2011 VW Jetta SEL *Now With Pics*

[Cory Wolfe]

This is going to be fairly brief in comparison to my words about the Cruze. Namely, I did not spend as much time looking the Jetta over and did not have my camera with me. In addition, it still had all the factory protective coverings over much of it.

Let me start off with a few words about the exterior. It's not as bland in person. Alot of the little details hide themselves in pictures. I was pleasantly surprised. It's still a very conservative design, but that's something VW has always honed and is present on my favorite, the MK3. In that regard, its a very well done design. It's much more modern and contemporary than the MK5 Jettas that sat beside it. Those, in comparison, were much more dated looking, as one would expect. Up front, the headlights with their far-inset elements had a very menacing look while the detailing of the grill and flow of the lines were very crisp. I loved all the little touches of chrome here and there; very subtle, yet effective. Out back, the overall impression you're left with more subdued than up front. The taillights are inoffensively shaped and not much has been added to excite the eye. The only point of interest is the detailing that is contained within the lenses of the taillights. Very interesting to look at and almost gives me an Audi vibe, which isn't too surprising. Now, what would a car be with just fascias? In between each is a moderately sculpted body and rather plain greenhouse. Again, there were a few details that were missed in photos, but overall, it's a "What you see if what you get" affair. Some sculpting at the bottom of the doors is the most interesting sight you'll find. I will say, with the added length, the body is better balanced than before. Another note, I love the new top-trim wheels. They are very nice and fill out the fenders well. This is where I feel the Jetta one-ups the Cruze. It's not as original, but it got the details down to a tee. Nothing looks out of place, there are no afterthoughts in the Jetta's design.

Inside, is where alot of the focus will be for many people. Yes, it is cheapened and yes, the design is lacking. However, I was surprised. It wasn't as bad as I was expecting and to be honest, it's in line with the competition. Between this and the Cruze, its about a draw in material quality. While the Cruze received points for some soft-touch materials, they're limited to the patch of offset-colored vinyl/cloth that coincides with the seat upholstery. The majority of the dash and door plastics are equal to what you'll find in the Jetta. The area where I felt the Jetta gained points versus the Cruze was in secondary plastics that surround all the switchgear and controls. It's all finished very nicely with a soft, velvet sheen that's a pure joy to touch. As far as the switchgear itself, it's still a Volkswagen. The only major downgrade is the climate control knobs, which aren't as fluid as the before and uses an older, outdated set-up. One surprise was the sunroof dial. Unlike before, its trimmed in silver and of a new design, which is much nicer to use. In a similar vein, the new cup holders and console storage bin are decidedly more 'American'. Both have been upsized and their usefulness doubled. VW's have long been known for having small, useless cup holders that are either too small for alot of drinks, or let them tip over too easily ( I know this first hand, it's a real quirk ). Same with the storage bin in the console, with real space inside that handily beats what was in the MK5. On a side note, it has lost the adjustable arm rest; the lid is now stationary. Moving to the back, the first thing I noticed was the added space. It is quite a bit more capacious than before and in comparison to the Cruze, which hid its added interior volume elsewhere. I felt like I was in the back seat of a midsizer, in the Jetta. Ample legroom, generous headroom, and an overall airy cabin for rear passengers to enjoy. One addition I noticed was a center console mounted door locking switch. I wouldn't call this a good addition by any means. It seems rather backwards to replace the switches previously found on the doors with a single centrally located switch. To be fair, centrally located switches are a decidedly European quirk. This is the first I've seen one in the rear, however. While I was back there, I also was able to enjoy the leather seating (the front seats still had their protective coverings). I suppose I should correct myself here... These are not covered in real leather. They're vinyl. However, they are easily the best damn vinyl seats out there. They feel and look more natural than most competitor's genuine cowhide upholstery, without a doubt.

Upon exiting the interior, I shut the doors. Such a pure and effortless *thud* that notably outdoes it predecessor. While walking away from this new Jetta, one thing is certain: While material quality took a step backwards, build quality took a step forward. Fit and finish were superb throughout. Needless to say, I came away surprised. Perhaps that rests on all the negativity surrounding its reveal and how I was expecting an utter disaster as a result. It's really nothing of the sort. Will it turn some shoppers away who come to expect only the best from VW? Surely, but the effect of such is far exaggerated. The Jetta is now more in line with its competitors and in some ways, still ahead. It's biggest threat is definitely the Cruze, not that it matters. The Chevy will always outsell the Volkswagen and I don't see that changing, though I think we will certainly see some surprises once these two officially kick it off.

