further from the truth. I can drive to Phoenix, AZ from San Diego, CA - a distance of ~500 miles - on half a tank. I don't call that inefficient at all, especially since I know for a fact that a Prius can't do that. Also the Versa's engine is a 2.0 which should be less powerful but in theory more efficient than the Altima, except for aerodynamics. It's just not. The only advantage the Versa has over the Altima is the interior roof trim - it really does cut wind noise better than the Altima. Beyond that, the Versa is an overpriced piece of crap, quite frankly.

But it's not all small cars in the US that suck. Honda and Acura have been making efficient small cars for years. I don't agree that the small car market is ignored - rather, it's not focused on. Diesel, in my opinion, is a failed market out here. Great concept, but there just isn't enough steam behind it. I applaud Volkswagen for trying. But the reality is that everyone has it wrong. The answer isn't petrol because it's limited, it isn't electric because capacity is at a premium, and it isn't hybrid because the cost is prohibitive. The answer lies in the very thing that surrounds us constantly. I'm afraid I just won't be alive to see people realize it.

 

[iGav]

As an aside, I wish they'd bring the Golf GTD over here. I would be strongly tempted to buy one.

The Golf GTD is brilliant... I think it's a better everyday car than the GTI, I test drove one (no intention of buying, but something to do on a Sunday afternoon) and its in-gear performance is proper... And it's far more sophisticated looking than the GTI too.

That said, it's a shame that VW haven't launched a Polo GTD... yet, IMHO the Polo GTI is the true spiritual successor to the MK I Golf GTI, more compact, lighter with an absolute peach of an engine... a GTD would offer comparable performance, but with extraordinary fuel efficiency. The Polo's better looking too...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The Golf GTD is brilliant... I think it's a better everyday car than the GTI, I test drove one (no intention of buying, but something to do on a Sunday afternoon) and its in-gear performance is proper... And it's far more sophisticated looking than the GTI too.

That said, it's a shame that VW haven't launched a Polo GTD... yet, IMHO the Polo GTI is the true spiritual successor to the MK I Golf GTI, more compact, lighter with an absolute peach of an engine... a GTD would offer comparable performance, but with extraordinary fuel efficiency. The Polo's better looking too...

If the GTD was available in North America, it would be my first choice for a new car. I think the GTD is the kind of car I've been waiting for someone to build for years. Too bad it will never, ever come here.

I agree with you on the Polo. Frankly VW could really hit the ground running in the small car race here in the states if they federalized the Polo. It's fuel economy numbers would compete well with the hybrids, and it's simpler and cheaper. But, as I posted at the beginning of this thread, VW's strategy is focused in a totally different direction. VW seems to be gambling that the small car/hybrid craze in the US is a short-term fad, and that once the economy improves people will go back to wanting big, cheap cars. That's especially depressing considering that VW is the only manufacturer in the US who sells reasonably priced diesel cars, and one of the few (the only?) that has always kept a small hatch in the lineup.

I simply don't agree with this at all. You're basically saying that the Altima's 4 banger is inefficient which couldn't be further from the truth. I can drive to Phoenix, AZ from San Diego, CA - a distance of ~500 miles - on half a tank.

Frankly I'm skeptical. I owned a 1999 Altima GXE with a manual transmition. Great great car for what it was. I'd still be driving it if some drunken moron in a truck hadn't totaled it. Anyways, my Altima was equipped with a different engine (KA24DE 4-cylinder, 2.4L) but was about the same size as your engine. It weighed slightly less, about 250lbs or so. Under normal driving conditions I could manage 30-31mpg combined cycle. On the highway, if I kept the speed down, I could do 35mpg (my best numbers were from a 360 mile trip @60mph - 39.5mpg). I had a 15.9 gallon tank, which meant I could get just about 500 miles on a tank of gas (I was brave once and drove 492 miles on one tank before I chickened out).

I don't know which year Altima you have, but you have a 20 gallon fuel tank and depending on what year, your EPA mileage is between 20-23 city and 27-32 highway. I'll grant you the 32mpg number because my Altima did better than the EPA numbers. 32mpg will get you 320 miles on half a tank. Heck, I'll even give you my best 39.5mpg number - but that still only gets you 395 miles on half a tank. In order to go 500 miles on half a tank of gas, you'd have to be getting 50mpg. And I don't believe that. I don't know of a single gasoline-powered car that can go 1000 miles on one full tank.

The Altima's engine is not particularly inefficient, but the car weighs 3000lbs. A smaller car with a smaller engine has the potential to get better fuel economy.

I don't call that inefficient at all, especially since I know for a fact that a Prius can't do that. Also the Versa's engine is a 2.0 which should be less powerful but in theory more efficient than the Altima, except for aerodynamics. It's just not. The only advantage the Versa has over the Altima is the interior roof trim - it really does cut wind noise better than the Altima. Beyond that, the Versa is an overpriced piece of crap, quite frankly.

I've never driven one, so I can't say one way or the other. It's 400+lbs lighter than the Altima, probably less aerodynamic, and the 1.8L engine has 50ish less horsepower.

But it's not all small cars in the US that suck. Honda and Acura have been making efficient small cars for years. I don't agree that the small car market is ignored - rather, it's not focused on. Diesel, in my opinion, is a failed market out here. Great concept, but there just isn't enough steam behind it. I applaud Volkswagen for trying. But the reality is that everyone has it wrong. The answer isn't petrol because it's limited, it isn't electric because capacity is at a premium, and it isn't hybrid because the cost is prohibitive. The answer lies in the very thing that surrounds us constantly. I'm afraid I just won't be alive to see people realize it.

The thing is, diesel isn't just a great concept - it's every bit as proven as gasoline-engined cars. It's been in use for over 100 years.

