Show cars having specific features?
05-02-2006, 11:42 AM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:59:14 -0400, Charles Lasitter
<spoof@address.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:53:12 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> There are very good reasons for this. One is that VAG's
>>> quality control is lacking. Honda are one of the few
>>> manufacturers making money on selling cars. The VAG are
>>> not...
>
>Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
>that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
>shorter warranty?
If they had the same warentee, what would you go for?
You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
point.
Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it
THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
repairs 3x longer.
I mentioned previously about my fathers golf, that melted an
alternator - when we found out, it was 2am, we were in the middle of
nowhere, it was the end of november, and the battery was flat. at that
point, I couldn't care less WHO paid for the repairs, I was more
concerned with not freezing, whilst I tried to attract attention, so I
couldget help to get me and my passengers back in time to get to our
jobs.
think about things properly, and not how marketing want you to think.
<spoof@address.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:53:12 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> There are very good reasons for this. One is that VAG's
>>> quality control is lacking. Honda are one of the few
>>> manufacturers making money on selling cars. The VAG are
>>> not...
>
>Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
>that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
>shorter warranty?
If they had the same warentee, what would you go for?
You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
point.
Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it
THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
repairs 3x longer.
I mentioned previously about my fathers golf, that melted an
alternator - when we found out, it was 2am, we were in the middle of
nowhere, it was the end of november, and the battery was flat. at that
point, I couldn't care less WHO paid for the repairs, I was more
concerned with not freezing, whilst I tried to attract attention, so I
couldget help to get me and my passengers back in time to get to our
jobs.
think about things properly, and not how marketing want you to think.
05-03-2006, 12:08 AM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
snip
> You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
> vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
> point.
>
> Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
> unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
> eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it
>
> THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
> still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
> broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
> have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
> repairs 3x longer.
You are 100% correct. Don't look at it like buying the one with the longest
warranty is the best idea. Look at it as if vehicles weren't sold with a
warranty. Then which one would you buy.
my 2 cents
> You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
> vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
> point.
>
> Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
> unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
> eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it
>
> THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
> still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
> broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
> have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
> repairs 3x longer.
You are 100% correct. Don't look at it like buying the one with the longest
warranty is the best idea. Look at it as if vehicles weren't sold with a
warranty. Then which one would you buy.
my 2 cents
05-03-2006, 12:08 AM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
snip
> You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
> vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
> point.
>
> Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
> unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
> eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it
>
> THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
> still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
> broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
> have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
> repairs 3x longer.
You are 100% correct. Don't look at it like buying the one with the longest
warranty is the best idea. Look at it as if vehicles weren't sold with a
warranty. Then which one would you buy.
my 2 cents
> You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
> vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
> point.
>
> Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
> unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
> eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it
>
> THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
> still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
> broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
> have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
> repairs 3x longer.
You are 100% correct. Don't look at it like buying the one with the longest
warranty is the best idea. Look at it as if vehicles weren't sold with a
warranty. Then which one would you buy.
my 2 cents
05-03-2006, 12:08 AM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
snip
> You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
> vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
> point.
>
> Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
> unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
> eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it
>
> THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
> still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
> broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
> have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
> repairs 3x longer.
You are 100% correct. Don't look at it like buying the one with the longest
warranty is the best idea. Look at it as if vehicles weren't sold with a
warranty. Then which one would you buy.
my 2 cents
> You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
> vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
> point.
>
> Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
> unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
> eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it
>
> THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
> still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
> broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
> have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
> repairs 3x longer.
You are 100% correct. Don't look at it like buying the one with the longest
warranty is the best idea. Look at it as if vehicles weren't sold with a
warranty. Then which one would you buy.
my 2 cents
05-03-2006, 10:01 AM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
Charles Lasitter wrote:
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because most buyers do not consider the warranty an issue with Honda
(or Toyota).
>
> >> All for 2006, VW offers:
>
VWs sure look good on paper. That's why kids buy them.
>
> And from Consumer Reports:
The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much fun a car is
to drive is Consumer Reports.
>
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
> >> Emergency Brake Assist, Traction Control. Stability Control
> >> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution, DRL, ABS w/4-wheel disk
> >> Alloys on all but the Passat
Of course the most important safety feature in any car has to do with
the driver.
Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless these
features can be turned off, they do not lend themselves to spirited
driving. How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
DRLs: turn on your headlights.
ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the extra $$ for
an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Alloys: also standard on the EX.
>
> >> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
> >> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything else being
equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a 6-speed with open
differential, any day.
>
> Again from Consumer Reports:
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
Ever notice how Consumer Reports never publishes lap times?
>
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
So last year's BMWs weren't driver oriented because they lack this
year's 6-speed?
>
> > * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
Oh, a truck engine.
Sorry, cheap shot.
Audi/VW philosophy was summed up by an Audi executive years ago who
said something like "people buy horsepower but they drive torque." I
don't disagree but it kinda negates the requirement for a 6-speed other
than for fuel economy.
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
All the safety features you seek will probably make it into the next
Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now but VW has to add
stuff to make their unreliable, expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73243433541060
No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very different than the
Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not include a LSD.]
Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to entertain
rather than buying a grocery getter that has been modified to provide
more fun than its boring brother-in-arms?
Yeah, I know. They don't sell those fun cars for $20K. Well, guess
what? Time to forget the past and pay up! Trade in that Accord for a
2007 G35 next spring. OK, just kidding. I'd never suggest anything but
a Honda here in ramh.
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because most buyers do not consider the warranty an issue with Honda
(or Toyota).
>
> >> All for 2006, VW offers:
>
VWs sure look good on paper. That's why kids buy them.
>
> And from Consumer Reports:
The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much fun a car is
to drive is Consumer Reports.
>
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
> >> Emergency Brake Assist, Traction Control. Stability Control
> >> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution, DRL, ABS w/4-wheel disk
> >> Alloys on all but the Passat
Of course the most important safety feature in any car has to do with
the driver.
Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless these
features can be turned off, they do not lend themselves to spirited
driving. How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
DRLs: turn on your headlights.
ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the extra $$ for
an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Alloys: also standard on the EX.
>
> >> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
> >> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything else being
equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a 6-speed with open
differential, any day.
>
> Again from Consumer Reports:
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
Ever notice how Consumer Reports never publishes lap times?
>
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
So last year's BMWs weren't driver oriented because they lack this
year's 6-speed?
>
> > * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
Oh, a truck engine.
Sorry, cheap shot.
Audi/VW philosophy was summed up by an Audi executive years ago who
said something like "people buy horsepower but they drive torque." I
don't disagree but it kinda negates the requirement for a 6-speed other
than for fuel economy.
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
All the safety features you seek will probably make it into the next
Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now but VW has to add
stuff to make their unreliable, expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73243433541060
No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very different than the
Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not include a LSD.]
Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to entertain
rather than buying a grocery getter that has been modified to provide
more fun than its boring brother-in-arms?
Yeah, I know. They don't sell those fun cars for $20K. Well, guess
what? Time to forget the past and pay up! Trade in that Accord for a
2007 G35 next spring. OK, just kidding. I'd never suggest anything but
a Honda here in ramh.
05-03-2006, 10:01 AM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
Charles Lasitter wrote:
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because most buyers do not consider the warranty an issue with Honda
(or Toyota).
>
> >> All for 2006, VW offers:
>
VWs sure look good on paper. That's why kids buy them.
>
> And from Consumer Reports:
The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much fun a car is
to drive is Consumer Reports.
>
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
> >> Emergency Brake Assist, Traction Control. Stability Control
> >> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution, DRL, ABS w/4-wheel disk
> >> Alloys on all but the Passat
Of course the most important safety feature in any car has to do with
the driver.
Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless these
features can be turned off, they do not lend themselves to spirited
driving. How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
DRLs: turn on your headlights.
ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the extra $$ for
an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Alloys: also standard on the EX.
>
> >> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
> >> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything else being
equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a 6-speed with open
differential, any day.
>
> Again from Consumer Reports:
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
Ever notice how Consumer Reports never publishes lap times?
>
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
So last year's BMWs weren't driver oriented because they lack this
year's 6-speed?
>
> > * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
Oh, a truck engine.
Sorry, cheap shot.
Audi/VW philosophy was summed up by an Audi executive years ago who
said something like "people buy horsepower but they drive torque." I
don't disagree but it kinda negates the requirement for a 6-speed other
than for fuel economy.
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
All the safety features you seek will probably make it into the next
Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now but VW has to add
stuff to make their unreliable, expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73243433541060
No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very different than the
Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not include a LSD.]
Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to entertain
rather than buying a grocery getter that has been modified to provide
more fun than its boring brother-in-arms?
Yeah, I know. They don't sell those fun cars for $20K. Well, guess
what? Time to forget the past and pay up! Trade in that Accord for a
2007 G35 next spring. OK, just kidding. I'd never suggest anything but
a Honda here in ramh.
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because most buyers do not consider the warranty an issue with Honda
(or Toyota).
>
> >> All for 2006, VW offers:
>
VWs sure look good on paper. That's why kids buy them.
>
> And from Consumer Reports:
The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much fun a car is
to drive is Consumer Reports.
>
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
> >> Emergency Brake Assist, Traction Control. Stability Control
> >> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution, DRL, ABS w/4-wheel disk
> >> Alloys on all but the Passat
Of course the most important safety feature in any car has to do with
the driver.
Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless these
features can be turned off, they do not lend themselves to spirited
driving. How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
DRLs: turn on your headlights.
ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the extra $$ for
an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Alloys: also standard on the EX.
>
> >> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
> >> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything else being
equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a 6-speed with open
differential, any day.
>
> Again from Consumer Reports:
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
Ever notice how Consumer Reports never publishes lap times?
>
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
So last year's BMWs weren't driver oriented because they lack this
year's 6-speed?
>
> > * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
Oh, a truck engine.
Sorry, cheap shot.
Audi/VW philosophy was summed up by an Audi executive years ago who
said something like "people buy horsepower but they drive torque." I
don't disagree but it kinda negates the requirement for a 6-speed other
than for fuel economy.