*EDIT* Here are some pics.

Edited October 7, 2010 by blackviper8891

[ocnblu]

Good reporting, Viper. I might go lot cruising today and see if the local dealer has one. I can't wait for the Jetta Coupe to arrive. That's the one I am most interested in.

[regfootball]

really having seen the new Jetta I would probably say what you wrote is spot on in just about every way.

I will say, with the added length, the body is better balanced than before.

It really has just a simple balanced look to it whereas the outgoing Jetta had a pretty heavy forward focus to it. Kind of like it was dragging its butt. there is more flo now

t is quite a bit more capacious than before and in comparison to the Cruze, which hid its added interior volume elsewhere.

it's called 'GM is not able to package things efficiently' (rarely are)

Between this and the Cruze, its about a draw in material quality. While the Cruze received points for some soft-touch materials, they're limited to the patch of offset-colored vinyl/cloth that coincides with the seat upholstery. The majority of the dash and door plastics are equal to what you'll find in the Jetta.

I expect that is indeed the truth. the cruze's plastics were what i call 'baseline' average.

anyone shopping these cars for something with rear seat room has an easy decision. the cruze IMO is an epic fail in comparison. Pretty much removes it from consideration if you are gonna ever have big passengers in the back. Not that a weak 1.8 or tiny 1.4 turbo could pull extra passengers anyways.

I'm pretty on the fence between the two cars, but what BV says I think that I resonate with the most are the comments on the exterior. What looked bland in pictures, in the flesh presents itself much better and has a quality look to it exterior wise at least.

still its a pretty conservative shape. lots of folks like that understatedness. I think the Cruze exterior is a bit more outgoing.

thanks BV

Edited October 3, 2010 by regfootball

[A Horse With No Name]

Good reporting, Viper. I might go lot cruising today and see if the local dealer has one. I can't wait for the Jetta Coupe to arrive. That's the one I am most interested in.

I could really see you owning 1 car and one truck.

And as regfootball said...your spot on in your review, vipes.

[ocnblu]

Oh if only I could afford it, 66, I'd do it.

Local dealer has 3 new Jettas as of today. I have to agree with those that say it is handsome in person, with interesting details. I do not see a problem with the interior. It is still VW buttoned-down. Love the heated, perforated leatherette seats. You can tell the rear passenger area is stretched looking at the body. The apparent legroom when you look inside proves it. And a VW Jetta has traditionally had a nice size trunk.

[regfootball]

I just got done sitting in a new Jetta. Can prb elaborate more later. Cabin is nice, except.....the plastic. Hard, cheap. Really on the fence whether it's a deal breaker. I think my cobalts plastic is nicer. The plastic reminds me of the cheap stuff in the new Kia sportage as far as cheapness. The door panels in particular are bad. Shame, everything else about the interior is nice. It might be a bit big for some jetta fans now. The rear legroom is still not midsiZe but it is more than the cruze. I would say while the cruzes plastic is nicer it's still average. The jetta is simple inside. The cruze is more upbeat and interesting. SE at 22900 w moonroof and vinyl, 177hp and automatic is not bad on the jetta. You'll have to live with the almost Chrysler plastic though.

trunk is trimmed out nicely on the Jetta which is an odd paradox that the interior is not close to the same level. much nicer BOOT than the korean fuzz in the cruze.

Edited October 4, 2010 by regfootball

[Cory Wolfe]

I just got done sitting in a new Jetta. Can prb elaborate more later. Cabin is nice, except.....the plastic. Hard, cheap. Really on the fence whether it's a deal breaker. I think my cobalts plastic is nicer. The plastic reminds me of the cheap stuff in the new Kia sportage as far as cheapness. The door panels in particular are bad. Shame, everything else about the interior is nice. It might be a bit big for some jetta fans now. The rear legroom is still not midsiZe but it is more than the cruze. I would say while the cruzes plastic is nicer it's still average. The jetta is simple inside. The cruze is more upbeat and interesting. SE at 22900 w moonroof and vinyl, 177hp and automatic is not bad on the jetta. You'll have to live with the almost Chrysler plastic though.

trunk is trimmed out nicely on the Jetta which is an odd paradox that the interior is not close to the same level. much nicer BOOT than the korean fuzz in the cruze.

