New VW 1.8T recall...

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy


Kinda like the old 2.0 4 cyl that was made in Mexico for the City Golf (a Canada only car). Abysmal fuel economy and only turned out about 115hp. Great numbers for 1985, not so in the 2000's


You can still but that abysmal motor for modern cars. It comes in the base level 2014/2015 Jetta. $2k savings not well spent for 1980's tech.


Didn't that engine have an issue with oil usage? In 1996 I looked looked at a new Jetta 5sp manual with the 2.0L and a Ford Contour with the 2.0L Zetec with the 5 sp manual. The Ford was a more solid build car and was quicker and better handling than the Jetta at that time. I still have the Contour, coming up on 19 years, it runs great, looks great and uses no oil between 8500 mile OCI's. Before the Contour I always bought new VW's, 1972, 1974, 1977 and 1985. The 1972 was a Beetle, the rests were Rabbits and a Golf, loved those cars, especially the 1985.

Whimsey

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I wonder if this article writer confused the 2.5L I-5 with the 8-valve 2.0L 4-cylinder that came out a few years ago with the Jetta. In nearly every article I've read about the newer VWs, the 2.5L I-5 was the preferred engine by far.


Well, considering in most cases the only other option was the 2.slow, that isn't saying much. Pretty much everything I'm reading says the new 1.8T is a huge improvement overall over the 5. More torque at lower rpms, vastly more fuel efficient, better sound, etc. If wallpaper paste is the only thing someone has to eat, he won't know anything better.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Whimsey
Didn't that engine have an issue with oil usage?

At one time it did. Somewhere around 1999 and 2000, a whole batch of pistons rings were installed upside down when the engines were assembled at the factory.

Pretty sure this is no longer an issue today.

 

[wemay]

errrr... i actually like the 2.0 Jetta cross-flow. fond memories with that lump.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: dparm
They don't hate every incarnation of the 2.5 I5:

Art work to say the least...

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: gregk24
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Quote:
The new mill replaced the despised 2.5-liter five-cylinder

Despised? I thought they were fairly decent and bullet-proof engines. Being somewhat low-tech was actually a good thing - no turbo and DI to worry about. Sheesh...


I know, I actually like the 2.5 I5. Pretty reliable and it sounded cool. I dont know why it receives the criticism it does.


Because automotive journalists today are verbose morons who write whatever their editors tell them the advertisers would like said that month.


Yes, in particular their job is to get you to buy the advertiser's latest, so dissing the last generation is an important exercise.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead



Because automotive journalists today are verbose morons who write whatever their editors tell them the advertisers would like said that month.


The only ones who have anything bad to say about it are automotive journalists. Likely furthering their agenda to encourage sales of its replacement.

Why anyone reads their fawning tripe anymore is beyond me.


You are right on target, in the USA these fake journalists are getting payola from advertisers and manufacturers, they
are NOT objective, UNbiased reviewers in any way, shape, or form.

One of the more obnoxious trends among these jerks over the past decade is to make sure to mention that "the consumer" always should look at the more expensive versions of every main stream model because the basic and standard trim levels don't have enough
tech, or comfort features....It is disgustingly obvious that these phony jerks are being told to push certain things whether they are actually beneficial for the consumer or not.