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
All the safety features you seek will probably make it into the next
Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now but VW has to add
stuff to make their unreliable, expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73243433541060
No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very different than the
Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not include a LSD.]
Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to entertain
rather than buying a grocery getter that has been modified to provide
more fun than its boring brother-in-arms?
Yeah, I know. They don't sell those fun cars for $20K. Well, guess
what? Time to forget the past and pay up! Trade in that Accord for a
2007 G35 next spring. OK, just kidding. I'd never suggest anything but
a Honda here in ramh.
05-03-2006, 10:01 AM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
Charles Lasitter wrote:
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because most buyers do not consider the warranty an issue with Honda
(or Toyota).
>
> >> All for 2006, VW offers:
>
VWs sure look good on paper. That's why kids buy them.
>
> And from Consumer Reports:
The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much fun a car is
to drive is Consumer Reports.
>
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
> >> Emergency Brake Assist, Traction Control. Stability Control
> >> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution, DRL, ABS w/4-wheel disk
> >> Alloys on all but the Passat
Of course the most important safety feature in any car has to do with
the driver.
Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless these
features can be turned off, they do not lend themselves to spirited
driving. How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
DRLs: turn on your headlights.
ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the extra $$ for
an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Alloys: also standard on the EX.
>
> >> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
> >> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything else being
equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a 6-speed with open
differential, any day.
>
> Again from Consumer Reports:
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
Ever notice how Consumer Reports never publishes lap times?
>
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
So last year's BMWs weren't driver oriented because they lack this
year's 6-speed?
>
> > * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
Oh, a truck engine.
Sorry, cheap shot.
Audi/VW philosophy was summed up by an Audi executive years ago who
said something like "people buy horsepower but they drive torque." I
don't disagree but it kinda negates the requirement for a 6-speed other
than for fuel economy.
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
All the safety features you seek will probably make it into the next
Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now but VW has to add
stuff to make their unreliable, expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73243433541060
No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very different than the
Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not include a LSD.]
Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to entertain
rather than buying a grocery getter that has been modified to provide
more fun than its boring brother-in-arms?
Yeah, I know. They don't sell those fun cars for $20K. Well, guess
what? Time to forget the past and pay up! Trade in that Accord for a
2007 G35 next spring. OK, just kidding. I'd never suggest anything but
a Honda here in ramh.
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because most buyers do not consider the warranty an issue with Honda
(or Toyota).
>
> >> All for 2006, VW offers:
>
VWs sure look good on paper. That's why kids buy them.
>
> And from Consumer Reports:
The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much fun a car is
to drive is Consumer Reports.
>
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
> >> Emergency Brake Assist, Traction Control. Stability Control
> >> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution, DRL, ABS w/4-wheel disk
> >> Alloys on all but the Passat
Of course the most important safety feature in any car has to do with
the driver.
Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless these
features can be turned off, they do not lend themselves to spirited
driving. How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
DRLs: turn on your headlights.
ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the extra $$ for
an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Alloys: also standard on the EX.
>
> >> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
> >> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything else being
equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a 6-speed with open
differential, any day.
>
> Again from Consumer Reports:
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
Ever notice how Consumer Reports never publishes lap times?
>
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
So last year's BMWs weren't driver oriented because they lack this
year's 6-speed?
>
> > * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
Oh, a truck engine.
Sorry, cheap shot.
Audi/VW philosophy was summed up by an Audi executive years ago who
said something like "people buy horsepower but they drive torque." I
don't disagree but it kinda negates the requirement for a 6-speed other
than for fuel economy.
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
All the safety features you seek will probably make it into the next
Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now but VW has to add
stuff to make their unreliable, expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73243433541060
No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very different than the
Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not include a LSD.]
Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to entertain
rather than buying a grocery getter that has been modified to provide
more fun than its boring brother-in-arms?
Yeah, I know. They don't sell those fun cars for $20K. Well, guess
what? Time to forget the past and pay up! Trade in that Accord for a
2007 G35 next spring. OK, just kidding. I'd never suggest anything but
a Honda here in ramh.
05-03-2006, 02:39 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:9l4d52pe6drgq7168lr7huq92sd90613cj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:53:12 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> There are very good reasons for this. One is that VAG's
>>> quality control is lacking. Honda are one of the few
>>> manufacturers making money on selling cars. The VAG are
>>> not...
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because they don't need to provide a longer warranty?
> And a 12 year warranty against rust thru versus five?
Because there's a higher chance of them rusting... do you think?
[snip cost stuff because VAGs are unreliable and expensive>
> And from Consumer Reports:
>
> "The Volkswagen Passat was our top-rated family sedan from
> 1998 to 2004. Based on the previous-generation Audi A4 and
> A6, it provided an inviting blend of comfort, roominess,
> interior craftsmanship, and handling.
Perhaps in the North American market their handling is consider more in tune
to the market. The Passat is far more A4 than A6 though.
But in the UK they are snatchy understeery things with the finness of a
hippo in a bathing costume. Indeed, VAG have managed to give the A4 and
Passat a firm ride and lacklustre handling. Amazing.
Ford gave the Ka a supple ride and great handling.
> The Passat was a
> family sedan that was fun to drive. But inconsistent
> reliability was its Achilles' heel.
Yes. That's a major down side as I'll go on to discuss.
> So there are reliability issues, but CR is not alone is
> liking the Passat.
>
>> And most of these are frightfully dull to drive.
>
> Compared to what? Not my Accord LX.
Compared to the following:
Ford Mondeo
Vauxhall Vectra
Peugeot 406
Citroen Xantia / C5
Renault Laguna
Toyota Avensis
Honda Accord
BMW 3-series
Volvo S40
In fact, almost everything else in the same class.
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
>>> Emergency Brake Assist Traction Control Stability Control
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution DRL ABS w/4-wheel disk
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Alloys on all but the Passat
>
>> How exactly is having alloy wheels a safety feature? They
>> can be added afterwards if wanted.
>
> Familiar with "moment of inertia" as it applies to
> centrifugal force?
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It's centripetal. And, yes,
very familiar heh.
http://www.dervman.com/kd53.htm
That's probably my biggest Ka Diary entry about unsprung mass.
> By replacing the steel wheels and the
> tires on my LX, I cut 5-6 lbs off my Accord's unsprung
> weight on each corner. The result, among other things, is a
> shorter stopping distance, because it's easier to stop a
> wheel from lower mass from turning.
You have to get the right wheels, though. The majority of aftermarket rims
are materially heavier than their steel counterparts.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the braking difference is minimal when
compared to picking the right quality of tyres. Nowhere do you mention good
quality tyres let alone those useful in both wet and dry conditions, given
the loading.
>>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>
>> Which compared to the VAGs is an inspired drive.
>
> For +$10k, I should hope so.
>> The latest crop of VWs are better than before, but you'd be
>> delusional if you bought a Golf or Passat thinking that it's
>> a European tight handler.
>
> I was comparing the VW models to a Camry and the Accord LX that
> I now drive. Anything further is a straw man. But since you
> brought it up:
Well now hold on. If you are looking at the whole market you need to
consider the whole market. If you're not looking at the whole market you
may miss something.
> Again from Consumer Reports:
Consumer reports. Hardly unbiased, though. Some people would feel pretty
stupid claiming that their expensive car is not good in some respects, so
they inflate the report. Other people like one part of a car so much that
it shines through all other aspects.
There's no substitute for you trying it. What I find insulting handling may
be fine for somebody else...
> "The GTI is comfortable, well finished,
Erk! European Golfs are sure as hell not well finished. They look pretty
and solid and even the plastic is that wretched "we can't stop it rattling
so we'll make it soft" stuff, but it's nowhere near as solid as I'd like.
The mark one and mark two Golfs had it. The mark three, four and five
don't. VW have cheapened the interior.
> powerful, and fun to
> drive. Based on the Jetta and redesigned Golf, this
> hatchback can be an alternative to a sports sedan,
It can be. Not as spacious really. If you need room in the back then it'll
be too small. If you don't need rear seat space it's too big.
> with
> capable handling; a relatively comfortable ride;
Key here is "relatively" of course. On some surfaces it'll feel fine. On
others, it feels typically German hot hatch, i.e. knobbly and rough.
> a
> well-crafted interior; and a surprisingly roomy back seat. A
> four-door version arrives in June 2006.
>
> "THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
>
> "Handling is agile, and body lean is controlled. The steering
> is quick, well-weighted, and has good feedback. Emergency
> handling was stable and forgiving, posting an impressive
> speed through our avoidance maneuver.
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
> with well calibrated stability control. The ride is firm but
> steady and compliant. The GTI is fairly quiet inside. The
> 200-hp, turbocharged four-cylinder engine is smooth and
> powerful and got 25 mpg in mixed driving, but it required
> premium fuel.
It's also wrong wheel drive for that much power. Torque steer?
> "The standard six-speed manual transmission has appropriate
> ratios and we found it easy to shift. Volkswagen's quick
> shifting DSG automatic transmission is optional. Braking
> distances were short, but the pedal sometimes felt touchy."
>
> I don't get "it really sucked" from reading this.
>
> And: It goes 0-60 in six seconds.
*cough* Uh-huh. Six seconds. There are *remarkably* few front wheel drive
machines that can hit 62 in under 6.5 seconds. Those that get close to 6.0
seconds have over 240 bhp. It's more like 7.0 seconds.
Having trialled a whole bunch of powerful front wheel drive stuff, once the
figures start getting below 8 seconds, you need a good, near perfect or
perfect launch so as to get close to the quoted time. Front wheel drive
machines wheelspin relatively easily. Once they spin, they keep spinning.
Traction control systems without a launch control facility typically cannot
cope with this much power and it's worse with a turbocharged engine. You
either get rampant wheelspin and don't move off or you get the power
reduced, lose boost pressure and the engine gets bogged down...
It's an unhappy compromise. It won't take six seconds either.