Hmm, I'd have to disagree about the Cobalt's plastics. Those were horrible, nowhere near on the same level as the Jetta or the Cruze.

[pow]

Jetta looks fine with the 17" wheels and chrome trim, but the S and SE models are pretty bland. Instead of having a standard cheapo navigation in the SEL, I'd rather see VW offer the higher quality dash that will be on European models and the equally-impressive RNS-510 touch screen radio. Make navigation an option instead.

[regfootball]

Hmm, I'd have to disagree about the Cobalt's plastics. Those were horrible, nowhere near on the same level as the Jetta or the Cruze.

well, perhaps there was some hyperbole there on my part, but not much. but i still stick by this. the cruze plastic is average, baseline. the Jetta's plastic as long as its new and not scratched, and you're not touching it, or a big raft of sunlight is not washing the cabin, may look ----passable-----. it's pretty close to borderline whether its a deal breaker, it depends on the individual. If i were a previous VW owner I would feel very shortchanged by this decontenting. If i were new to the brand it definitely is one thing that conveys 'cheap' instead of quality.

When you are thinking things more like 'the quality of this interior plastic reminds me of a Kia'......there is something amiss. Seriously the plastic panel above the armrest in the door is like the one in the new Kia sportage, a 50 cent swatch of thin cheap lifeless plastic filler that might be a home nicely on a kids 3 ring binder.

Someone from Chrysler once said if the brass had given them 200 bucks more per car on the interior, it would have made the difference between what was a 'not bad' interior and a 'knockout' interior impression. VW clearly has a new mission, volume at the cost of some of the value set that got it where it did in the last ten years. It really makes ME wonder what another 200 dollars a car would have done for this interior.

At least with Chevy, reaching a mid level standard on the interior is an improvement, and exceeds what most expect of chevy in the market. In that aspect, you won't disappoint many.

I think the jury is out on whether VW is stabbing any of its cult in the back here. Dan Neil probably was too far over the edge with what he said about the interior of the car but it is a problem. VW should be careful they are not blowing expectations here. Or rather that the number of blown expectations won't exceed the new incoming 'ok with it' level of expectations.

You shut the door on the new Jetta, and its got this satisfying hefty GERMAN THUNK to it. You look in the trunk and its trimmed fairly nicely. The seats cradle you and fit you pretty nice (something the Cruze doesn't really feel like it would do yet). And then you look at the dash..........you just wanna spray high gloss armor all all over it so it doesn't look like its about to dry out and crack and fall apart......

In the brochure the S model is never mentioned, its only referred to on the spec sheet. Talk about shame......

It's really a shame VW got rid of the adjustable armrest too...

Edited October 5, 2010 by regfootball

[Cory Wolfe]

Added some pictures. Also, here are some pictures a member at VW Vortex took, showing some dealer accessories:

Click here even more, including some Q&A

[Robert Hall]

Interesting beauty spot (mole) in the first pic...they didn't do the tow hook plug in body color?

[regfootball]

good lookin car. james healy at USA today gave it really complimentary review.

[Cory Wolfe]

Interesting beauty spot (mole) in the first pic...they didn't do the tow hook plug in body color?

That's because its not there. Its still removed from being shipped. Otherwise, it's body color.

[the_yellow_dart]

I'm digging the design. Not sure why all the Jalopnik commenters were hating on it, I get an A4 vibe...

[Blake Noble]

Sharp, clean, understated. Like a VW should be.

Although I'll admit I get a slight Civic vibe from head-on shots of the car.

[Croc]

The semi-circular hood cutout for the emblem is cheap.

[Cory Wolfe]

One notable to mention... stay away from the 2.0 by all means necessary. I was looking through the specs on VW's website and noticed something rather pathetic.

