2005 Passat TDI

JB³ wrote:
>
> I am planning to get a new Passat TDI. I hate the fact I can not get it in a
> manual trans. The performance with an auto is poor. 0-60 stock is around
> 10.2 sec. If I chip it, can the 0-60 times drop to around 8 sec.? This would
> be adequate, although faster yet would be better.
>
> Just curious how much improvement just a chip can do. I know the
> horsepower/torque gains, but I want some 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times to
> compare to. Merging with traffic shouldn't be something you have to think
> about. Any info is greatly appreciated.
>
> jb

I can't answer your question about "chipping" the TDI, but if you buy
the car, you may well find that the Passat TDI will have adequate
merging acceleration in stock form. I have a Jetta TDI wagon. Even
with its manual transmission, it is probably little if any quicker 0-60
than the Passat with the autobox. When I bought the car, I thought I
might feel the need to make it faster, but I have found that it does
just fine stock. I won't win many drag races, but I have plenty of
power to merge with traffic, and plenty of power to cruise comfortably
at 80mph.

Maybe you have more of a "need for speed" than I do, but you might be
surprised at how well a "stock" TDI will do.

I am planning to get a new Passat TDI. I hate the fact I can not get it in a
manual trans. The performance with an auto is poor. 0-60 stock is around
10.2 sec. If I chip it, can the 0-60 times drop to around 8 sec.? This would
be adequate, although faster yet would be better.

Just curious how much improvement just a chip can do. I know the
horsepower/torque gains, but I want some 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times to
compare to. Merging with traffic shouldn't be something you have to think
about. Any info is greatly appreciated.

jb

0-60 is misleading... The diesels aren't bad at all for merging - I've never
had trouble getting on the highway with my 4 speed automatic 90hp Golf -
even with 5 people and baggage...

Look up the 30-50mph passing times they shouldn't be too bad.

I have the powerbox in my Golf TDI now, and it improves things nicely...
chipping is even better. I can keep up with a Pumpe Duese 5 speed Jetta in
flat out acceleration (we went up to around 80-90kph - as it was an 80kph
zone... and ~90-95ish is the normal traffic speed for the neighborhood we
were in... I was slightly ahead due to his ESP/ASR kicking in initially...
but I can't rev up my engine so I'd say takeoff is fairly equal)

It sounds like you haven't taken the car on a test drive, I would suggest
one... numerical performance of the diesels is fairly misleading

Maybe a V6 is the better option for you too - or the 1.8T gasoline engine...
Not as good fuel economy though, but you have to sacrifice performance for
fuel savings.

And merging with traffic should be something you think about - I'm sick of
getting stuck behind the 90% of drivers who don't merge at more then 70kph
by the end of the very long onramps around here... They aren't thinking
about the people behind them, or the trucks that have to put the brakes on
for them... (BTW I know what you really meant by not having to think about
it, you meant not have to worry about not having adequate speed)
"JB³" > wrote in message
news:8lgdd.3519$7d7.3402@trnddc04...
>I am planning to get a new Passat TDI. I hate the fact I can not get it in
>a manual trans. The performance with an auto is poor. 0-60 stock is around
>10.2 sec. If I chip it, can the 0-60 times drop to around 8 sec.? This
>would be adequate, although faster yet would be better.
>
> Just curious how much improvement just a chip can do. I know the
> horsepower/torque gains, but I want some 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times to
> compare to. Merging with traffic shouldn't be something you have to think
> about. Any info is greatly appreciated.
>
> jb
>

"JB³" > wrote in message
news:8lgdd.3519$7d7.3402@trnddc04...
>I am planning to get a new Passat TDI. I hate the fact I can not get it in
>a manual trans. The performance with an auto is poor. 0-60 stock is around
>10.2 sec. If I chip it, can the 0-60 times drop to around 8 sec.? This
>would be adequate, although faster yet would be better.
>
>Just curious how much improvement just a chip can do. I know the
>horsepower/torque gains, but I want some 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times to
>compare to. Merging with traffic shouldn't be something you have to think
>about. Any info is greatly appreciated.

0-60 in 10.x seconds isn't all that slow. I think most of us would
classify, say, an '85 Golf 1.8 8V 85hp 1.8 as reasonably peppy (though
hardly a sports car) and that car did 0-60 in about that time when it came
out.

Yes the Passat TDI is slower than a gas-powered Passat and compared to
midsize sedans in general it's slower, but I don't think 0-60 in just over
10 seconds puts one in the "gotta think about it first" category. I also
wonder if that 0-60 figure you mentioned is with the transmission shifting
itself or if you might be able to do better with the Tiptronic and shifting
the gears yourself.

Also, I'm not sure what the passing power is like on a Passat TDI but often
times the 60-80 time for a diesel might be far quicker than the 0-60 time
would lead one to expect. For example, Car and Driver about a year ago I
think it was tested a Euro-spec Chrysler PT Cruiser with a diesel engine and
it was far quicker at passing speeds than the 2.0 gas counterpart even
though the 2.0 gasser was quicker 0-60. I rented a PT Cruiser back in '01
and found that it was indeed rather weak in 60-80mph passing times so the
diesel doing so much better was impressive. I don't remember the numbers
but it was something impressive (making this up for example's sake) like
60-80mph was 6.5 seconds for the gas engine and 4 seconds for the diesel.
Something like that...it was quite a big difference.