>>> Getting the 6M and safety features in an Accord means you
>>> have to get a V6 EX and shell out enough to have me looking
>>> at entirely different cars.
>
>> Yes, but you'd be getting a wholly better short and long
>> term ownership proposition.
>
> Can you quantify this for me?
Yes. After the first few months you'll notice the off creak, squeak and
rattle from the interior. You may return it to the dealer. They may be
able to find it. Or they may not. Either way it's a trip to the dealer
that you so don't need.
Then there's component longevity. Oh and breakdowns. Thing with something
like a Golf is that many people love them despite their faults and how they
have a nasty habit of breaking down. One single breakdown is enough to
cause major aggravation.
Lets suppose the coil pack stops working, something that happened to a whole
bunch of VAGs in Europe. The car is off the road because of a relatively
cheap component. In some cases, for two months. Anyway, it stops working
(typically late at night when it's raining, perhaps the coil packs were
linked into the automatic wipers?). You call breakdown. You are recovered.
Car goes to dealership. Courtesy vehicle arrives. You collect your car as
and when it's done. Unless the courtesy car also breaks down on you too.
My folks' Passat was off the road for a weeks because of a broken brake
pedal switch, which stuck on. Off the week for a week because of a cheap
microswitch.
Cheap components break. That's the case on all machines, including Honda
and Toyota, but has happened a lot more frequently to VAGs than they'd have
you believe.
That's the reason to have the longer warranty. You need it.
>>> The only 6M you can get from Toyota is a Corolla TSX, and
>>> safety / performance items like stability / traction control
>>> aren't even available as options.
>
>> Ya like, dude, drop this perception that the more forward
>> gears the better.
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
Right. Got'ya.
>> Nooo! Having lots of forward ratios can mean a few things
>> such as:
>
>> * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
You're taking one example. Don't get me wrong, having bags of torque at low
engine speeds is handy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the power band
is broad. We need torque and revs. The VAG 2.0T engine has much more go at
4,000 rpm despite having less torque... indeed whilst it doesn't feel
gutless at 1,800 rpm, compared to 4,000 rpm, it certainly does.
Actually we need power, but that's something else.
>> * The fuel consumption is artificially flattered by an
>> overly long bunch of top ratios, so you need third for any
>> gradient up or down.
*cough*
>> * They fit the X speed manual 'box to the top of the range
>> model and got a bargain deal on the rest
*cough*
>> * They reckon people want more forward gears.
*cough hack splutter*
> All up, my advice is to get over this "6M" hangup and go
> some leg work. Picking the right machine based on technical
> specifications is all well and good but you're setting
> yourself up for some major disappointment
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
Here's where my knowledge of the North American market is far too limiting.
European wise, I could certainly help...
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
how...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:9l4d52pe6drgq7168lr7huq92sd90613cj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:53:12 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> There are very good reasons for this. One is that VAG's
>>> quality control is lacking. Honda are one of the few
>>> manufacturers making money on selling cars. The VAG are
>>> not...
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because they don't need to provide a longer warranty?
> And a 12 year warranty against rust thru versus five?
Because there's a higher chance of them rusting... do you think?
[snip cost stuff because VAGs are unreliable and expensive>
> And from Consumer Reports:
>
> "The Volkswagen Passat was our top-rated family sedan from
> 1998 to 2004. Based on the previous-generation Audi A4 and
> A6, it provided an inviting blend of comfort, roominess,
> interior craftsmanship, and handling.
Perhaps in the North American market their handling is consider more in tune
to the market. The Passat is far more A4 than A6 though.
But in the UK they are snatchy understeery things with the finness of a
hippo in a bathing costume. Indeed, VAG have managed to give the A4 and
Passat a firm ride and lacklustre handling. Amazing.
Ford gave the Ka a supple ride and great handling.
> The Passat was a
> family sedan that was fun to drive. But inconsistent
> reliability was its Achilles' heel.
Yes. That's a major down side as I'll go on to discuss.
> So there are reliability issues, but CR is not alone is
> liking the Passat.
>
>> And most of these are frightfully dull to drive.
>
> Compared to what? Not my Accord LX.
Compared to the following:
Ford Mondeo
Vauxhall Vectra
Peugeot 406
Citroen Xantia / C5
Renault Laguna
Toyota Avensis
Honda Accord
BMW 3-series
Volvo S40
In fact, almost everything else in the same class.
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
>>> Emergency Brake Assist Traction Control Stability Control
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution DRL ABS w/4-wheel disk
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Alloys on all but the Passat
>
>> How exactly is having alloy wheels a safety feature? They
>> can be added afterwards if wanted.
>
> Familiar with "moment of inertia" as it applies to
> centrifugal force?
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It's centripetal. And, yes,
very familiar heh.
http://www.dervman.com/kd53.htm
That's probably my biggest Ka Diary entry about unsprung mass.
> By replacing the steel wheels and the
> tires on my LX, I cut 5-6 lbs off my Accord's unsprung
> weight on each corner. The result, among other things, is a
> shorter stopping distance, because it's easier to stop a
> wheel from lower mass from turning.
You have to get the right wheels, though. The majority of aftermarket rims
are materially heavier than their steel counterparts.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the braking difference is minimal when
compared to picking the right quality of tyres. Nowhere do you mention good
quality tyres let alone those useful in both wet and dry conditions, given
the loading.
>>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>
>> Which compared to the VAGs is an inspired drive.
>
> For +$10k, I should hope so.
>> The latest crop of VWs are better than before, but you'd be
>> delusional if you bought a Golf or Passat thinking that it's
>> a European tight handler.
>
> I was comparing the VW models to a Camry and the Accord LX that
> I now drive. Anything further is a straw man. But since you
> brought it up:
Well now hold on. If you are looking at the whole market you need to
consider the whole market. If you're not looking at the whole market you
may miss something.
> Again from Consumer Reports:
Consumer reports. Hardly unbiased, though. Some people would feel pretty
stupid claiming that their expensive car is not good in some respects, so
they inflate the report. Other people like one part of a car so much that
it shines through all other aspects.
There's no substitute for you trying it. What I find insulting handling may
be fine for somebody else...
> "The GTI is comfortable, well finished,
Erk! European Golfs are sure as hell not well finished. They look pretty
and solid and even the plastic is that wretched "we can't stop it rattling
so we'll make it soft" stuff, but it's nowhere near as solid as I'd like.
The mark one and mark two Golfs had it. The mark three, four and five
don't. VW have cheapened the interior.
> powerful, and fun to
> drive. Based on the Jetta and redesigned Golf, this
> hatchback can be an alternative to a sports sedan,
It can be. Not as spacious really. If you need room in the back then it'll
be too small. If you don't need rear seat space it's too big.
> with
> capable handling; a relatively comfortable ride;
Key here is "relatively" of course. On some surfaces it'll feel fine. On
others, it feels typically German hot hatch, i.e. knobbly and rough.
> a
> well-crafted interior; and a surprisingly roomy back seat. A
> four-door version arrives in June 2006.
>
> "THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
>
> "Handling is agile, and body lean is controlled. The steering
> is quick, well-weighted, and has good feedback. Emergency
> handling was stable and forgiving, posting an impressive
> speed through our avoidance maneuver.
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
> with well calibrated stability control. The ride is firm but
> steady and compliant. The GTI is fairly quiet inside. The
> 200-hp, turbocharged four-cylinder engine is smooth and
> powerful and got 25 mpg in mixed driving, but it required
> premium fuel.
It's also wrong wheel drive for that much power. Torque steer?
> "The standard six-speed manual transmission has appropriate
> ratios and we found it easy to shift. Volkswagen's quick
> shifting DSG automatic transmission is optional. Braking
> distances were short, but the pedal sometimes felt touchy."
>
> I don't get "it really sucked" from reading this.
>
> And: It goes 0-60 in six seconds.
*cough* Uh-huh. Six seconds. There are *remarkably* few front wheel drive
machines that can hit 62 in under 6.5 seconds. Those that get close to 6.0
seconds have over 240 bhp. It's more like 7.0 seconds.
Having trialled a whole bunch of powerful front wheel drive stuff, once the
figures start getting below 8 seconds, you need a good, near perfect or
perfect launch so as to get close to the quoted time. Front wheel drive
machines wheelspin relatively easily. Once they spin, they keep spinning.
Traction control systems without a launch control facility typically cannot
cope with this much power and it's worse with a turbocharged engine. You
either get rampant wheelspin and don't move off or you get the power
reduced, lose boost pressure and the engine gets bogged down...
It's an unhappy compromise. It won't take six seconds either.
>>> Getting the 6M and safety features in an Accord means you
>>> have to get a V6 EX and shell out enough to have me looking
>>> at entirely different cars.
>
>> Yes, but you'd be getting a wholly better short and long
>> term ownership proposition.
>
> Can you quantify this for me?
Yes. After the first few months you'll notice the off creak, squeak and
rattle from the interior. You may return it to the dealer. They may be
able to find it. Or they may not. Either way it's a trip to the dealer
that you so don't need.
Then there's component longevity. Oh and breakdowns. Thing with something
like a Golf is that many people love them despite their faults and how they
have a nasty habit of breaking down. One single breakdown is enough to
cause major aggravation.
Lets suppose the coil pack stops working, something that happened to a whole
bunch of VAGs in Europe. The car is off the road because of a relatively
cheap component. In some cases, for two months. Anyway, it stops working
(typically late at night when it's raining, perhaps the coil packs were
linked into the automatic wipers?). You call breakdown. You are recovered.
Car goes to dealership. Courtesy vehicle arrives. You collect your car as
and when it's done. Unless the courtesy car also breaks down on you too.
My folks' Passat was off the road for a weeks because of a broken brake
pedal switch, which stuck on. Off the week for a week because of a cheap
microswitch.
Cheap components break. That's the case on all machines, including Honda
and Toyota, but has happened a lot more frequently to VAGs than they'd have
you believe.
That's the reason to have the longer warranty. You need it.
>>> The only 6M you can get from Toyota is a Corolla TSX, and
>>> safety / performance items like stability / traction control
>>> aren't even available as options.