• Jetta 2.0 auto.: 115 hp - 125 lb/ft --- 23 mpg city - 29 mpg highway --- 11 seconds 0-60 --- 2881 lbs.
• Jetta 2.0 man.: 115 hp - 125 lb/ft ---24 mpg city - 34 mpg highway --- 9.8 seconds 0-60 --- 2804 lbs.

• Jetta 2.5 auto.: 170 hp - 177 lb/ft --- 24 mpg city - 31 mpg highway --- 8.5 seconds 0-60 --- 3082 lbs.
• Jetta 2.5 man.: 170 hp - 177 lb/ft --- 23 mpg city - 33 mpg highway --- 8.2 seconds 0-60 --- 3018 lbs.

Seriously, not only is it horribly slow, it gets worse fuel economy when equipped with an automatic transmission. Even with a manual transmission, it only beats the 2.5's figures by one single point. So... less weight, less power, more fuel. Talk about backwards. You also lose body-colored mirrors, chrome accents inside and out, alloy wheels, power heated mirrors, cruise control, center armrest with storage bin, floor mats, illuminated visor mirrors, rear armrest with pass-through, seat-back pockets, locking illuminated glove-box, and you won't find a single bit of VW's faux leather, not even on the door panels. Talk about decontented.

[the_yellow_dart]

WOW, those fuel economy numbers just killed my interest... why is it that companies find it so hard to beat the Cobalt that was released in 2005?

[Cory Wolfe]

The semi-circular hood cutout for the emblem is cheap.

It's nothing new and, actually, that is more expensive to engineer and manufacturer... technically.

MK4:

MK5:

MK6:

Polo:

Touareg:

Phaeton:

...And so on.

[Cory Wolfe]

WOW, those fuel economy numbers just killed my interest... why is it that companies find it so hard to beat the Cobalt that was released in 2005?

Using 2005 specs for a Cobalt sedan with a manual transmission...

170 hp vs. 145 hp. 3018lbs vs 2747lbs. 5 cyl. vs 4 cyl. 23 mpg city vs 24 mpg city. 33 mpg highway versus 34 mpg highway. The 2.5 does pretty well in its own respect, especially considering the Cobalt has everything in its favor for higher fuel economy.

[Croc]

It's nothing new and, actually, that is more expensive to engineer and manufacturer... technically.

Who cares, the original CTS had a $h!ty interior even though all the materials cost a lot. All the other examples you posted have a much cleaner, tighter fit it seems. Obviously it never stood out to me before, but in the following picture you posted, it looks like quite a noticeable gap:

I mean, I know you're a huge VW fan for whatever reason (I honestly cannot fathom the appeal), but I've never been offended by a VW the way I have been by the new Jetta. And I'm definitely not alone judging by the press it has gotten.

ETA: I might as well add in the overall appearance of fit to the front end. Now, from your close-up photos, I can see that there aren't actually gaps between the headlights and sheetmetal, yet VW filled that space with a material that LOOKS like a huge gap. Especially since it isn't a uniform thickness. It honestly looks like the hood is popped in the above photo.

I'm used to VWs being very tight-looking, and this just is a huge mess in comparison. Like this looks like Chevrolet tried assembling a VW circa 1999, that's how bad the build quality looks.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Croc

[Cory Wolfe]

Who cares, the original CTS had a $h!ty interior even though all the materials cost a lot. All the other examples you posted have a much cleaner, tighter fit it seems. Obviously it never stood out to me before, but in the following picture you posted, it looks like quite a noticeable gap:

I mean, I know you're a huge VW fan for whatever reason (I honestly cannot fathom the appeal), but I've never been offended by a VW the way I have been by the new Jetta. And I'm definitely not alone judging by the press it has gotten.

ETA: I might as well add in the overall appearance of fit to the front end. Now, from your close-up photos, I can see that there aren't actually gaps between the headlights and sheetmetal, yet VW filled that space with a material that LOOKS like a huge gap. Especially since it isn't a uniform thickness. It honestly looks like the hood is popped in the above photo.

I'm used to VWs being very tight-looking, and this just is a huge mess in comparison. Like this looks like Chevrolet tried assembling a VW circa 1999, that's how bad the build quality looks.

I see what you mean, now. I will state that the actual build quality is superb, despite the illusion that it may not be.

