Look i always attack Cruze on the whole 40 MPG thing. So same goes here.

Yeah 40 sound great, but in a year after VW does on sale Honda will come out with brand new Civic and the CR-Z and a year after that new Corolla should arrive. I am willing to bet that all 3 will get more than 40, Civic already gets 36 right now, so i do not see why new Civic will not be able to get more than 40 and it will probably get more than VW in the city. This whole 40 MPG on highway segment will be just as crowded in about 2-3 years as 30 MPG on highway is right now.

↓↑report

I doubt anyone will purchase a Mark VI Rabbit TDi simply for it's >50mpg on the freeway, it's going to have dynamic drive as an option, an even better interrior than the current car, and should be a bit cheaper, all those add up to a much more refined ride (especially with the ability to go from 'comfort' to 'sport') in conjunction with the prius beating on highway (aka where americans spend a lot of their time) fuel economy.

I can't wait. Mark VI rabbit with dynamic drive and 55 on the highway for just a hair above 20k? Sign me up.

↓↑report

@nowelfare

The difference between mileage when you hit the high 30's and 40's is very misleading. It actually makes very little difference in real world terms when compared to the difference in fuel economy in the 10's and 20's.

A improvement of 2.5 mpg on a vehicle that get's 12.5mpg (bringing it up to 15mpg) would actually save you about as much money at the pump as an improvement from 30mpg to 70mpg.

Here is an example. Driving 100 miles in a vehicle with gas at $4 a gallon here is what the estimated cost would be based on MPG...

12.5pmg $32
15mpg $26.66
20mpg $20
25mpg $16
30mpg $13.33
35mpg $11.42
40mpg $10
45mpg $8.88
all the way down to...
70mpg $5.71

So people are making a big deal out of next to nothing. Getting that dream new econobox that get's 45mpg instead of 40mpg on a 100 mile trip it is going to save you just over $1! WHOOOPPPIE! Meanwhile the guy who bought the new truck that get's 2-3 mpg better than his old one saved enough on that trip alone in gas to buy himself lunch.

My point is American mpg ratings are misleading. A better reflection would actually gallons per 100 miles (in Canada we use litres per 100km). The net effect is that there is little being gained when you talk about increases in fuel economy at that end of the scale and far more being gained than it would appear when you talk about small increases in economy at the gas guzzler end.

↓↑report

@ zamafir:

That's assuming the US-spec MKVI Rabbit will have the Dynamic Drive. I'm not betting on it. Just as likely we won't get the parking assistance feature it has as well.

We never seem to get the full-on Euro versions and considering the difference between the USD and Euro, i doubt that things will change anytime soon.

↓↑report

There are 2 challenges- the mentioned Urea tank, along with the completely different emissions system that would be needed just for that one model. and the fact that VW is selling Tiguans in Europe for ALOT more profit than they can in the US because of the weak US$.

↓↑report

I agree, especially when the 2.0T with DSG in the GTI can do 32+ mpg on the highway. My best is 33mpg in my A3 with the same engine and it weighs more. I can easily get 30+ on any trip. Not sure why VW sticks with that 2.5

↓↑report

Not to mention it still has an iron block.

↓↑report

Thou speaketh the truth.

↓↑report

Not sure why? It's pretty darn simple, it's super cheap for vw to build, federalize, and sell.

Vw has the awesome 1.4TSI with 39mpg and 170hp, but as I've read here in the comment sections, vw's are unreliable, so why would Americans want a vw powerplant with twincharged power? If VWs in America were as reliable as those in europe where vw enjoys a ridiculously solid rep, then i'm sure vw would bring the 1.4TSI over... if they could make a solid business case given how much more expensive that powerplant is.

↓↑report

Umm, I get 32 hwy in my 07 Jetta 2.5/5MT. Air on or off, no matter. 75mph cruise on.

Considering the car's size equal competitors, I'd say that is on par.

↓↑report

I don't want a VW at all, let alone one with a turbo (or two turbos like mine has).

VW should just put a smaller normally aspirated engine in. No need to go with a crazy expensive turbocharged motor, when you already have a car with that. Just go down to a 2.0L gas engine with 125HP-135HP. Aluminum block. It'll be lighter, smaller and get better mpg.

↓↑report

TMC:
Umm, you can't compare EPA ratings to your informal tests. Yes, you get 32mpg. But if you are getting above ratings on a Rabbit, it's quite likely you'd get above ratings on another vehicle too. If you got 10% over on a Cobalt or Corolla, you'd be looking at 41mpg. So 32mpg is competitive how?

↓↑report

LS, different companies have different values.

GM is great because they are bent on giving the best value in a car possible. To them, that means analyzing which technologies are best for a particular application, and simply not using the ones which don't justify their cost.

VW has a different strategy to do the same thing. They try to engineer one-size-fits-all platforms and motors so they can take advantage of economies of scale, and then overcompensate for the deficiencies in particular applications by using better technology in all applications.

-- To note, I'd bet GM's post-1990 globalization efforts were heavily influenced by VAG's model. The Astra, which is the spear-head of their globalization efforts, was designed to be a Golf beater, and it even succeeded in dethroning the long-time European champ. GM's new line of global motors are fairly similar in model to VAG's, and even eclipse VAG's in a lot of ways. That's testimony to VAG's approach -- that it was emulated by GM.

I'm not arguing that the 2.5 is good, but I do think it was the best motor for VW's strategy when it was created, and I think it is good for them to keep it around for a while longer. Why is that? VW's global market is very different from the US's. Because VW relies on economies of scale so heavily, the investment in a motor that would only account for, I'd guess 3%, of the total motors they produced had to be small. Thus they had limited resources to work with, so making a high-tech motor was out of the question. The 2.5 is a very well-rounded motor. Until the global market's demands start to justify making a more reliable global motor from VAG, and considering the 2.5 was an overall success in America, I bet something similar -- cheap to develop and reliable -- will be in the books for a long time to come, and it makes sense to just keep the one they have to maximize the return on its development.

↓↑report