>
>> Ya like, dude, drop this perception that the more forward
>> gears the better.
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
Right. Got'ya.
>> Nooo! Having lots of forward ratios can mean a few things
>> such as:
>
>> * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
You're taking one example. Don't get me wrong, having bags of torque at low
engine speeds is handy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the power band
is broad. We need torque and revs. The VAG 2.0T engine has much more go at
4,000 rpm despite having less torque... indeed whilst it doesn't feel
gutless at 1,800 rpm, compared to 4,000 rpm, it certainly does.
Actually we need power, but that's something else.
>> * The fuel consumption is artificially flattered by an
>> overly long bunch of top ratios, so you need third for any
>> gradient up or down.
*cough*
>> * They fit the X speed manual 'box to the top of the range
>> model and got a bargain deal on the rest
*cough*
>> * They reckon people want more forward gears.
*cough hack splutter*
> All up, my advice is to get over this "6M" hangup and go
> some leg work. Picking the right machine based on technical
> specifications is all well and good but you're setting
> yourself up for some major disappointment
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
Here's where my knowledge of the North American market is far too limiting.
European wise, I could certainly help...
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
how...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
05-03-2006, 02:39 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:9l4d52pe6drgq7168lr7huq92sd90613cj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:53:12 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> There are very good reasons for this. One is that VAG's
>>> quality control is lacking. Honda are one of the few
>>> manufacturers making money on selling cars. The VAG are
>>> not...
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because they don't need to provide a longer warranty?
> And a 12 year warranty against rust thru versus five?
Because there's a higher chance of them rusting... do you think?
[snip cost stuff because VAGs are unreliable and expensive>
> And from Consumer Reports:
>
> "The Volkswagen Passat was our top-rated family sedan from
> 1998 to 2004. Based on the previous-generation Audi A4 and
> A6, it provided an inviting blend of comfort, roominess,
> interior craftsmanship, and handling.
Perhaps in the North American market their handling is consider more in tune
to the market. The Passat is far more A4 than A6 though.
But in the UK they are snatchy understeery things with the finness of a
hippo in a bathing costume. Indeed, VAG have managed to give the A4 and
Passat a firm ride and lacklustre handling. Amazing.
Ford gave the Ka a supple ride and great handling.
> The Passat was a
> family sedan that was fun to drive. But inconsistent
> reliability was its Achilles' heel.
Yes. That's a major down side as I'll go on to discuss.
> So there are reliability issues, but CR is not alone is
> liking the Passat.
>
>> And most of these are frightfully dull to drive.
>
> Compared to what? Not my Accord LX.
Compared to the following:
Ford Mondeo
Vauxhall Vectra
Peugeot 406
Citroen Xantia / C5
Renault Laguna
Toyota Avensis
Honda Accord
BMW 3-series
Volvo S40
In fact, almost everything else in the same class.
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
>>> Emergency Brake Assist Traction Control Stability Control
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution DRL ABS w/4-wheel disk
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Alloys on all but the Passat
>
>> How exactly is having alloy wheels a safety feature? They
>> can be added afterwards if wanted.
>
> Familiar with "moment of inertia" as it applies to
> centrifugal force?
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It's centripetal. And, yes,
very familiar heh.
http://www.dervman.com/kd53.htm
That's probably my biggest Ka Diary entry about unsprung mass.
> By replacing the steel wheels and the
> tires on my LX, I cut 5-6 lbs off my Accord's unsprung
> weight on each corner. The result, among other things, is a
> shorter stopping distance, because it's easier to stop a
> wheel from lower mass from turning.
You have to get the right wheels, though. The majority of aftermarket rims
are materially heavier than their steel counterparts.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the braking difference is minimal when
compared to picking the right quality of tyres. Nowhere do you mention good
quality tyres let alone those useful in both wet and dry conditions, given
the loading.
>>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>
>> Which compared to the VAGs is an inspired drive.
>
> For +$10k, I should hope so.
>> The latest crop of VWs are better than before, but you'd be
>> delusional if you bought a Golf or Passat thinking that it's
>> a European tight handler.
>
> I was comparing the VW models to a Camry and the Accord LX that
> I now drive. Anything further is a straw man. But since you
> brought it up:
Well now hold on. If you are looking at the whole market you need to
consider the whole market. If you're not looking at the whole market you
may miss something.
> Again from Consumer Reports:
Consumer reports. Hardly unbiased, though. Some people would feel pretty
stupid claiming that their expensive car is not good in some respects, so
they inflate the report. Other people like one part of a car so much that
it shines through all other aspects.
There's no substitute for you trying it. What I find insulting handling may
be fine for somebody else...
> "The GTI is comfortable, well finished,
Erk! European Golfs are sure as hell not well finished. They look pretty
and solid and even the plastic is that wretched "we can't stop it rattling
so we'll make it soft" stuff, but it's nowhere near as solid as I'd like.
The mark one and mark two Golfs had it. The mark three, four and five
don't. VW have cheapened the interior.
> powerful, and fun to
> drive. Based on the Jetta and redesigned Golf, this
> hatchback can be an alternative to a sports sedan,
It can be. Not as spacious really. If you need room in the back then it'll
be too small. If you don't need rear seat space it's too big.
> with
> capable handling; a relatively comfortable ride;
Key here is "relatively" of course. On some surfaces it'll feel fine. On
others, it feels typically German hot hatch, i.e. knobbly and rough.
> a
> well-crafted interior; and a surprisingly roomy back seat. A
> four-door version arrives in June 2006.
>
> "THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
>
> "Handling is agile, and body lean is controlled. The steering
> is quick, well-weighted, and has good feedback. Emergency
> handling was stable and forgiving, posting an impressive
> speed through our avoidance maneuver.
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
> with well calibrated stability control. The ride is firm but
> steady and compliant. The GTI is fairly quiet inside. The
> 200-hp, turbocharged four-cylinder engine is smooth and
> powerful and got 25 mpg in mixed driving, but it required
> premium fuel.
It's also wrong wheel drive for that much power. Torque steer?
> "The standard six-speed manual transmission has appropriate
> ratios and we found it easy to shift. Volkswagen's quick
> shifting DSG automatic transmission is optional. Braking
> distances were short, but the pedal sometimes felt touchy."
>
> I don't get "it really sucked" from reading this.
>
> And: It goes 0-60 in six seconds.
*cough* Uh-huh. Six seconds. There are *remarkably* few front wheel drive
machines that can hit 62 in under 6.5 seconds. Those that get close to 6.0
seconds have over 240 bhp. It's more like 7.0 seconds.
Having trialled a whole bunch of powerful front wheel drive stuff, once the
figures start getting below 8 seconds, you need a good, near perfect or
perfect launch so as to get close to the quoted time. Front wheel drive
machines wheelspin relatively easily. Once they spin, they keep spinning.
Traction control systems without a launch control facility typically cannot
cope with this much power and it's worse with a turbocharged engine. You
either get rampant wheelspin and don't move off or you get the power
reduced, lose boost pressure and the engine gets bogged down...
It's an unhappy compromise. It won't take six seconds either.
>>> Getting the 6M and safety features in an Accord means you
>>> have to get a V6 EX and shell out enough to have me looking
>>> at entirely different cars.
>
>> Yes, but you'd be getting a wholly better short and long
>> term ownership proposition.
>
> Can you quantify this for me?
Yes. After the first few months you'll notice the off creak, squeak and
rattle from the interior. You may return it to the dealer. They may be
able to find it. Or they may not. Either way it's a trip to the dealer
that you so don't need.
Then there's component longevity. Oh and breakdowns. Thing with something
like a Golf is that many people love them despite their faults and how they
have a nasty habit of breaking down. One single breakdown is enough to
cause major aggravation.
Lets suppose the coil pack stops working, something that happened to a whole
bunch of VAGs in Europe. The car is off the road because of a relatively
cheap component. In some cases, for two months. Anyway, it stops working
(typically late at night when it's raining, perhaps the coil packs were
linked into the automatic wipers?). You call breakdown. You are recovered.
Car goes to dealership. Courtesy vehicle arrives. You collect your car as
and when it's done. Unless the courtesy car also breaks down on you too.
My folks' Passat was off the road for a weeks because of a broken brake
pedal switch, which stuck on. Off the week for a week because of a cheap
microswitch.
Cheap components break. That's the case on all machines, including Honda
and Toyota, but has happened a lot more frequently to VAGs than they'd have
you believe.
That's the reason to have the longer warranty. You need it.
>>> The only 6M you can get from Toyota is a Corolla TSX, and
>>> safety / performance items like stability / traction control
>>> aren't even available as options.
>
>> Ya like, dude, drop this perception that the more forward
>> gears the better.
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
Right. Got'ya.
>> Nooo! Having lots of forward ratios can mean a few things
>> such as:
>
>> * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
You're taking one example. Don't get me wrong, having bags of torque at low
engine speeds is handy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the power band
is broad. We need torque and revs. The VAG 2.0T engine has much more go at
4,000 rpm despite having less torque... indeed whilst it doesn't feel
gutless at 1,800 rpm, compared to 4,000 rpm, it certainly does.
Actually we need power, but that's something else.
>> * The fuel consumption is artificially flattered by an
>> overly long bunch of top ratios, so you need third for any
>> gradient up or down.
*cough*
>> * They fit the X speed manual 'box to the top of the range
>> model and got a bargain deal on the rest
*cough*
>> * They reckon people want more forward gears.
*cough hack splutter*
> All up, my advice is to get over this "6M" hangup and go
> some leg work. Picking the right machine based on technical
> specifications is all well and good but you're setting
> yourself up for some major disappointment
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
Here's where my knowledge of the North American market is far too limiting.
European wise, I could certainly help...
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
how...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:9l4d52pe6drgq7168lr7huq92sd90613cj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:53:12 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> There are very good reasons for this. One is that VAG's
>>> quality control is lacking. Honda are one of the few
>>> manufacturers making money on selling cars. The VAG are
>>> not...