Personally speaking, this Jetta is not why I'm a Volkswagen fan. By that same token, I think the styling of this one is fine. The real offense is the level of decontenting that occurred underneath the sheet metal and inside the cabin. It's a shame, really. The Golf/GTI is such a fantastic vehicle and I was hoping I could say the same about this Jetta. While I recognize that its not as bad as some of the press has declared it to be, it's still a disappointment for myself, and many of my fellow Volkswagen fans.

[regfootball]

One notable to mention... stay away from the 2.0 by all means necessary. I was looking through the specs on VW's website and noticed something rather pathetic.

• Jetta 2.0 auto.: 115 hp - 125 lb/ft --- 23 mpg city - 29 mpg highway --- 11 seconds 0-60 --- 2881 lbs.
• Jetta 2.0 man.: 115 hp - 125 lb/ft ---24 mpg city - 34 mpg highway --- 9.8 seconds 0-60 --- 2804 lbs.

• Jetta 2.5 auto.: 170 hp - 177 lb/ft --- 24 mpg city - 31 mpg highway --- 8.5 seconds 0-60 --- 3082 lbs.
• Jetta 2.5 man.: 170 hp - 177 lb/ft --- 23 mpg city - 33 mpg highway --- 8.2 seconds 0-60 --- 3018 lbs.

Seriously, not only is it horribly slow, it gets worse fuel economy when equipped with an automatic transmission. Even with a manual transmission, it only beats the 2.5's figures by one single point. So... less weight, less power, more fuel. Talk about backwards. You also lose body-colored mirrors, chrome accents inside and out, alloy wheels, power heated mirrors, cruise control, center armrest with storage bin, floor mats, illuminated visor mirrors, rear armrest with pass-through, seat-back pockets, locking illuminated glove-box, and you won't find a single bit of VW's faux leather, not even on the door panels. Talk about decontented.

My own hunch is that the 2.0 was brought back for the launch of the new model for one, MAYBE two years tops.

They will probably only build like 500 of them, but hey you can advertise the low price then, that way.

All around the 5 is better than the 2.0.

I think VW's best strategy is to go 2.0 MODERN 4 cylinder, 150-160hp, good fe. 2.0 turbo, and the TDI.

I think VW purposely puts in the old four and the 5 to steer you into the higher priced turbo and TDI to make more money.

Although I have to give VW credit, it sounds from reviews like they have improved NVH, smoothness, and FE on the 2.5 5 popper. VW orginally put the 5 in as a way to make the Jetta seem more premium than other cars in the segment. At least for now, you can still get over 170hp in the VW compact......

I am curious about this car because the current gen Golf didn't do much for me when I test drove it. But I think with an automatic and the extra room in back and the tidy styling, the new Jetta could be an option at some point when compared to things like the current gen Hyundai Elantra, Corolla, Civic...etc.

WOW, those fuel economy numbers just killed my interest... why is it that companies find it so hard to beat the Cobalt that was released in 2005?

or, a 2011 Hyundai Sonata.....

[Robert Hall]

It's nothing new and, actually, that is more expensive to engineer and manufacturer... technically.

I like the hood cutout for the badge...it's too bad Ford didn't use the similar European hood and fascia style for the US Fiesta...the US model's grille treatment looks cheap.

[regfootball]

i'd rather see them spend the money on better interior plastic than obsessing about something stupid like a hood cutout on a small cheap car.

you don't see the emblem against the hood when you are inside the car driving.

any knock on exterior build quality of this car is hogwash. its tight on the outside and the doors close with a solid thunk you do not get in this class.

its only one more reason why the interior plastic especially the doors is such a GLARING fault.

i parked next to a current corolla today at the store and was appalled by the look of its interior. the jetta is one or two classes above, even with the Ikea grade interior plastic.

Edited October 8, 2010 by regfootball

[A Horse With No Name]

Ikea grade isn't always bad...as an architect, perhaps you ahve heard of Sarah Saskansah, the author of "Not so Big House."

She used Ikea cabinets in her kitchen...saved some money for some cool stuff elsewhere. Regardless...I would still...even as a VW fan...thinbk about buying a Cruze over a Jetta, as I think a Cruze would be more reliable.

[Lamar]

Good pics, good review.

