anti Touareg sentiment

>you
>really need to wind up the 2.0 motor to get anything out of it... and it's
>not a motor that enjoys being wound up past 4500-5000rpm

My biggest complaint of the 2.0 is that it's 2 valve head and single cam setup
make it very hard for the engine to "breathe" and do it's job much above 4,000
RPM. I've always felt that they were fine for normal surface street traffic but
felt very weak and strained when I need them to rev higher on the highway. The
2.0's passing power is non-existant. Hopefully the new 2.0T will spawn a
twin-cam, multi-valve replacement for the N/A 2.0 we've got right now.
Steve Grauman

>Fact is that little 1.8T just doesn't have any real low end grunt until
>you hit reasonable boost around 3000 rpms.

Iv'e never had a problem with my 1.8T in very slow, bumper to bumper traffic.
And if it can work during rushhour on the 101 here in Los Angeles, then it
shouldn't be problematic for anyone.

>For Amerian driver's the 1.8T never made much sense to me. We don't
>have high gas prices

We don't? Damn, and I though almost $3 a gallon for 91 was high. The 1.8T gets
gas mileage roughly equivalent to that of the 2.0, but with FAR better
performance. You shouldn't need to think very hard about why it's VW/Audi's
most popular engine.

>Easier to get the same or more
>performance with just increased displacement and no turbo complexity and
>service/durability issues.

Unfortunately, VW hasn't really commited to N/A performance engines. You might
have noticed that the $31,000 R32 is the only car in the current lineup using
this methodology. The 200Hp VR6 is now only avaliable in the GTi, and it's
added weight and higher fuel consumption offset whatever MINOR performance
advantages it may have.

>There's still no good performance substitue for cubic inches...for
>American car OWNERS and drivers.

Turbocharging small engines IS a viable way getting high-performance, just look
at the 911 TT aganist the Corvette or Viper. The old addage about their being
"no replacement for displacement" is an outdated one. Welcome to the 21st
Century.

>Gas Turbos are a marketing gimmick for the gullable in America.

Yea, you're right. I'd much rather have an engine without turbos. If I'm lucky,
it'll be three times the size, get half the gas mileage and be 5x as loud. All
for the same level of performance by turbo-4 is getting me right now. How about
that new Subaru Legacy 2.5T? Fully loaded with leather and AWD for less than
$36k, and 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Quick enough to rival Pontiac's 350Hp, LS1
powered GTO.
Steve Grauman

>Sounds like the wallet talking to me.
>

I test drove so many other cars when I bought my GTi, my head spun. NONE of
them were as good. And the "real" cars mags like C&D have never had any major
problems with the drive by wire throttle.
Steve Grauman

>Very astute. You must have more real car (and life) experience than
>just some kid reading magazines and regurgitating on newsgroups.

This is hilarious. You guys are the ones up in arms defending the TDi. Sounds
like bunch of current and/or former TDi owners trying to defend their
purchases. How dare some "kid" come onto the NG and question the quality of the
car you've purchased? LOL!

>Road & Track, Car & Driver and Motor Trend are just ad driven major
>media company owned rags that would try to say a car runs 0-60 in 3
>seconds...if big enough mfr's ads were being run...

So SCC isn't? Their Honda-obsession is just a conincidence? Their obvious bias
towards Japanese cars isn't a product of who buys their ads? They aren't making
less of an effort with the VW because they don't like it as much anyway? I'm
really sorry I insulted those of you who choose to dump cash on TDis. If you
really want to believe that the 1.8T is really just a bad engine that's been
overhyped, that's fine. But you might have noticed that C&D PRAISED the 1.8T,
even while relegating the GTi to 3rd place in a 3 car comparison. Wow, that
sounds like marketing-driven test results to me!

>And yes, often those cars are especially "prepped" driven and timed for
>mag tests...been there and done that.

Even if that's true, the other 2 cars in that C&D comparison would have had an
equal amount of prep work as the GTi. And neither of them were as quick, and
neither of their engine's recieved the praise that the 1.8T did. It's the most
populat engine in the VW/Audi lineup, and has been essentially since it's
introduction in 1997. If you want to argue with the millions of people here and
in Europe that all saw the 1.8T for the quality engine that it is, you go ahead
and try. If you're happy with your TDi, that's wonderful. And you can justufy
it all you want. Say that I'm just a dumb kid, that nobody really needs a 1.8T,
that it's not really that great an engine anyway, that "grownups don't need to
drive like that". I'll know that in the back of your minds, you all know that
you bought the TDi for it's economy, and that you know the 1.8T is a superior
engine. And wether you need it or not is irrelevant, some part of us always
wants to have a quicker car.
Steve Grauman

Steve Grauman wrote:
>
> Turbocharging small engines IS a viable way getting high-performance, just look
> at the 911 TT aganist the Corvette or Viper.

1) 911 engines ain't that small anymore. In the 997, the largest engine
is now 3.8 liters, pretty large for a six.

2) 911 engines may have power, but they don't make gobs torque down low
the way the Vette or Viper do.

3) The new Vette has a combined city/hwy mpg of 22.6, compared to 18.2
for the 911 Turbo, and 20.6 for a normally-aspirated 911.

4) Compare the price of a Vette to that of a 911.

I have as much respect for the 911 as the next guy, but the
large-displacement approach can also produce highly desirable results.

--
Mike Smith

On 28 Sep 2004 22:13:11 GMT, (Steve Grauman) wrote:

> You guys are the ones up in arms defending the TDi.

It's TDI (all caps). Get it right.