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because they don't need to provide a longer warranty?
> And a 12 year warranty against rust thru versus five?
Because there's a higher chance of them rusting... do you think?
[snip cost stuff because VAGs are unreliable and expensive>
> And from Consumer Reports:
>
> "The Volkswagen Passat was our top-rated family sedan from
> 1998 to 2004. Based on the previous-generation Audi A4 and
> A6, it provided an inviting blend of comfort, roominess,
> interior craftsmanship, and handling.
Perhaps in the North American market their handling is consider more in tune
to the market. The Passat is far more A4 than A6 though.
But in the UK they are snatchy understeery things with the finness of a
hippo in a bathing costume. Indeed, VAG have managed to give the A4 and
Passat a firm ride and lacklustre handling. Amazing.
Ford gave the Ka a supple ride and great handling.
> The Passat was a
> family sedan that was fun to drive. But inconsistent
> reliability was its Achilles' heel.
Yes. That's a major down side as I'll go on to discuss.
> So there are reliability issues, but CR is not alone is
> liking the Passat.
>
>> And most of these are frightfully dull to drive.
>
> Compared to what? Not my Accord LX.
Compared to the following:
Ford Mondeo
Vauxhall Vectra
Peugeot 406
Citroen Xantia / C5
Renault Laguna
Toyota Avensis
Honda Accord
BMW 3-series
Volvo S40
In fact, almost everything else in the same class.
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
>>> Emergency Brake Assist Traction Control Stability Control
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution DRL ABS w/4-wheel disk
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Alloys on all but the Passat
>
>> How exactly is having alloy wheels a safety feature? They
>> can be added afterwards if wanted.
>
> Familiar with "moment of inertia" as it applies to
> centrifugal force?
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It's centripetal. And, yes,
very familiar heh.
http://www.dervman.com/kd53.htm
That's probably my biggest Ka Diary entry about unsprung mass.
> By replacing the steel wheels and the
> tires on my LX, I cut 5-6 lbs off my Accord's unsprung
> weight on each corner. The result, among other things, is a
> shorter stopping distance, because it's easier to stop a
> wheel from lower mass from turning.
You have to get the right wheels, though. The majority of aftermarket rims
are materially heavier than their steel counterparts.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the braking difference is minimal when
compared to picking the right quality of tyres. Nowhere do you mention good
quality tyres let alone those useful in both wet and dry conditions, given
the loading.
>>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>
>> Which compared to the VAGs is an inspired drive.
>
> For +$10k, I should hope so.
>> The latest crop of VWs are better than before, but you'd be
>> delusional if you bought a Golf or Passat thinking that it's
>> a European tight handler.
>
> I was comparing the VW models to a Camry and the Accord LX that
> I now drive. Anything further is a straw man. But since you
> brought it up:
Well now hold on. If you are looking at the whole market you need to
consider the whole market. If you're not looking at the whole market you
may miss something.
> Again from Consumer Reports:
Consumer reports. Hardly unbiased, though. Some people would feel pretty
stupid claiming that their expensive car is not good in some respects, so
they inflate the report. Other people like one part of a car so much that
it shines through all other aspects.
There's no substitute for you trying it. What I find insulting handling may
be fine for somebody else...
> "The GTI is comfortable, well finished,
Erk! European Golfs are sure as hell not well finished. They look pretty
and solid and even the plastic is that wretched "we can't stop it rattling
so we'll make it soft" stuff, but it's nowhere near as solid as I'd like.
The mark one and mark two Golfs had it. The mark three, four and five
don't. VW have cheapened the interior.
> powerful, and fun to
> drive. Based on the Jetta and redesigned Golf, this
> hatchback can be an alternative to a sports sedan,
It can be. Not as spacious really. If you need room in the back then it'll
be too small. If you don't need rear seat space it's too big.
> with
> capable handling; a relatively comfortable ride;
Key here is "relatively" of course. On some surfaces it'll feel fine. On
others, it feels typically German hot hatch, i.e. knobbly and rough.
> a
> well-crafted interior; and a surprisingly roomy back seat. A
> four-door version arrives in June 2006.
>
> "THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
>
> "Handling is agile, and body lean is controlled. The steering
> is quick, well-weighted, and has good feedback. Emergency
> handling was stable and forgiving, posting an impressive
> speed through our avoidance maneuver.
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
> with well calibrated stability control. The ride is firm but
> steady and compliant. The GTI is fairly quiet inside. The
> 200-hp, turbocharged four-cylinder engine is smooth and
> powerful and got 25 mpg in mixed driving, but it required
> premium fuel.
It's also wrong wheel drive for that much power. Torque steer?
> "The standard six-speed manual transmission has appropriate
> ratios and we found it easy to shift. Volkswagen's quick
> shifting DSG automatic transmission is optional. Braking
> distances were short, but the pedal sometimes felt touchy."
>
> I don't get "it really sucked" from reading this.
>
> And: It goes 0-60 in six seconds.
*cough* Uh-huh. Six seconds. There are *remarkably* few front wheel drive
machines that can hit 62 in under 6.5 seconds. Those that get close to 6.0
seconds have over 240 bhp. It's more like 7.0 seconds.
Having trialled a whole bunch of powerful front wheel drive stuff, once the
figures start getting below 8 seconds, you need a good, near perfect or
perfect launch so as to get close to the quoted time. Front wheel drive
machines wheelspin relatively easily. Once they spin, they keep spinning.
Traction control systems without a launch control facility typically cannot
cope with this much power and it's worse with a turbocharged engine. You
either get rampant wheelspin and don't move off or you get the power
reduced, lose boost pressure and the engine gets bogged down...
It's an unhappy compromise. It won't take six seconds either.
>>> Getting the 6M and safety features in an Accord means you
>>> have to get a V6 EX and shell out enough to have me looking
>>> at entirely different cars.
>
>> Yes, but you'd be getting a wholly better short and long
>> term ownership proposition.
>
> Can you quantify this for me?
Yes. After the first few months you'll notice the off creak, squeak and
rattle from the interior. You may return it to the dealer. They may be
able to find it. Or they may not. Either way it's a trip to the dealer
that you so don't need.
Then there's component longevity. Oh and breakdowns. Thing with something
like a Golf is that many people love them despite their faults and how they
have a nasty habit of breaking down. One single breakdown is enough to
cause major aggravation.
Lets suppose the coil pack stops working, something that happened to a whole
bunch of VAGs in Europe. The car is off the road because of a relatively
cheap component. In some cases, for two months. Anyway, it stops working
(typically late at night when it's raining, perhaps the coil packs were
linked into the automatic wipers?). You call breakdown. You are recovered.
Car goes to dealership. Courtesy vehicle arrives. You collect your car as
and when it's done. Unless the courtesy car also breaks down on you too.
My folks' Passat was off the road for a weeks because of a broken brake
pedal switch, which stuck on. Off the week for a week because of a cheap
microswitch.
Cheap components break. That's the case on all machines, including Honda
and Toyota, but has happened a lot more frequently to VAGs than they'd have
you believe.
That's the reason to have the longer warranty. You need it.
>>> The only 6M you can get from Toyota is a Corolla TSX, and
>>> safety / performance items like stability / traction control
>>> aren't even available as options.
>
>> Ya like, dude, drop this perception that the more forward
>> gears the better.
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
Right. Got'ya.
>> Nooo! Having lots of forward ratios can mean a few things
>> such as:
>
>> * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
You're taking one example. Don't get me wrong, having bags of torque at low
engine speeds is handy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the power band
is broad. We need torque and revs. The VAG 2.0T engine has much more go at
4,000 rpm despite having less torque... indeed whilst it doesn't feel
gutless at 1,800 rpm, compared to 4,000 rpm, it certainly does.
Actually we need power, but that's something else.
>> * The fuel consumption is artificially flattered by an
>> overly long bunch of top ratios, so you need third for any
>> gradient up or down.
*cough*
>> * They fit the X speed manual 'box to the top of the range
>> model and got a bargain deal on the rest
*cough*
>> * They reckon people want more forward gears.
*cough hack splutter*
> All up, my advice is to get over this "6M" hangup and go
> some leg work. Picking the right machine based on technical
> specifications is all well and good but you're setting
> yourself up for some major disappointment
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
Here's where my knowledge of the North American market is far too limiting.
European wise, I could certainly help...
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
how...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
05-03-2006, 02:39 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:9l4d52pe6drgq7168lr7huq92sd90613cj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:53:12 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> There are very good reasons for this. One is that VAG's
>>> quality control is lacking. Honda are one of the few
>>> manufacturers making money on selling cars. The VAG are
>>> not...
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because they don't need to provide a longer warranty?
> And a 12 year warranty against rust thru versus five?
Because there's a higher chance of them rusting... do you think?
[snip cost stuff because VAGs are unreliable and expensive>
> And from Consumer Reports:
>
> "The Volkswagen Passat was our top-rated family sedan from
> 1998 to 2004. Based on the previous-generation Audi A4 and
> A6, it provided an inviting blend of comfort, roominess,
> interior craftsmanship, and handling.
Perhaps in the North American market their handling is consider more in tune
to the market. The Passat is far more A4 than A6 though.
But in the UK they are snatchy understeery things with the finness of a
hippo in a bathing costume. Indeed, VAG have managed to give the A4 and
Passat a firm ride and lacklustre handling. Amazing.
Ford gave the Ka a supple ride and great handling.
> The Passat was a
> family sedan that was fun to drive. But inconsistent
> reliability was its Achilles' heel.
Yes. That's a major down side as I'll go on to discuss.
> So there are reliability issues, but CR is not alone is
> liking the Passat.
>
>> And most of these are frightfully dull to drive.
>
> Compared to what? Not my Accord LX.
Compared to the following:
Ford Mondeo
Vauxhall Vectra
Peugeot 406
Citroen Xantia / C5
Renault Laguna
Toyota Avensis
Honda Accord
BMW 3-series
Volvo S40
In fact, almost everything else in the same class.