On its own, I'd probably have no problems at all with this Jetta. But I'll always compare it to the outgoing model, and that ruins it for me.

[ocnblu]

Croc, you can't tell that the "gap" you're seeing is actually the way the light hits the chrome emblem, fooling the eye?

[Croc]

See, the thing about VW is they've been able to get away with abysmal quality and reliability because everything *looks* and *feels* expensive. They charge at the top of their segment for poorly-built and poorly-assembled crap that looks, feels, sounds, and probably tastes nice. Now, they're starting to cheap out on their interiors. Yeah, if VW doesn't offer such an above-and-beyond premium feel compared to the competition, their buyers aren't going to put up with abysmal reliability.

[A Horse With No Name]

See, the thing about VW is they've been able to get away with abysmal quality and reliability because everything *looks* and *feels* expensive. They charge at the top of their segment for poorly-built and poorly-assembled crap that looks, feels, sounds, and probably tastes nice. Now, they're starting to cheap out on their interiors. Yeah, if VW doesn't offer such an above-and-beyond premium feel compared to the competition, their buyers aren't going to put up with abysmal reliability.

Not sure if they are quie as abysmal as people think, however...a Cruze would be about as reliable as gravity....and a Jetta....not so much.

[regfootball]

Ikea grade isn't always bad...as an architect, perhaps you ahve heard of Sarah Saskansah, the author of "Not so Big House."

She used Ikea cabinets in her kitchen...saved some money for some cool stuff elsewhere. Regardless...I would still...even as a VW fan...thinbk about buying a Cruze over a Jetta, as I think a Cruze would be more reliable.

+++++++++

i have that book. to be honest she really is more of a phenom than she should be. she sort of has the granola followers sort of thing going on. she is not saying anything that is revolutionary, she just happened to say it in the midst of a 'my house is bigger than your penis (breasts)' era.

She's a bit of a creation more than anything. Not to take away from her, but I know many architects who have the same common sense and creativity and skill she has.

She is well marketed.

you, of course, are aware how many architects (including yours truly) have been out of work and still are during this cute little break I like to call hell.

my wife's nephew's wife (say that three times fast) works at the local Ikea. She said someone told her that SS applied to work at the store there selling kitchen cabinets. I am unsure how true that was. But it would not surprise me if someone of even her caliber was scraping for work these days.

I like the functionality of Ikea cabinets (i love cabinets without the face frame) and they are extremely versatile.

But I don't like the quality of the finish, especially the doors. Plus, I don't know if they make them in China or where they do. If I put Ikea cabinets in my next house I probably would consider having custom made doors made for them so I wouldn't have to look at their cheesy quality. That, and I am not a fan of stark contemporary cabinets. I don't like ancient fogey cabinets either. But i like better finished look and more detail than the stuff Ikea sells.

Its funny though. I worked on a condo project in orange county the last place i was at. The units were EXPENSIVE so of course they had to have 'Italian cabinetry'. Aside from being a logistical and fit nightmare, the Italian cabinetry which was uber contemporary looked really frickin cheap IMO. I remember sitting out there in the nice (snicker) 2 million dollar units (which are worth what now, 750k? lol) looking at these cheap ass cabinets thinking to myself, "why didn't they just get the cabinets from Ikea, they would have looked nicer"........

++++++++++++

on the Cruze vs. Jetta. Based upon what i have SEEN so far.....I like the Cruze interior more simply because it is more interesting design wise. I hate the lack of rear leg space in the Cruze. Exterior wise, I think the Cruze is upbeat, but the Jetta is tidy (if plain).

Ultimately if I know myself, at this time I would say why buy a Cruze just get a Malibu its the same money right now, problem solved on the rear legroom. Similarly, I like the Jetta but not enough to say, "I'd rather have a Jetta for the same price than another midsizer".

Then there is the part about waiting for the Focus (which is the best course of action).

And......the ELANTRA. I am curious if there is a new Impreza any time soon.

The pricing on these new compacts drives me to the midsize class. If you held a gun to my head tomorrow, I would go out and probably get a Subaru Legacy as a first choice (Optima/Sonata/Mazda6/Malibu/Altima/Kizashi become choices after that). Until any of the compacts step forward and offer the 'right' combination of fun, interior, space, design, and price that has a noticeable cost difference from a midsizer, then I have to get a midsize. the deals are too good right now. If none of the compacts offer an exemplary driving experience, then why not just go up to a midsizer?