FWIW I looked on the UK site and the 130hp Passat TDI there with a 5-speed
is listed as 0-62mph as 9.9 seconds...not that much quicker than the auto
version...so you aren't losing that much to the automatic. I do wish we
could get the 5-speed here though only because I like to stir my own gears
anyway.

Yes I do need to take it for a test drive. I wanted a 4Motion 1.8 man. but
with 160 mile commute each day, I'll do without the unavail. manual, and
4Motion for a TDI. I know the gas mileage difference is slight on highway,
but I sure like the exclusitivity of a TDI with possible outcomes of 38-45
mpg. Noise of a diesel?? I LOVE it. Speed freak?, yes but not for racing,
only on the Interstate with light traffic to make good time.

jb

"Matt B." > wrote in message
news:Hajdd.72075$cJ3.18128@fed1read06...
> "JB³" > wrote in message
> news:8lgdd.3519$7d7.3402@trnddc04...
>>I am planning to get a new Passat TDI. I hate the fact I can not get it in
>>a manual trans. The performance with an auto is poor. 0-60 stock is around
>>10.2 sec. If I chip it, can the 0-60 times drop to around 8 sec.? This
>>would be adequate, although faster yet would be better.
>>
>>Just curious how much improvement just a chip can do. I know the
>>horsepower/torque gains, but I want some 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times to
>>compare to. Merging with traffic shouldn't be something you have to think
>>about. Any info is greatly appreciated.
>
> 0-60 in 10.x seconds isn't all that slow. I think most of us would
> classify, say, an '85 Golf 1.8 8V 85hp 1.8 as reasonably peppy (though
> hardly a sports car) and that car did 0-60 in about that time when it came
> out.
>
> Yes the Passat TDI is slower than a gas-powered Passat and compared to
> midsize sedans in general it's slower, but I don't think 0-60 in just over
> 10 seconds puts one in the "gotta think about it first" category. I also
> wonder if that 0-60 figure you mentioned is with the transmission shifting
> itself or if you might be able to do better with the Tiptronic and
> shifting the gears yourself.
>
> Also, I'm not sure what the passing power is like on a Passat TDI but
> often times the 60-80 time for a diesel might be far quicker than the 0-60
> time would lead one to expect. For example, Car and Driver about a year
> ago I think it was tested a Euro-spec Chrysler PT Cruiser with a diesel
> engine and it was far quicker at passing speeds than the 2.0 gas
> counterpart even though the 2.0 gasser was quicker 0-60. I rented a PT
> Cruiser back in '01 and found that it was indeed rather weak in 60-80mph
> passing times so the diesel doing so much better was impressive. I don't
> remember the numbers but it was something impressive (making this up for
> example's sake) like 60-80mph was 6.5 seconds for the gas engine and 4
> seconds for the diesel. Something like that...it was quite a big
> difference.
>
> FWIW I looked on the UK site and the 130hp Passat TDI there with a 5-speed
> is listed as 0-62mph as 9.9 seconds...not that much quicker than the auto
> version...so you aren't losing that much to the automatic. I do wish we
> could get the 5-speed here though only because I like to stir my own gears
> anyway.

OK, now that is what I wanted to hear !!!

I figured with all that torque it should feel just like what you described
about 60-80mph "passing times". I am going from a 17 mpg SUV to probably a
Passat TDI. Needless to say, I'm excited. What is it going to take to have
VW offer it with 4Motion and a six speed manual ???

jb

It was Car and Driver... I have that article... The Mercedes diesel was
faster at pretty much everything then the 3.2L V6 gasoline.

