anti Touareg sentiment

Rob Guenther wrote:

> And we all know that the Germans like to give conservative times for their
> cars, so publications will have better times.

The German's cheat *both* directions, just like the other builders, and
the mags have marketing "considerations" in their testing. That's the
real world.

Actually , all the publications don't even have better times, here's a
link again:

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...01scc_20gsgti/

And more importantly here's what that magazine says about the power:

"And the throttle. Oh, the throttle. Drive-by-wire is more often a curse
than a blessing and the calibration used in the GTI is terrible. The
throttle is slow to respond and has a general feeling of disconnect and
vagueness. Combine that with an easily heat-soaked intercooler and
getting the GTI moving on a hot day is a choice between stalling and
wheelspin (or bogging if the electronic stability control isn't disabled)."

Those of us_that have actually owned the 1.8T know this mag quote to be
true...they are pigs at low rpms in day to day driving until the turbo
comes on. Very soft.

Actually, the 2.0L and even TDI feel about as strong in around town
normal driving unless you're jumping all over the 1.8T to get on the boost.

Thats from someone that's driven all three a lot...and owned two of them.

Not some mag quoting, 0-60 obcessed, kids...

But knock yourselves out splitting hairs guys. <g>

Rob Guenther wrote:
>
> The times for the new Accord kinda scare me... doesn't seem right for the
> family sedan, the rubber must melt off the wheels on that car.

Well, it does make 240 hp (80 hp/l). And, IIRC, runs on regular *and*
is ULEV. Impressive, I must say.

> Don't know if
> you posted the age of the accords either originally (I4 and V6 I think is
> all you said) I've been in the I-4 from 1994 and it's slow. I've heard good
> things about the 2000 V6 from a friend.

I know a guy who has one. Nice car, just a tiny bit less nice than a
B5.5 Passat IMO. Don't know much about the new ones except that they're
fast.

--
Mike Smith

>Still, i'd say most of the cars you've driven are in the 7 seconds range

Fine, I'll call the average about 7 seconds. I think that's fair, and it still
makes the average car on my list much quicker than any TDi.

>The times for the new Accord kinda scare me... doesn't seem right for the
>family sedan

The W8 passat is quicker, so is the Grand Prix GTP and the Nissan Maxima 3.5.
Sedans are getting quick.

> Don't know if
>you posted the age of the accords either originally (I4 and V6 I think is
>all you said)

I posted that I'd driven 3 different generations of Accord, and had sampled
both I4 and V6 models. Given, most of them are above the 7.0 second average,
but the point of that list was mostly just to illustrate how many cars I've
driven.

> I've been in the I-4 from 1994 and it's slow

Most 4 cylinder cars from the early 90s are rather slow. And by comparison,
even the 90Hp TDi is, at the very least, adequate.

> I've heard good
>things about the 2000 V6 from a friend.

The 2000 V6 was a much improved car over the previous versions, albeit not
perfect. The new generation that started in 2003 is undoubtedly the best Accord
ever. It's unfortunate that some companies cars don't get any better over time.
Steve Grauman

>Actually , all the publications don't even have better times, here's a
>link again:

SCC is a hack job magazine. They've become so over-obssesed with building-up
Civics that nothing else seems right to them, and they'll bash everything else.

>Those of us_that have actually owned the 1.8T know this mag quote to be
>true...they are pigs at low rpms in day to day driving until the turbo
>comes on. Very soft.

The Tiptronic is a flawed tranny, and I've personally commented on it many
times. It often makes the 1.8T seem much worse than it is. However, my 1.8T is
mated to a 5-speed, and it never once has come off as "soft" or like a "pig".
It luanches hard through first gear, and the drive by wire throttle isn't quite
as bad as SCC's horridly biased test drivers made it out to be.
Steve Grauman

The magazine definately leaves something to be desired in terms of the
writeup being very professional.
"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> >Actually , all the publications don't even have better times, here's a
>>link again:
>
> SCC is a hack job magazine. They've become so over-obssesed with
> building-up
> Civics that nothing else seems right to them, and they'll bash everything
> else.
>
>>Those of us_that have actually owned the 1.8T know this mag quote to be
>>true...they are pigs at low rpms in day to day driving until the turbo
>>comes on. Very soft.
>
> The Tiptronic is a flawed tranny, and I've personally commented on it many
> times. It often makes the 1.8T seem much worse than it is. However, my
> 1.8T is
> mated to a 5-speed, and it never once has come off as "soft" or like a
> "pig".
> It luanches hard through first gear, and the drive by wire throttle isn't
> quite
> as bad as SCC's horridly biased test drivers made it out to be.
> Steve Grauman