If the Cruze had a lower price and some actual heat under the hood it would help matters. I just don't think I am VW material no matter how good they turn it out. The starkness of it just doesn't ring with me as endearing. But I still think the new Jetta has the goods to do pretty well in the market.

Edited October 9, 2010 by regfootball

[Cory Wolfe]

Not sure if they are quie as abysmal as people think, however...a Cruze would be about as reliable as gravity....and a Jetta....not so much.

Well, one thing to note... that boat anchor of an entry engine is atleast reliable. After 20 years, it ought to be. I really haven't heard anything bad about the 2.5 either. The biggest issue I've heard concerning recent VW's are the fuel pump issues. Reliability issues with VW seemed to start with the Beetle and the MKIV's. Before and after those, their reliability has been more average than anything. They've never been akin to Honda, by any means, but I could never call it abysmal. I'd say, if anything, the biggest issues can be isolated to either outsourced components or VW's plant in Mexico which seems to build hit-and-miss vehicles. Their German built vehicles tend to be much more reliable.

[Drew Dowdell]

See, the thing about VW is they've been able to get away with abysmal quality and reliability because everything *looks* and *feels* expensive. They charge at the top of their segment for poorly-built and poorly-assembled crap that looks, feels, sounds, and probably tastes nice. Now, they're starting to cheap out on their interiors. Yeah, if VW doesn't offer such an above-and-beyond premium feel compared to the competition, their buyers aren't going to put up with abysmal reliability.

Yeah, you got downrated 3 times for this, but I agree with you.

My ex's Passat was a constant nightmare, from electronics that would stop working, to buttons that would fall off, to cupholders that would break.....

The rain sense windshield wipers would be working... and then just quit "sensing" mid rainstorm.

All in all, it was as flaky as he was.....

[Croc]

Yeah, you got downrated 3 times for this, but I agree with you.

My ex's Passat was a constant nightmare, from electronics that would stop working, to buttons that would fall off, to cupholders that would break.....

The rain sense windshield wipers would be working... and then just quit "sensing" mid rainstorm.

All in all, it was as flaky as he was.....

We all know the downratings are from people who are too immature to realize that my criticism of VW isn't a criticism of them personally. I challenge any of them to prove me wrong because I've seen VW at or near the bottom of quality surveys for well over a decade. VWs and AUDIs have long been known as lease cars because they last about 2-3 years before they fall apart. That's why so many McMansions had their leased VWs in the driveway this past decade, and funny, those people just had to be loaded because they always seemed to have a new car in the driveway every couple years!

VW used to make a really nice car that felt super premium...for at least a few years.

[A Horse With No Name]

More than a down rating...let's just say that every car maker has had their share of crap, including GM and Toyota. VW....has had theirs as well.

Guys become a brotherhood by overcoming things, which is why guys who have been in the military, or been at war, or on an athletic team together are such life time friends. At the risk of offending Dodgefan and Vipes...look at how close the VW community and the Mopar community are. It's sort of a shared pain sort of thing.

Just like all of the vintage Mustang guys who talk about how they finally got all of the rust out of their cars, and how they finally got them to stop leaking during a mild rain storm....

[Croc]

Oh look, more downratings

Please guys, whoever you are, prove me wrong with facts. You can love VW all you want for all their loveable quirks, but if a majority of buyers desert the brand because reliability stays the same but material quality drops in an attempt to lower pricepoints and increase sales (also lessening "premium" exclusivity), VW will be just like SAAB: a company making loveable quirky cars that no one but a cult following buys.

[Cory Wolfe]

Oh look, more downratings

Please guys, whoever you are, prove me wrong with facts. You can love VW all you want for all their loveable quirks, but if a majority of buyers desert the brand because reliability stays the same but material quality drops in an attempt to lower pricepoints and increase sales (also lessening "premium" exclusivity), VW will be just like SAAB: a company making loveable quirky cars that no one but a cult following buys.

