2014 Passat 2.5 or 1.8T?

Status
Not open for further replies.
0

08sienna

Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
106
Location
northeast
Hello bitogers,
I was looking at a Genesis earlier and now I changed my mind, looking at Passats.
New 1.8T engine looks better all around (better mileage, max power at lower RPM etc) but I heard many worries about reliability of VW turbo engines. The consensus seems that VW turbo engines are only good upto 100k miles. Do you agree with that? Should I go for a 2.5 engine with deeper ($1k) discount?

Thank you as always!
 
The 2.5 is still 2.slow for me, But usable
The 1.8 TSI is still not proven itself for me
If you can get a reasonably priced VW extended warranty,
Go for the 1.8

Y no TDI?
 
If you're looking at a Passat, the 1.8T is probably your best bet.

The TDI is a few thousand more, has a timing belt, needs fuel filters every 20k and will need a DSG service every 40k. The TCO is MUCH higher.

Plus, diesel is running $0.50/gal higher than 87 octane (that's what the new 1.8T calls for).

At best, with the TDI, you're looking at a 10mpg improvement over the 1.8T.
 
Originally Posted By: michaelluscher
The 2.5 is still 2.slow for me, But usable
The 1.8 TSI is still not proven itself for me
If you can get a reasonably priced VW extended warranty,
Go for the 1.8

Y no TDI?


I drove my dad's Volvo S60 diesel a lot (Asian market) I did not like the feeling of it at all.
It had amazing low RPM torque but I hated the braking sensation with a gas pedal release.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
If you're looking at a Passat, the 1.8T is probably your best bet.


Could you elaborate a little bit?
If 2.5 is certainly more reliable, I don't mind couple less miles/gal or less torque@ lower RPM.
I know nobody can tell for certain at this point.
According to this article
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-volkswagen-passat-18t-first-drive-review

"The engine features a thin-wall crankcase and fewer counterweights for reduced mass, as well as smaller main bearings and reduced oil pressure to minimize friction. The exhaust manifold is integral to the cylinder head to allow the engine to warm up more quickly, and the turbo is smaller and spools up faster."

Thoughts? All sound like reliability sacrifices to me.
 
I know it isn't the same engine, but a friends 2002 gti went around 180k when he traded it. Had a cel for tens of thousands of miles, a leaky foam tube under the hood, etc. no sludge. Car disintegrated around the engine.

So that old 1.8T was a good engine that performed well and was pretty tough.

We have the 2.5. It's a great city engine because unlike many, it doesn't need to be wound up a lot to make the torque. Our complaint is that it needs six gears to operate most efficiently on the highway. Locally we can cruise around town at 25-30 mph returning >40 mpg while moving (averages much lower because of lights and traffic) because it does well at low throttle moderate speed. But for a highway car I'd be very considerate of the gearing, otherwise you may be disappointed.

Turbo engines always make good torque down low. Mi don't know how leggy this one is, but if it's like my saab and my BMW,mits hardly noticeable. And if you stay off the boost, can be quite efficient too.

I'd only buy an mt though, since for one, VW is one of the few companies that still offers them in lots of cars, and two, their dsg isn't that great (IMO) and requires $$$ service.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
...their dsg isn't that great (IMO) and requires $$$ service.


That is arguable, but irrelevant since the 1.8t is backed by a conventional 6sp automatic or in some trims a 5 speed manual.
 
Last yr. I believe for the 2.5L. If lowest operating costs are a concern, go for the 2.5L. Iron block, timing chain, no direct injection and mated w/the 6-sp Aisin Warner Auto. This engine has very good torque at low rpm's. Not the most fuel effecient but truely a pleasure to drive. I really, really like my Golf w/this engine. If you're planning on keeping the car for a long, long time, I believe the 2.5L will serve you better. The 1.8T w/the DSG transmission will cost alot more to maintain in the long haul. Also, do look into the wheel rims. Lower profile tires handle better but more expensive to replace and may not ride as well as tires w/more sidewalls. Also, potholes and bent rims. My Golf has 15" steelies w/P195/65/r15's, perfect for me. (The car even came w/a FULL sized spare!) The Passat is a very nice car, either engine will give you lots of driving pleasure!
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
...their dsg isn't that great (IMO) and requires $$$ service.


