Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Rumorpile: Volkswagen Dropping 2.5 Inline-5, In It’s Place A Smaller Turbo-4

    The Volkswagen 2.5L Inline-five found in the current Golf, Jetta, and Passat has been ok engine during it’s life. Now, Volkswagen is changing the guard.

    Car & Driver has learned from a couple of sources that Volkswagen is looking to replacing the 2.5 with a 1.8L turbo four. There are two reasons for the change. One is due to Volkswagen simplifying their manufacturing lines because the 1.8L turbo would be based on the same family as the 2.0L turbo. The second reason is due to how close the 2.5 and 2.0T are in fuel economy. A Jetta 2.5 equipped with a manual gets a MPG rating of 23 city/33 highway while the 2.0T equipped with a manual gets 22 city/33 highway.

    gallery_10485_267_861110.png

    Source: Car & Driver

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    VW desperately needs a more fuel efficient gasoline engine for the Golf, Jetta, and Beetle. However, VW's reliability and maintenance costs still scare me, even though I find the new VW's, including the Passat, very appealing.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2.5 is a turd of the highest order. the single best thing VW could bring to market to make their common cars relevant in their sales push is to have a competent four cylinder to sell in volume that can run with all the other good four cylinders out there.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 11/23/2011 at 9:49 AM, regfootball said:

    2.5 is a turd of the highest order. the single best thing VW could bring to market to make their common cars relevant in their sales push is to have a competent four cylinder to sell in volume that can run with all the other good four cylinders out there.

    And the smaller Turbo motors have proven to be a winner.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Posts

    • I just wanted to comment that Coke Zero is so much better than Diet Coke, which leads me to wonder why they even keep producing Diet Coke.
    • Considering that Solid-State batteries are supposed to be 4 times as energy dense, I see no reason for a 50kW battery size of today's battery to not have a 600-mile range as that would then be a 200-kW solid state battery in the size of a 50-kW lithium liquid battery. Yet with that said, the faster charging speed as Drew and I have stated about Solid-State batteries should make much smaller batteries just fine once we have a 5 min charge cycle that people keep swearing all gas autos have which they do not.
    • Yeah 440 mile range is excessive.  I think if you offer extended range battery as a stand alone option it is fine, but you should be able to get the standard battery on any trim so they can get the cost down.
    • Agree, if you have a 5,000 lb EV it is going to be more efficient than a 6,000 lb EV, thus be more efficient.  They could make a 3,000 mile range F150 Lightning right now as long it is pulling a 5,000 lb trailer full of batteries and cost $450,000.   I suspect if they made a solid state Equinox EV for $35,000 with a. 302 mile range and a 600 mile extended range option that was a $15,000 stand alone option, and took away interior space and made 0-60 time longer it would have a worse take rate than manual transmissions do now.  The Cybertruck will be the litmus test for this, I suspect almost no one buys the $15,000 bed mounted battery that takes away half the bed and makes it slower and less efficient.  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search