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
>>> Emergency Brake Assist Traction Control Stability Control
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution DRL ABS w/4-wheel disk
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Alloys on all but the Passat
>
>> How exactly is having alloy wheels a safety feature? They
>> can be added afterwards if wanted.
>
> Familiar with "moment of inertia" as it applies to
> centrifugal force?
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It's centripetal. And, yes,
very familiar heh.
http://www.dervman.com/kd53.htm
That's probably my biggest Ka Diary entry about unsprung mass.
> By replacing the steel wheels and the
> tires on my LX, I cut 5-6 lbs off my Accord's unsprung
> weight on each corner. The result, among other things, is a
> shorter stopping distance, because it's easier to stop a
> wheel from lower mass from turning.
You have to get the right wheels, though. The majority of aftermarket rims
are materially heavier than their steel counterparts.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the braking difference is minimal when
compared to picking the right quality of tyres. Nowhere do you mention good
quality tyres let alone those useful in both wet and dry conditions, given
the loading.
>>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>
>> Which compared to the VAGs is an inspired drive.
>
> For +$10k, I should hope so.
>> The latest crop of VWs are better than before, but you'd be
>> delusional if you bought a Golf or Passat thinking that it's
>> a European tight handler.
>
> I was comparing the VW models to a Camry and the Accord LX that
> I now drive. Anything further is a straw man. But since you
> brought it up:
Well now hold on. If you are looking at the whole market you need to
consider the whole market. If you're not looking at the whole market you
may miss something.
> Again from Consumer Reports:
Consumer reports. Hardly unbiased, though. Some people would feel pretty
stupid claiming that their expensive car is not good in some respects, so
they inflate the report. Other people like one part of a car so much that
it shines through all other aspects.
There's no substitute for you trying it. What I find insulting handling may
be fine for somebody else...
> "The GTI is comfortable, well finished,
Erk! European Golfs are sure as hell not well finished. They look pretty
and solid and even the plastic is that wretched "we can't stop it rattling
so we'll make it soft" stuff, but it's nowhere near as solid as I'd like.
The mark one and mark two Golfs had it. The mark three, four and five
don't. VW have cheapened the interior.
> powerful, and fun to
> drive. Based on the Jetta and redesigned Golf, this
> hatchback can be an alternative to a sports sedan,
It can be. Not as spacious really. If you need room in the back then it'll
be too small. If you don't need rear seat space it's too big.
> with
> capable handling; a relatively comfortable ride;
Key here is "relatively" of course. On some surfaces it'll feel fine. On
others, it feels typically German hot hatch, i.e. knobbly and rough.
> a
> well-crafted interior; and a surprisingly roomy back seat. A
> four-door version arrives in June 2006.
>
> "THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
>
> "Handling is agile, and body lean is controlled. The steering
> is quick, well-weighted, and has good feedback. Emergency
> handling was stable and forgiving, posting an impressive
> speed through our avoidance maneuver.
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
> with well calibrated stability control. The ride is firm but
> steady and compliant. The GTI is fairly quiet inside. The
> 200-hp, turbocharged four-cylinder engine is smooth and
> powerful and got 25 mpg in mixed driving, but it required
> premium fuel.
It's also wrong wheel drive for that much power. Torque steer?
> "The standard six-speed manual transmission has appropriate
> ratios and we found it easy to shift. Volkswagen's quick
> shifting DSG automatic transmission is optional. Braking
> distances were short, but the pedal sometimes felt touchy."
>
> I don't get "it really sucked" from reading this.
>
> And: It goes 0-60 in six seconds.
*cough* Uh-huh. Six seconds. There are *remarkably* few front wheel drive
machines that can hit 62 in under 6.5 seconds. Those that get close to 6.0
seconds have over 240 bhp. It's more like 7.0 seconds.
Having trialled a whole bunch of powerful front wheel drive stuff, once the
figures start getting below 8 seconds, you need a good, near perfect or
perfect launch so as to get close to the quoted time. Front wheel drive
machines wheelspin relatively easily. Once they spin, they keep spinning.
Traction control systems without a launch control facility typically cannot
cope with this much power and it's worse with a turbocharged engine. You
either get rampant wheelspin and don't move off or you get the power
reduced, lose boost pressure and the engine gets bogged down...
It's an unhappy compromise. It won't take six seconds either.
>>> Getting the 6M and safety features in an Accord means you
>>> have to get a V6 EX and shell out enough to have me looking
>>> at entirely different cars.
>
>> Yes, but you'd be getting a wholly better short and long
>> term ownership proposition.
>
> Can you quantify this for me?
Yes. After the first few months you'll notice the off creak, squeak and
rattle from the interior. You may return it to the dealer. They may be
able to find it. Or they may not. Either way it's a trip to the dealer
that you so don't need.
Then there's component longevity. Oh and breakdowns. Thing with something
like a Golf is that many people love them despite their faults and how they
have a nasty habit of breaking down. One single breakdown is enough to
cause major aggravation.
Lets suppose the coil pack stops working, something that happened to a whole
bunch of VAGs in Europe. The car is off the road because of a relatively
cheap component. In some cases, for two months. Anyway, it stops working
(typically late at night when it's raining, perhaps the coil packs were
linked into the automatic wipers?). You call breakdown. You are recovered.
Car goes to dealership. Courtesy vehicle arrives. You collect your car as
and when it's done. Unless the courtesy car also breaks down on you too.
My folks' Passat was off the road for a weeks because of a broken brake
pedal switch, which stuck on. Off the week for a week because of a cheap
microswitch.
Cheap components break. That's the case on all machines, including Honda
and Toyota, but has happened a lot more frequently to VAGs than they'd have
you believe.
That's the reason to have the longer warranty. You need it.
>>> The only 6M you can get from Toyota is a Corolla TSX, and
>>> safety / performance items like stability / traction control
>>> aren't even available as options.
>
>> Ya like, dude, drop this perception that the more forward
>> gears the better.
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
Right. Got'ya.
>> Nooo! Having lots of forward ratios can mean a few things
>> such as:
>
>> * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
You're taking one example. Don't get me wrong, having bags of torque at low
engine speeds is handy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the power band
is broad. We need torque and revs. The VAG 2.0T engine has much more go at
4,000 rpm despite having less torque... indeed whilst it doesn't feel
gutless at 1,800 rpm, compared to 4,000 rpm, it certainly does.
Actually we need power, but that's something else.
>> * The fuel consumption is artificially flattered by an
>> overly long bunch of top ratios, so you need third for any
>> gradient up or down.
*cough*
>> * They fit the X speed manual 'box to the top of the range
>> model and got a bargain deal on the rest
*cough*
>> * They reckon people want more forward gears.
*cough hack splutter*
> All up, my advice is to get over this "6M" hangup and go
> some leg work. Picking the right machine based on technical
> specifications is all well and good but you're setting
> yourself up for some major disappointment
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
Here's where my knowledge of the North American market is far too limiting.
European wise, I could certainly help...
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
how...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:9l4d52pe6drgq7168lr7huq92sd90613cj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:53:12 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> There are very good reasons for this. One is that VAG's
>>> quality control is lacking. Honda are one of the few
>>> manufacturers making money on selling cars. The VAG are
>>> not...
>
> Wait. I think Hondas are great cars, but how does it follow
> that their reliability == the manufacturer gives you a
> shorter warranty?
Because they don't need to provide a longer warranty?
> And a 12 year warranty against rust thru versus five?
Because there's a higher chance of them rusting... do you think?
[snip cost stuff because VAGs are unreliable and expensive>
> And from Consumer Reports:
>
> "The Volkswagen Passat was our top-rated family sedan from
> 1998 to 2004. Based on the previous-generation Audi A4 and
> A6, it provided an inviting blend of comfort, roominess,
> interior craftsmanship, and handling.
Perhaps in the North American market their handling is consider more in tune
to the market. The Passat is far more A4 than A6 though.
But in the UK they are snatchy understeery things with the finness of a
hippo in a bathing costume. Indeed, VAG have managed to give the A4 and
Passat a firm ride and lacklustre handling. Amazing.
Ford gave the Ka a supple ride and great handling.
> The Passat was a
> family sedan that was fun to drive. But inconsistent
> reliability was its Achilles' heel.
Yes. That's a major down side as I'll go on to discuss.
> So there are reliability issues, but CR is not alone is
> liking the Passat.
>
>> And most of these are frightfully dull to drive.
>
> Compared to what? Not my Accord LX.
Compared to the following:
Ford Mondeo
Vauxhall Vectra
Peugeot 406
Citroen Xantia / C5
Renault Laguna
Toyota Avensis
Honda Accord
BMW 3-series
Volvo S40
In fact, almost everything else in the same class.
> And they all have these safety features standard:
>
>>> Emergency Brake Assist Traction Control Stability Control
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Electronic Brakeforce Distribution DRL ABS w/4-wheel disk
Something you'd use every day?
>>> Alloys on all but the Passat
>
>> How exactly is having alloy wheels a safety feature? They
>> can be added afterwards if wanted.
>
> Familiar with "moment of inertia" as it applies to
> centrifugal force?
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It's centripetal. And, yes,
very familiar heh.
http://www.dervman.com/kd53.htm
That's probably my biggest Ka Diary entry about unsprung mass.
> By replacing the steel wheels and the
> tires on my LX, I cut 5-6 lbs off my Accord's unsprung
> weight on each corner. The result, among other things, is a
> shorter stopping distance, because it's easier to stop a
> wheel from lower mass from turning.
You have to get the right wheels, though. The majority of aftermarket rims
are materially heavier than their steel counterparts.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the braking difference is minimal when
compared to picking the right quality of tyres. Nowhere do you mention good
quality tyres let alone those useful in both wet and dry conditions, given
the loading.
>>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>
>> Which compared to the VAGs is an inspired drive.
>
> For +$10k, I should hope so.
>> The latest crop of VWs are better than before, but you'd be
>> delusional if you bought a Golf or Passat thinking that it's
>> a European tight handler.