That is arguable, but irrelevant since the 1.8t is backed by a conventional 6sp automatic or in some trims a 5 speed manual.


Argue all you want, but manual shifting is slow and sluggish, no convenient way to hit neutral on command, etc. left to its own devices it shifts quick, but I'm not seeing the benefit for a pedestrian vehicle, given that you're paying 1000+ for it and then need to do an $$$ service quite often.

I thought the 1.8 got the dsg??

I'm no fan of slapping six mt gears into everything in the name of "performance" gearing, but a two od 6-sp is far better than a poorly geared 5 sp. if the 5 so is geared like our rabbit, it's missing another od.
 
Originally Posted By: sparky123
Last yr. I believe for the 2.5L. If lowest operating costs are a concern, go for the 2.5L. Iron block, timing chain, no direct injection and mated w/the 6-sp Aisin Warner Auto. This engine has very good torque at low rpm's. Not the most fuel effecient but truely a pleasure to drive. I really, really like my Golf w/this engine. If you're planning on keeping the car for a long, long time, I believe the 2.5L will serve you better. The 1.8T w/the DSG transmission will cost alot more to maintain in the long haul. Also, do look into the wheel rims. Lower profile tires handle better but more expensive to replace and may not ride as well as tires w/more sidewalls. Also, potholes and bent rims. My Golf has 15" steelies w/P195/65/r15's, perfect for me. (The car even came w/a FULL sized spare!) The Passat is a very nice car, either engine will give you lots of driving pleasure!


Why are the 2.5's operating costs unquestionably lower? The 1.8T has a 3mpg higher EPA combined rating. That equates to $1,400 in fuel savings over 100,000 miles.

Also as was stated above the 1.8T is not mated to the DSG.



I'd go for the 1.8T hands down. In fact I'm considering a Jetta with it to replace my Focus, even though I'm not a huge fan of the looks or lack of creature comforts. I just want a great, smooth powertrain at this point after living with the Focus's DCT for two years now.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with the 2.5 I5. It's their workhorse engine and is used in a lot of vehicles. It's actually a very torquey motor.
 
I would do the 2.5L and skip the turbo. But I would also ask this question on the VW forums to people who have logged over 100k on the VW turbos and see what the response is.
 
Last edited:
If it were me I would go with the 2.5, they have been around a while and have proven to be pretty reliable.
 
2.5L gets you another $1000 off...SOLD
01.gif
 
Just took a look a VW's web site. Passat doesn't have the DSG transmission in the Wolfsburg Edition! Also, the 1.8T is an FSI engine so carbon deposits may not be an issue? Also, the 1.8T is a cast iron block w/very good torque (184lb-ft) @ 1500-4750 rpm's. Wheels are 16's on the S & WE. Better mileage as well. VERY, very good! The only question is the maintainance and longevity of the turbo? Rethinking my previous post. I do believe I would go for the 1.8T. (But, I still like the 2.5L alot. I'm sure you could get a really good deal on leftover 2013's!) Bill
 
Look around yout_ube for video features of the new VW gruupe 900-million dollar Passat factory in Chattanooga Tenn; a State of the Art facility and made in the US of A.
 
Originally Posted By: sparky123
Just took a look a VW's web site. Passat doesn't have the DSG transmission in the Wolfsburg Edition! Also, the 1.8T is an FSI engine so carbon deposits may not be an issue? Also, the 1.8T is a cast iron block w/very good torque (184lb-ft) @ 1500-4750 rpm's. Wheels are 16's on the S & WE. Better mileage as well. VERY, very good! The only question is the maintainance and longevity of the turbo? Rethinking my previous post. I do believe I would go for the 1.8T. (But, I still like the 2.5L alot. I'm sure you could get a really good deal on leftover 2013's!) Bill



Carbon buildup is almost non-existent on modern VAG cars. These new FSI systems have very good oil vapor reclamation. I have seen pictures of the valves in a 60k motor that looked almost brand new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
2014 jetta 1.8t oil recommendations
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
wavinwayne
W
Audi Q5 or Genesis GV70 part two
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Rand
W
Modern Turbo Engine Reliability and Durability
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
wtd
Elkins45
Any Mazda 5 owners here?
Replies
15
Views
1K
xspeedy
M
Reliable/Low Maintenance or Super Fun Vehicle To Purchase
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
4K
M1Accord
Back
Top