I've found the 2.0L to feel slower then a TDI just for around town... 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. If I am driving my
TDI I seem to pull away from standing traffic at a light quite easily... if
I take the 2.0L Golf out, I feel I really need to build a few extra revs in
first gear then in second to keep ahead of the flow of traffic.... Of course
if you let both cars rev up the 2.0L is noticably quicker, definately a fun
little car to drive around in, but it uses quite a bit more gas driven hard.
"JH" > wrote in message
...
> Rob Guenther wrote:
>
>> And we all know that the Germans like to give conservative times for
>> their cars, so publications will have better times.
>
> The German's cheat *both* directions, just like the other builders, and
> the mags have marketing "considerations" in their testing. That's the
> real world.
>
> Actually , all the publications don't even have better times, here's a
> link again:
>
> http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...01scc_20gsgti/
>
> And more importantly here's what that magazine says about the power:
>
> "And the throttle. Oh, the throttle. Drive-by-wire is more often a curse
> than a blessing and the calibration used in the GTI is terrible. The
> throttle is slow to respond and has a general feeling of disconnect and
> vagueness. Combine that with an easily heat-soaked intercooler and getting
> the GTI moving on a hot day is a choice between stalling and wheelspin (or
> bogging if the electronic stability control isn't disabled)."
>
> Those of us_that have actually owned the 1.8T know this mag quote to be
> true...they are pigs at low rpms in day to day driving until the turbo
> comes on. Very soft.
>
> Actually, the 2.0L and even TDI feel about as strong in around town normal
> driving unless you're jumping all over the 1.8T to get on the boost.
>
> Thats from someone that's driven all three a lot...and owned two of them.
>
> Not some mag quoting, 0-60 obcessed, kids...
>
> But knock yourselves out splitting hairs guys. <g>

Rob Guenther wrote:

> I've found the 2.0L to feel slower then a TDI just for around town... 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. If I am driving my
> TDI I seem to pull away from standing traffic at a light quite easily... if
> I take the 2.0L Golf out, I feel I really need to build a few extra revs in
> first gear then in second to keep ahead of the flow of traffic.... Of course
> if you let both cars rev up the 2.0L is noticably quicker, definately a fun
> little car to drive around in, but it uses quite a bit more gas driven hard.

Couldn't agree more. TDI is a great "normal drive around town" motor,
for everyday drivers that aren't running up past 3000 rpms. (The way
most adults actually drive) Terrific mileage and good performance.

I'd rate them this way for that normal non-performance drive around
town-TDI followed by 2.OL followed by 1.8T

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

For Amerian driver's the 1.8T never made much sense to me. We don't
have high gas prices and we don't have European tax laws and regs that
favor low displacement engines. Easier to get the same or more
performance with just increased displacement and no turbo complexity and
service/durability issues.

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

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

Turbos in diesel cars make more sense.

--
JH

In article >,
JH > wrote:
>
<snip>
>http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...01scc_20gsgti/
>
>And more importantly here's what that magazine says about the power:
>
>"And the throttle. Oh, the throttle. Drive-by-wire is more often a curse
>than a blessing and the calibration used in the GTI is terrible. The
>throttle is slow to respond and has a general feeling of disconnect and
>vagueness. Combine that with an easily heat-soaked intercooler and
>getting the GTI moving on a hot day is a choice between stalling and
>wheelspin (or bogging if the electronic stability control isn't disabled)."
>
>Those of us_that have actually owned the 1.8T know this mag quote to be
>true...they are pigs at low rpms in day to day driving until the turbo
>comes on. Very soft.

This finally makes sense to me why my chipped 1994 2.0L Jetta and TTSS
exhaust seems to equal and sometimes beat 1.8Ts out the light.

>Actually, the 2.0L and even TDI feel about as strong in around town
>normal driving unless you're jumping all over the 1.8T to get on the boost.

This is where the experienced driver part comes in. The clueless wonders
are easy and those who rev out spin their tires.

>Thats from someone that's driven all three a lot...and owned two of them.
>
>Not some mag quoting, 0-60 obcessed, kids...
>
>But knock yourselves out splitting hairs guys. <g>

Too bad. It sounds like I am going to hate drive by wire until they
get it fixed.

--
Jeeps and dubs and everything's nice...
Replace nospam with jetta for e-mail

In article >,
Steve Grauman > wrote:
>>Actually , all the publications don't even have better times, here's a
>>link again:
>
>SCC is a hack job magazine. They've become so over-obssesed with building-up
>Civics that nothing else seems right to them, and they'll bash everything else.
>
>>Those of us_that have actually owned the 1.8T know this mag quote to be
>>true...they are pigs at low rpms in day to day driving until the turbo
>>comes on. Very soft.
>
>The Tiptronic is a flawed tranny, and I've personally commented on it many
>times. It often makes the 1.8T seem much worse than it is. However, my 1.8T is
>mated to a 5-speed, and it never once has come off as "soft" or like a "pig".
>It luanches hard through first gear, and the drive by wire throttle isn't quite
>as bad as SCC's horridly biased test drivers made it out to be.
>Steve Grauman

Sounds like the wallet talking to me.


--
Jeeps and dubs and everything's nice...
Replace nospam with jetta for e-mail

Peter Parker wrote:

> In article >,
> Steve Grauman > wrote:
>
>>>Actually , all the publications don't even have better times, here's a
>>>link again:
>>
>>SCC is a hack job magazine. They've become so over-obssesed with building-up
>>Civics that nothing else seems right to them, and they'll bash everything else.
>>
>>
>>>Those of us_that have actually owned the 1.8T know this mag quote to be
>>>true...they are pigs at low rpms in day to day driving until the turbo
>>>comes on. Very soft.
>>
>>The Tiptronic is a flawed tranny, and I've personally commented on it many
>>times. It often makes the 1.8T seem much worse than it is. However, my 1.8T is
>>mated to a 5-speed, and it never once has come off as "soft" or like a "pig".
>>It luanches hard through first gear, and the drive by wire throttle isn't quite
>>as bad as SCC's horridly biased test drivers made it out to be.
>>Steve Grauman
>
>
> Sounds like the wallet talking to me.
>
>

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

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...

That's the way it really is...

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

P.S. All the VWs I've owned are manuals...not Tiptronic.

--
JH