>I'll know that in the back of your minds, you all know that
>you bought the TDi for it's economy, and that you know the 1.8T is a superior
>engine.

Superior? I judge my cars on a whole lot more factors than their 0-60
times. There as so few opportunities to accelerate at full throttle
in every day driving what difference does it make? Maybe having a
"faster car" is what your ego needs. Not mine.

>And wether you need it or not is irrelevant, some part of us always
>wants to have a quicker car.

What the hell for? We're mired in traffic, whether it is in town, on
the freeway, or rural roads. All you ever get to do is follow the guy
in front. I'd rather have a more comfortable car, a quieter car, a
safer car, a car that handles better on snowy or icy roads. I don't
need "quicker".

What difference does "quicker" make? Does it get me where I want to
go any sooner? How much time could a "quicker" car save me in a day?
None. It's all about ego.

--
Remove preceding and trailing X from username for replies
(Sorry, but I'm SICK of spam...)

"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> Say that I'm just a dumb kid, ....

This post kind of said that for us...not that your dumb...but that you are a
kid. (;^D)

When I was 21 I would have agreed with you, but now that I am a dumb old fart, I
don't.

You'll understand some day. I'll be honest with you, I look at how easy it is to
change an oil filter or spark plugs more than I do 0-60 times. If I want neck
snapping acceleration, I'll get a bike...for the real world, there are things I
am more concerned with.
--
Tony Bad (who hasn't been 21 for a LONG time!)

02 Jetta Wagon
01 Eurovan MV
91 Jetta 1.6 Diesel
86 Jetta
79 Rabbit 1.5 Diesel (semi-retired for now)
Schwinn Continental 10 Speed
Radio Flyer Pedal Car (my daughter made me add this)

>1) 911 engines ain't that small anymore. In the 997, the largest engine
>is now 3.8 liters, pretty large for a six.

3.8 Litres is still pretty small in comparison to 6.0 in the new C6 Corvette
and 7.0 for the Viper. The 911 Turbo produces enough power to wipe either of
them from the raod. Besides, it's not always neccesary to turbocharge with a
company as adavced as Porsche. The 380Hp GT3 has a naturally aspirated flat
six, and can do the 0-60 dash in 4.0.

>2) 911 engines may have power, but they don't make gobs torque down low
>the way the Vette or Viper do.
>

They pull very strongly down low thanks to a well designed engine and the
clever operation of the Variocam system. If all you want is the kind of power
that melts tires, there are much less expensive ways to do it than either the
911 or the Corvette.

>3) The new Vette has a combined city/hwy mpg of 22.6, compared to 18.2
>for the 911 Turbo, and 20.6 for a normally-aspirated 911.
>

Of course this may change when the C6 and 997 are offically out. And this isn't
typical of an American V8.

>4) Compare the price of a Vette to that of a 911.
>

Absolutely. But you're paying for a lot more than just speed when you buy a
Porsche. Compare the build quality.

>I have as much respect for the 911 as the next guy, but the
>large-displacement approach can also produce highly desirable results.

Of course it can. What I'm arguing is the notion that turbocharging a smaller
engine isn't as viable a way to get power. The RS6 makes 450Hp from a 4.2 litre
V8. Compare it to the 400Hp Z06, which has 5.7 litres on tap and a much gruffer
approach.
Steve Grauman

>Superior? I judge my cars on a whole lot more factors than their 0-60
>times.

So do I. That's why when I examined the 1.8T aganist the other engines in VW's
lineup, I noticed that in addition to being more powerful than the 2.0, it gets
about the same gas mileage. It doesn't need to be pushed as hard getting on the
freeway or when attempting to pass, and it doesn't carry as many revs when
cruising at 60-65, making it quieter. It's also a lot easier to make the car
move up steep grades. That's all beside the fact that the car is quicker, and
will be worth more in resale. Of course I'm sure you guys will all tell me that
none of that matters, right? And I'm just buying the more powerful engine to
play boy racer.

>There as so few opportunities to accelerate at full throttle
>in every day driving what difference does it make?

You can read my above statement. While other performance figures matter very
little to me, a car's ability to acclerate matters A LOT to me. I spend a lot
of time in my car, especially on the highway. It's ability to get up to speed
quickly and easily once on the highway and pass without big noise or effort are
important to me. The TDIs I drove were needed noticeablly more time/room to do
this. It's 2004, I shouldn't need to be planning every pass like I would've in
a 1967 Beetle, making sure it's got 2 miles to get the speed.

>I'd rather have a more comfortable car, a quieter car, a
>safer car, a car that handles better on snowy or icy roads.

Well the Golf/GTI is the most comfortable and solid car in it's class, IMO.
It's also among the safest, with curtain and side airbags and a 5 star
crash-test rating. And it's neither loud nor a gas guzzler. And these traits
are all true of my 1.8T. So why not have a little more power too? It's not like
I'm advocating having a 400Hp hatchback.
Steve Grauman

>When I was 21 I would have agreed with you, but now that I am a dumb old
>fart, I
>don't.
>

I don't think any of you guys are dumb. I do, however, think that because
you're all older than me, you're more willing as a group to discount my opinion
because you're priorities at 40, 50, etc... are different than mine now. I
happen to like the idea of a TDI. A fuel efficent engine that's realitivly
quiet and dependable, with enough power to be adequate as a day to day driver.
And if I had the cash for a 2nd car right now, I might consider a TDI Jetta or
Passat. By I'm not used to a car that needs that kind of room. I drive a much
quicker car every day and that's what I've come to like. You can either see it
as a difference in opinion, or go and get all annoyed by it. Whatever you want.
Steve Grauman