My Uncle's new BMW (I think it's a 7 series as that is what he typically
used to buy- btw he's in Germany) has the diesel engine in it and it's
faster then the base gas version - and a hell of a lot cheaper to run... he
says it's great on the autobahn, only a little slower at top speed.
"Matt B." > wrote in message
news:Hajdd.72075$cJ3.18128@fed1read06...
> "JB³" > wrote in message
> news:8lgdd.3519$7d7.3402@trnddc04...
>>I am planning to get a new Passat TDI. I hate the fact I can not get it in
>>a manual trans. The performance with an auto is poor. 0-60 stock is around
>>10.2 sec. If I chip it, can the 0-60 times drop to around 8 sec.? This
>>would be adequate, although faster yet would be better.
>>
>>Just curious how much improvement just a chip can do. I know the
>>horsepower/torque gains, but I want some 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times to
>>compare to. Merging with traffic shouldn't be something you have to think
>>about. Any info is greatly appreciated.
>
> 0-60 in 10.x seconds isn't all that slow. I think most of us would
> classify, say, an '85 Golf 1.8 8V 85hp 1.8 as reasonably peppy (though
> hardly a sports car) and that car did 0-60 in about that time when it came
> out.
>
> Yes the Passat TDI is slower than a gas-powered Passat and compared to
> midsize sedans in general it's slower, but I don't think 0-60 in just over
> 10 seconds puts one in the "gotta think about it first" category. I also
> wonder if that 0-60 figure you mentioned is with the transmission shifting
> itself or if you might be able to do better with the Tiptronic and
> shifting the gears yourself.
>
> Also, I'm not sure what the passing power is like on a Passat TDI but
> often times the 60-80 time for a diesel might be far quicker than the 0-60
> time would lead one to expect. For example, Car and Driver about a year
> ago I think it was tested a Euro-spec Chrysler PT Cruiser with a diesel
> engine and it was far quicker at passing speeds than the 2.0 gas
> counterpart even though the 2.0 gasser was quicker 0-60. I rented a PT
> Cruiser back in '01 and found that it was indeed rather weak in 60-80mph
> passing times so the diesel doing so much better was impressive. I don't
> remember the numbers but it was something impressive (making this up for
> example's sake) like 60-80mph was 6.5 seconds for the gas engine and 4
> seconds for the diesel. Something like that...it was quite a big
> difference.
>
> FWIW I looked on the UK site and the 130hp Passat TDI there with a 5-speed
> is listed as 0-62mph as 9.9 seconds...not that much quicker than the auto
> version...so you aren't losing that much to the automatic. I do wish we
> could get the 5-speed here though only because I like to stir my own gears
> anyway.
>

"Rob Guenther" > wrote in message
. ..
> It was Car and Driver... I have that article... The Mercedes diesel was
> faster at pretty much everything then the 3.2L V6 gasoline.

Ah yes I remember that. The cars in the test were the E320 diesel, PT
Cruiser Diesel, and some VW (either the T-reg V10 TDI or a Jetta TDI). The
E320 was the one that was the most impressive in terms of out-doing its gas
counterpart in the number of areas that it outperformed it. The E320 diesel
was for sure an impressive car. IIRC didn't it still return something like
40-45 mpg in testing while still outperforming the gas version? Well, all
diesels in the article were impressive but the E was the most impressive
overall.

I found the article: numbers listed are diesel/gasoline

For the Mercedes
HP: 201/221
Torque: 369/232
0-60: 6.4/7.4
0-100: 18.1/19.7
0-120: 38.5/33.0
1/4 mile: 14.9@93 / 15.8@90
5-60: 7.3/7.8
30-50 (top gear): 3.3/3.8
50-70 (top gear): 4.5/5.4
top speed: 149aero-gearing/131governed

Idle dB: 44/42
Full Throttle: 72/76
70mph cruising 69/69

Fuel Economy: 25 city, 44 hwy, 34 combined cycle... C/D observed 28mpg...
only one less then the I-4 PT cruiser

Fuel Economy for the gas... 16(ouch) city, 31hwy, 24 combined, C/D observed
22mpg

And the big Audi A8 is even more impressive... less so on fuel economy but
156mph top speed, and very fast times for all the clocked runs... and I've
seen a video from Britain of that very Audi getting 800 Miles to one tank of
fuel... tho the engine was sputtering by the end of it... The driver was
trying to get fuel economy so all electrical was off, not going above
1200rpm or so... and so on.
"Matt B." > wrote in message
news:Cfndd.72137$cJ3.64313@fed1read06...
> "Rob Guenther" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> It was Car and Driver... I have that article... The Mercedes diesel was
>> faster at pretty much everything then the 3.2L V6 gasoline.
>
> Ah yes I remember that. The cars in the test were the E320 diesel, PT
> Cruiser Diesel, and some VW (either the T-reg V10 TDI or a Jetta TDI).
> The E320 was the one that was the most impressive in terms of out-doing
> its gas counterpart in the number of areas that it outperformed it. The
> E320 diesel was for sure an impressive car. IIRC didn't it still return
> something like 40-45 mpg in testing while still outperforming the gas
> version? Well, all diesels in the article were impressive but the E was
> the most impressive overall.
>

JB³ wrote:

> I am planning to get a new Passat TDI. I hate the fact I can not get it in
> a manual trans. The performance with an auto is poor. 0-60 stock is around
> 10.2 sec. If I chip it, can the 0-60 times drop to around 8 sec.? This
> would be adequate, although faster yet would be better.
>
> Just curious how much improvement just a chip can do. I know the
> horsepower/torque gains, but I want some 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times to
> compare to. Merging with traffic shouldn't be something you have to think
> about. Any info is greatly appreciated.
>
> jb

Our '04 Passat TDI sedan will spin the tires easily from a stop, and has
that great diesel "pull" at highway speeds. It frequently doesn't have to
downshift at 45-55 going to 65+, it just goes. Never a problem merging. My
wife always drives it and she loves it because she's a leadfoot. Even so,
she still gets about 30mpg, mostly in-town. Highway we get 45+. Very nice
car to drive.

--
Wake