>
> I was comparing the VW models to a Camry and the Accord LX that
> I now drive. Anything further is a straw man. But since you
> brought it up:
Well now hold on. If you are looking at the whole market you need to
consider the whole market. If you're not looking at the whole market you
may miss something.
> Again from Consumer Reports:
Consumer reports. Hardly unbiased, though. Some people would feel pretty
stupid claiming that their expensive car is not good in some respects, so
they inflate the report. Other people like one part of a car so much that
it shines through all other aspects.
There's no substitute for you trying it. What I find insulting handling may
be fine for somebody else...
> "The GTI is comfortable, well finished,
Erk! European Golfs are sure as hell not well finished. They look pretty
and solid and even the plastic is that wretched "we can't stop it rattling
so we'll make it soft" stuff, but it's nowhere near as solid as I'd like.
The mark one and mark two Golfs had it. The mark three, four and five
don't. VW have cheapened the interior.
> powerful, and fun to
> drive. Based on the Jetta and redesigned Golf, this
> hatchback can be an alternative to a sports sedan,
It can be. Not as spacious really. If you need room in the back then it'll
be too small. If you don't need rear seat space it's too big.
> with
> capable handling; a relatively comfortable ride;
Key here is "relatively" of course. On some surfaces it'll feel fine. On
others, it feels typically German hot hatch, i.e. knobbly and rough.
> a
> well-crafted interior; and a surprisingly roomy back seat. A
> four-door version arrives in June 2006.
>
> "THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
>
> "Handling is agile, and body lean is controlled. The steering
> is quick, well-weighted, and has good feedback. Emergency
> handling was stable and forgiving, posting an impressive
> speed through our avoidance maneuver.
>
> "Around the track it was well controlled and entertaining
> with well calibrated stability control. The ride is firm but
> steady and compliant. The GTI is fairly quiet inside. The
> 200-hp, turbocharged four-cylinder engine is smooth and
> powerful and got 25 mpg in mixed driving, but it required
> premium fuel.
It's also wrong wheel drive for that much power. Torque steer?
> "The standard six-speed manual transmission has appropriate
> ratios and we found it easy to shift. Volkswagen's quick
> shifting DSG automatic transmission is optional. Braking
> distances were short, but the pedal sometimes felt touchy."
>
> I don't get "it really sucked" from reading this.
>
> And: It goes 0-60 in six seconds.
*cough* Uh-huh. Six seconds. There are *remarkably* few front wheel drive
machines that can hit 62 in under 6.5 seconds. Those that get close to 6.0
seconds have over 240 bhp. It's more like 7.0 seconds.
Having trialled a whole bunch of powerful front wheel drive stuff, once the
figures start getting below 8 seconds, you need a good, near perfect or
perfect launch so as to get close to the quoted time. Front wheel drive
machines wheelspin relatively easily. Once they spin, they keep spinning.
Traction control systems without a launch control facility typically cannot
cope with this much power and it's worse with a turbocharged engine. You
either get rampant wheelspin and don't move off or you get the power
reduced, lose boost pressure and the engine gets bogged down...
It's an unhappy compromise. It won't take six seconds either.
>>> Getting the 6M and safety features in an Accord means you
>>> have to get a V6 EX and shell out enough to have me looking
>>> at entirely different cars.
>
>> Yes, but you'd be getting a wholly better short and long
>> term ownership proposition.
>
> Can you quantify this for me?
Yes. After the first few months you'll notice the off creak, squeak and
rattle from the interior. You may return it to the dealer. They may be
able to find it. Or they may not. Either way it's a trip to the dealer
that you so don't need.
Then there's component longevity. Oh and breakdowns. Thing with something
like a Golf is that many people love them despite their faults and how they
have a nasty habit of breaking down. One single breakdown is enough to
cause major aggravation.
Lets suppose the coil pack stops working, something that happened to a whole
bunch of VAGs in Europe. The car is off the road because of a relatively
cheap component. In some cases, for two months. Anyway, it stops working
(typically late at night when it's raining, perhaps the coil packs were
linked into the automatic wipers?). You call breakdown. You are recovered.
Car goes to dealership. Courtesy vehicle arrives. You collect your car as
and when it's done. Unless the courtesy car also breaks down on you too.
My folks' Passat was off the road for a weeks because of a broken brake
pedal switch, which stuck on. Off the week for a week because of a cheap
microswitch.
Cheap components break. That's the case on all machines, including Honda
and Toyota, but has happened a lot more frequently to VAGs than they'd have
you believe.
That's the reason to have the longer warranty. You need it.
>>> The only 6M you can get from Toyota is a Corolla TSX, and
>>> safety / performance items like stability / traction control
>>> aren't even available as options.
>
>> Ya like, dude, drop this perception that the more forward
>> gears the better.
>
> This wasn't my idea. I happened to notice that they showed
> up in lots of "driver oriented" cars.
Right. Got'ya.
>> Nooo! Having lots of forward ratios can mean a few things
>> such as:
>
>> * The power band is so narrow that it needs lots of ratios.
>
> Indicated by a turbo engine making peak torque at 1800 RPM?
You're taking one example. Don't get me wrong, having bags of torque at low
engine speeds is handy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the power band
is broad. We need torque and revs. The VAG 2.0T engine has much more go at
4,000 rpm despite having less torque... indeed whilst it doesn't feel
gutless at 1,800 rpm, compared to 4,000 rpm, it certainly does.
Actually we need power, but that's something else.
>> * The fuel consumption is artificially flattered by an
>> overly long bunch of top ratios, so you need third for any
>> gradient up or down.
*cough*
>> * They fit the X speed manual 'box to the top of the range
>> model and got a bargain deal on the rest
*cough*
>> * They reckon people want more forward gears.
*cough hack splutter*
> All up, my advice is to get over this "6M" hangup and go
> some leg work. Picking the right machine based on technical
> specifications is all well and good but you're setting
> yourself up for some major disappointment
>
> I've been doing nothing but "leg work". If I've overlooking
> other obvious choices that represent a value for the money,
Here's where my knowledge of the North American market is far too limiting.
European wise, I could certainly help...
> then enlighten me. If major driving magazines think this
> engine / tranny combo sucks, I'm all ears.
The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
how...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
05-03-2006, 03:19 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:39:06 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
>like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
>It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
>chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
>how...
Pfft, Masistro turbo, Went like crap, looked like it too 9so
lessworries about it being pinched) 200hp in a FWD car when 140 was
fashionable, and parts were cheap and easy to fix.
wrote:
>
>The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
>like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
>It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
>chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
>how...
Pfft, Masistro turbo, Went like crap, looked like it too 9so
lessworries about it being pinched) 200hp in a FWD car when 140 was
fashionable, and parts were cheap and easy to fix.
05-03-2006, 03:19 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:39:06 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
>like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
>It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
>chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
>how...
Pfft, Masistro turbo, Went like crap, looked like it too 9so
lessworries about it being pinched) 200hp in a FWD car when 140 was
fashionable, and parts were cheap and easy to fix.
wrote:
>
>The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
>like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
>It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
>chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
>how...
Pfft, Masistro turbo, Went like crap, looked like it too 9so
lessworries about it being pinched) 200hp in a FWD car when 140 was
fashionable, and parts were cheap and easy to fix.
05-03-2006, 03:19 PM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:39:06 GMT, "DervMan" <dervman@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
>like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
>It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
>chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
>how...
Pfft, Masistro turbo, Went like crap, looked like it too 9so
lessworries about it being pinched) 200hp in a FWD car when 140 was
fashionable, and parts were cheap and easy to fix.
wrote:
>
>The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch. If you
>like it, it'll depend on your perspective. Personally, it's not for me.
>It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
>chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should. The Ford Focus shows us
>how...
Pfft, Masistro turbo, Went like crap, looked like it too 9so
lessworries about it being pinched) 200hp in a FWD car when 140 was
fashionable, and parts were cheap and easy to fix.
05-03-2006, 05:56 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
On 3 May 2006 07:01:25 -0700, dimndsonmywndshld@yahoo.com wrote:
> The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much
> fun a car is to drive is Consumer Reports.
I also included Edmunds user ratings, but if you like,
here's Motor Trend's early take ...
http://tinyurl.com/ee67y
"After a first drive of the new 2006 Passat, there's every
reason it should face the challenge for best-selling
midsizer from anywhere. This is a mature, fully textured
driver's car, appealing on every level."
> Of course the most important safety feature in any car has
> to do with the driver.
Of course. But I'll talk all the help I can get!
> Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless
> these features can be turned off, they do not lend
> themselves to spirited driving.
Depending on the implementation, traction control is a
performance feature and stability control can be an overly
restrictive safety feature.
> How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
> Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
I love these tires, and they do seem to fit well even if
they're a tad wider than an "officially" supported size.
Great stopping power. We had a mild winter here, and I'd
like the traction control for when we're not so lucky.
> DRLs: turn on your headlights.
Do they really pull 110w vs 25w for the DRL? Some have said
this eats into fuel economy.
> ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the
> extra $$ for an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Had I to do it all over again, I would surely go that way.
> Alloys: also standard on the EX.
There's the rub though. You get 16" tires and alloys with
the EX, but you're still stuck with the rubber that Honda
picks for you and the stock Honda alloys. By carefully
picking the replacement tires and wheels, I dropped over
five pounds unsprung mass on each corner.
>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>> A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything
>> else being equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a
>> 6-speed with open differential, any day.
Want an S2000? It's gonna be a manual, and it only comes in
the 6x flavor.
Want a TSX Manual? It only comes in a six speed.
Want the EX with a V6 and manual?
That means you get six forward gears.
I think Honda is trying to tell me something.
> All the safety features you seek will probably make it into
> the next Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now
> but VW has to add stuff to make their unreliable,
> expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
That will make me a happy camper. I see no reason we sould
be second class citizens in the features department compared
to Toyota and VW.
> Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
> (short URL substitited
http://tinyurl.com/z5vum
I've read the review, and have to cry FOUL!!
They stuck the GTI with the ContiProContact Grand Touring
All-Season, which suck huge monkey nuts compared to the
Ultra High Performance Summer Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2s on
the Honda.