Buy the way, the 2007 Civic's real-world mileage is no better than my 1999 Altima's was, so I don't think Honda has a lockdown on fuel economy. I find it odd that you don't seem to think size has any effect on fuel economy. Some small cars are probably less efficient than they could be, but a larger car is always going to be potentially less efficient.

 

[revelated]

Frankly I'm skeptical. I owned a 1999 Altima GXE with a manual transmition. Great great car for what it was. I'd still be driving it if some drunken moron in a truck hadn't totaled it. Anyways, my Altima was equipped with a different engine (KA24DE 4-cylinder, 2.4L) but was about the same size as your engine. It weighed slightly less, about 250lbs or so. Under normal driving conditions I could manage 30-31mpg combined cycle. On the highway, if I kept the speed down, I could do 35mpg (my best numbers were from a 360 mile trip @60mph - 39.5mpg). I had a 15.9 gallon tank, which meant I could get just about 500 miles on a tank of gas (I was brave once and drove 492 miles on one tank before I chickened out).

I don't know which year Altima you have, but you have a 20 gallon fuel tank and depending on what year, your EPA mileage is between 20-23 city and 27-32 highway. I'll grant you the 32mpg number because my Altima did better than the EPA numbers. 32mpg will get you 320 miles on half a tank. Heck, I'll even give you my best 39.5mpg number - but that still only gets you 395 miles on half a tank. In order to go 500 miles on half a tank of gas, you'd have to be getting 50mpg. And I don't believe that. I don't know of a single gasoline-powered car that can go 1000 miles on one full tank.

Here's the deal. You need to understand how gas burning really works. You also are not at liberty to speak on what is or is not possible on that trip without actually having driven it - as I have.

Mountains separate Phoenix and San Diego. Additionally, there is a long stretch where one can set cruise control at 80MPH, barely pushing the RPMs because it's in the highest gear. The mountains result in frequent instances of just coasting down, and with the exception of certain inclines, your acceleration is done by gas spurts rather than constant depressing of the accelerator. Less actual acceleration, less gas burned for the distance. Lower RPMs, less gas needed to propel the car. Use the car's momentum to keep it moving at a high speed without constant acceleration. Once I hit Arizona and the speed cameras and cops kicked in full force, I was limited to 65 MPH. That of course naturally increased my mileage since it took even less to move the car.

What I'm saying to you is that if one knows how to drive a car properly on freeways, you can hit mileage that exceeds what the car would normally be able to accomplish quite easily. It's city driving that drops that number significantly. Too many people are so hell bent on the numbers. The numbers don't mean jack in the real world and I don't know how many times I need to tell people that. The web is replete with stories of non-hybrid Altimas pushing 450+ miles. The key is how you drive, not the capacity of the tank or the rated MPG. It's the people who are lead footed that don't see the full potential of the car.

 

[takao]

if you really like hot hatches: Fiat finally delivers the ultimate hatchback car

Ferrari FF revealed

honestly the thing is looking like one of the weirdest frankstein cars ever made:
the shape of the old BMW M Coupe (which i madly liked)
the front looking botched together from a porsche, peugeot 407 and a nissan GT (which i all liked)
the back like a honda having mated with a BMW Z4
then 4 seats _and_ all wheel drive ?

looks like Ferrari desperatly needed their own Panamera ... now jsut wait untill ferrari releases a SUV

 

[dmr727]

Here's the deal. You need to understand how gas burning really works. You also are not at liberty to speak on what is or is not possible on that trip without actually having driven it - as I have.

He doesn't need to actually drive that trip to be skeptical of your claim of a thousand miles on a tank of gas. Frankly, I'm skeptical of it too.

The web is replete with stories of non-hybrid Altimas pushing 450+ miles.

Okay, but you're claiming double that. Not 10% more or 20% more - double.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

One thing I forgot to point out earlier is that the base price of the new Jetta and Passat is lowered by a huge amount, but (at least in the case of the Jetta) the diesel version @ $22k isn't really any cheaper than in the previous version.

Now, with the Jetta, we know that VW saved a ton of money by fitting the antediluvian 2.0 8v engine. But the base Passat comes with the 5-cylinder. I wonder how much the diesel will cost in the Passat?

if you really like hot hatches: Fiat finally delivers the ultimate hatchback car looks like Ferrari desperatly needed their own Panamera ... now jsut wait untill ferrari releases a SUV

I guess I'll reserve judgment till I read reviews (and see it on Top Gear ), but my first reaction is Ferrari! NOOOOOO! This is just one small step away from the inevitable SUV and Ferrari will be dead to me.

Here's the deal. You need to understand how gas burning really works. You also are not at liberty to speak on what is or is not possible on that trip without actually having driven it - as I have.

Start a thread about hypermiling and we can discuss (but I'm still skeptical, the hybrid Altima can exceed 50mpg).

 

[iGav]

looks like Ferrari desperatly needed their own Panamera ...

Hardly... the 612 remains the better car & Ferrari have been producing 4-seaters for decades.

Regarding the design, personally I rather like the fact that they've gone for a Shooting Brake aesthetic rather than an ungainly 4 door one. Remember, Ferrari's are almost always controversial (entirely unlike Porsche).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Jetta sales were up in November, but it remains to be seen if they can maintain that of it was just the halo effect of releasing a new car. It iwll be interesting to see if the new cheaper-n-bigger Passat has similar success.

Regarding the design, personally I rather like the fact that they've gone for a Shooting Brake aesthetic rather than an ungainly 4 door one. Remember, Ferrari's are almost always controversial (entirely unlike Porsche).

I'll give you that...although the Sultan of Brunei's 456 "Venice" wagons managed to stay beautiful despite having four doors.

The Panamera and Cayenne are intensely ugly.