Checking in at TireRack, it seems that they did this test
comparing the Honda wearing ultra performance tires that
scored fifth out of a category of 46, versus the Continental
tires which could only muster sixth out of 17 in a much
lower performing tire category.
The results would have tilted much more favorably in the
GTI's direction with equivalent tires.
> No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very
> different than the Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not
> include a LSD.]
This is a failing that the Passat does not suffer. And what
is interesting about the Passat/Jetta/GTI treo is that they
weigh in within about 100 pounds of one another, while
looking quite different.
> Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to
> entertain rather than buying a grocery getter that has been
> modified to provide more fun than its boring
> brother-in-arms?
I'm not in that big a hurry to go chasing after VWs until
they get back some of the quality control they turned loose
with the 2004 model. But who knows? Maybe they'll iron out
some kinks with the 2007 models ...
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+
> The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much
> fun a car is to drive is Consumer Reports.
I also included Edmunds user ratings, but if you like,
here's Motor Trend's early take ...
http://tinyurl.com/ee67y
"After a first drive of the new 2006 Passat, there's every
reason it should face the challenge for best-selling
midsizer from anywhere. This is a mature, fully textured
driver's car, appealing on every level."
> Of course the most important safety feature in any car has
> to do with the driver.
Of course. But I'll talk all the help I can get!
> Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless
> these features can be turned off, they do not lend
> themselves to spirited driving.
Depending on the implementation, traction control is a
performance feature and stability control can be an overly
restrictive safety feature.
> How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
> Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
I love these tires, and they do seem to fit well even if
they're a tad wider than an "officially" supported size.
Great stopping power. We had a mild winter here, and I'd
like the traction control for when we're not so lucky.
> DRLs: turn on your headlights.
Do they really pull 110w vs 25w for the DRL? Some have said
this eats into fuel economy.
> ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the
> extra $$ for an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Had I to do it all over again, I would surely go that way.
> Alloys: also standard on the EX.
There's the rub though. You get 16" tires and alloys with
the EX, but you're still stuck with the rubber that Honda
picks for you and the stock Honda alloys. By carefully
picking the replacement tires and wheels, I dropped over
five pounds unsprung mass on each corner.
>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>> A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything
>> else being equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a
>> 6-speed with open differential, any day.
Want an S2000? It's gonna be a manual, and it only comes in
the 6x flavor.
Want a TSX Manual? It only comes in a six speed.
Want the EX with a V6 and manual?
That means you get six forward gears.
I think Honda is trying to tell me something.
> All the safety features you seek will probably make it into
> the next Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now
> but VW has to add stuff to make their unreliable,
> expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
That will make me a happy camper. I see no reason we sould
be second class citizens in the features department compared
to Toyota and VW.
> Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
> (short URL substitited
http://tinyurl.com/z5vumI've read the review, and have to cry FOUL!!
They stuck the GTI with the ContiProContact Grand Touring
All-Season, which suck huge monkey nuts compared to the
Ultra High Performance Summer Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2s on
the Honda.
Checking in at TireRack, it seems that they did this test
comparing the Honda wearing ultra performance tires that
scored fifth out of a category of 46, versus the Continental
tires which could only muster sixth out of 17 in a much
lower performing tire category.
The results would have tilted much more favorably in the
GTI's direction with equivalent tires.
> No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very
> different than the Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not
> include a LSD.]
This is a failing that the Passat does not suffer. And what
is interesting about the Passat/Jetta/GTI treo is that they
weigh in within about 100 pounds of one another, while
looking quite different.
> Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to
> entertain rather than buying a grocery getter that has been
> modified to provide more fun than its boring
> brother-in-arms?
I'm not in that big a hurry to go chasing after VWs until
they get back some of the quality control they turned loose
with the 2004 model. But who knows? Maybe they'll iron out
some kinks with the 2007 models ...
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+
05-03-2006, 05:56 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Show cars having specific features?
On 3 May 2006 07:01:25 -0700, dimndsonmywndshld@yahoo.com wrote:
> The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much
> fun a car is to drive is Consumer Reports.
I also included Edmunds user ratings, but if you like,
here's Motor Trend's early take ...
http://tinyurl.com/ee67y
"After a first drive of the new 2006 Passat, there's every
reason it should face the challenge for best-selling
midsizer from anywhere. This is a mature, fully textured
driver's car, appealing on every level."
> Of course the most important safety feature in any car has
> to do with the driver.
Of course. But I'll talk all the help I can get!
> Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless
> these features can be turned off, they do not lend
> themselves to spirited driving.
Depending on the implementation, traction control is a
performance feature and stability control can be an overly
restrictive safety feature.
> How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
> Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
I love these tires, and they do seem to fit well even if
they're a tad wider than an "officially" supported size.
Great stopping power. We had a mild winter here, and I'd
like the traction control for when we're not so lucky.
> DRLs: turn on your headlights.
Do they really pull 110w vs 25w for the DRL? Some have said
this eats into fuel economy.
> ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the
> extra $$ for an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Had I to do it all over again, I would surely go that way.
> Alloys: also standard on the EX.
There's the rub though. You get 16" tires and alloys with
the EX, but you're still stuck with the rubber that Honda
picks for you and the stock Honda alloys. By carefully
picking the replacement tires and wheels, I dropped over
five pounds unsprung mass on each corner.
>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>> A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything
>> else being equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a
>> 6-speed with open differential, any day.
Want an S2000? It's gonna be a manual, and it only comes in
the 6x flavor.
Want a TSX Manual? It only comes in a six speed.
Want the EX with a V6 and manual?
That means you get six forward gears.
I think Honda is trying to tell me something.
> All the safety features you seek will probably make it into
> the next Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now
> but VW has to add stuff to make their unreliable,
> expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
That will make me a happy camper. I see no reason we sould
be second class citizens in the features department compared
to Toyota and VW.
> Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
> (short URL substitited http://tinyurl.com/z5vum
I've read the review, and have to cry FOUL!!
They stuck the GTI with the ContiProContact Grand Touring
All-Season, which suck huge monkey nuts compared to the
Ultra High Performance Summer Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2s on
the Honda.
Checking in at TireRack, it seems that they did this test
comparing the Honda wearing ultra performance tires that
scored fifth out of a category of 46, versus the Continental
tires which could only muster sixth out of 17 in a much
lower performing tire category.
The results would have tilted much more favorably in the
GTI's direction with equivalent tires.
> No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very
> different than the Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not
> include a LSD.]
This is a failing that the Passat does not suffer. And what
is interesting about the Passat/Jetta/GTI treo is that they
weigh in within about 100 pounds of one another, while
looking quite different.
> Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to
> entertain rather than buying a grocery getter that has been
> modified to provide more fun than its boring
> brother-in-arms?
I'm not in that big a hurry to go chasing after VWs until
they get back some of the quality control they turned loose
with the 2004 model. But who knows? Maybe they'll iron out
some kinks with the 2007 models ...
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+
> The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much
> fun a car is to drive is Consumer Reports.
I also included Edmunds user ratings, but if you like,
here's Motor Trend's early take ...
http://tinyurl.com/ee67y
"After a first drive of the new 2006 Passat, there's every
reason it should face the challenge for best-selling
midsizer from anywhere. This is a mature, fully textured
driver's car, appealing on every level."
> Of course the most important safety feature in any car has
> to do with the driver.
Of course. But I'll talk all the help I can get!
> Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless
> these features can be turned off, they do not lend
> themselves to spirited driving.
Depending on the implementation, traction control is a
performance feature and stability control can be an overly
restrictive safety feature.
> How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
> Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?
I love these tires, and they do seem to fit well even if
they're a tad wider than an "officially" supported size.
Great stopping power. We had a mild winter here, and I'd
like the traction control for when we're not so lucky.
> DRLs: turn on your headlights.
Do they really pull 110w vs 25w for the DRL? Some have said
this eats into fuel economy.
> ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the
> extra $$ for an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).
Had I to do it all over again, I would surely go that way.
> Alloys: also standard on the EX.
There's the rub though. You get 16" tires and alloys with
the EX, but you're still stuck with the rubber that Honda
picks for you and the stock Honda alloys. By carefully
picking the replacement tires and wheels, I dropped over
five pounds unsprung mass on each corner.
>> And you can't get this 4cyl/6M combination from Honda, even
>> normally aspirated, unless you go with a +$10k Acura TSX.
>> A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything
>> else being equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a
>> 6-speed with open differential, any day.
Want an S2000? It's gonna be a manual, and it only comes in
the 6x flavor.
Want a TSX Manual? It only comes in a six speed.
Want the EX with a V6 and manual?
That means you get six forward gears.
I think Honda is trying to tell me something.
> All the safety features you seek will probably make it into
> the next Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now
> but VW has to add stuff to make their unreliable,
> expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.
That will make me a happy camper. I see no reason we sould
be second class citizens in the features department compared
to Toyota and VW.
> Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
> (short URL substitited
http://tinyurl.com/z5vumI've read the review, and have to cry FOUL!!
They stuck the GTI with the ContiProContact Grand Touring
All-Season, which suck huge monkey nuts compared to the
Ultra High Performance Summer Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2s on
the Honda.
Checking in at TireRack, it seems that they did this test
comparing the Honda wearing ultra performance tires that
scored fifth out of a category of 46, versus the Continental
tires which could only muster sixth out of 17 in a much
lower performing tire category.
The results would have tilted much more favorably in the
GTI's direction with equivalent tires.
> No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very
> different than the Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not
> include a LSD.]
This is a failing that the Passat does not suffer. And what
is interesting about the Passat/Jetta/GTI treo is that they
weigh in within about 100 pounds of one another, while
looking quite different.
> Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to
> entertain rather than buying a grocery getter that has been
> modified to provide more fun than its boring
> brother-in-arms?
I'm not in that big a hurry to go chasing after VWs until
they get back some of the quality control they turned loose
with the 2004 model. But who knows? Maybe they'll iron out
some kinks with the 2007 models ...
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+