Personally, the whole ratings system is something I would to do away with. Sure, it's fun to downrate posts you disagree with (I'm guilty), but I think we should comment as a group, not divert to down rating or up rating posts in an attempt to show certain posts are less valuable to the discussion than others.

I honestly think VW went in the wrong direction with the new Jetta. Perhaps in a coincidental act of fate, this new, simpler, lower quality Jetta will actually help VW's reliability reputation. Either way, I fear it's going to alienate its core group of buyers in place of new buyers who are probably going to be dissatisfied. With that said, I feel like, in the upper trim levels, this new Jetta isn't as horrible as it's being made out to be. Overall, beyond anyone's personal taste in styling and any comparison to what the Jetta previously meant, it's in line with its competitors in most way, sometimes ahead or behind depending on the exact means of comparison. Will VW's reliability reputation come into play? Surely. I can't see many die-hard Civic or Corolla shoppers making the switch. However, just like people are giving Hyundai a chance, people will probably give the Jetta a chance. Whether VW can produce a solidly reliable vehicle and increase its reputation like Hyundai has, remains to be seen. I will note that, VW has worse ratings with J.D. Powers than it does with other, less popular vehicle dependability studies and independent forums like VW Vortex. Is it possible those people are less harsh on their VW products? Absolutely. But just like Toyota and Honda don't always have vehicles that live up to the reputation, the same can be said for VW on the opposite spectrum. As it is well known, those studies only test a small percentage of any single vehicle. There will be good ones and bad ones, as with with any other automaker.

To paint VW as nothing but crap, well, that's not something accurately done. I, personally, owned a completely trouble free VW, as have many others. And just to add, any GM fan should know this first hand. The products that we have joined this forum for have long had a horrible reputation for reliability up until just recently.

Edited October 10, 2010 by blackviper8891

[Croc]

To paint VW as nothing but crap, well, that's not something accurately done. I, personally, owned a completely trouble free VW, as have many others. And just to add, any GM fan should know this first hand. The products that we have joined this forum for have long had a horrible reputation for reliability up until just recently.

That's not what I said at all. What I said is that VW has used their allure of premium refinement (whether styling, engines, driving, interior materials, etc.) to buoy poor manufacturing/assembly quality. VW is perennially at the bottom of quality surveys--this is a fact. There are a gazillion reasons people buy VWs, but of mainstream buyers who are generally brand agnostic, they largely choose VW because they perceive premium refinement at the segment-topping pricepoints. And VW knows it, which is why they market the cars the way they do. Have you ever seen a VW ad touting quality? No, but you see plenty of them touting safety, German engineering, refinement, quality of materials, premium market positioning, etc.

I'm also not sure I can agree with you on GM's horrible reputation for reliability. Quite a few GM vehicles were chart-toppers in long-term reliability and low cost-of-ownership throughout the 90s. What maligned GM was poor build quality, poor interior quality (which has only recently been addressed), and poor styling. Oh, and poor reliability in the 70s and 80s, which was the last time a Baby Boomer ever cross-shopped a GM.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Croc

[regfootball]

Oh look, more downratings

Please guys, whoever you are, prove me wrong with facts. You can love VW all you want for all their loveable quirks, but if a majority of buyers desert the brand because reliability stays the same but material quality drops in an attempt to lower pricepoints and increase sales (also lessening "premium" exclusivity), VW will be just like SAAB: a company making loveable quirky cars that no one but a cult following buys.

I would say of the people I know who have had VW's in the last 10 years, are pretty equally split. they either had major problems with the car and swear off them forever. Or, they are fine paying 70 bucks for an oil change and getting fussy glitches repaired, and they continue to think they are the shizzle.

Nice interior was sort of a last savior of VW so that is why it's disappointing they would start to drop the ball in that now too.

side note. After seeing new Mazda6's with automatics on the Mazda lot this weekend for a tish over 17 grand (some at 18 and change, they were all 4k off with discs and rbts) and seeing how even that larger car can have pretty ok plastic in it and still sell for a decent price, I am wondering why anyone would bother with the still smaller VW with the now not so nice plastic.

VW used to not only lease a lot, but sell for good prices based on the quality/value proposition. I think the dumbing down of the interior may end up hurting its value. VW will be forced to drop the price of a car which is smaller, same mpg essentially, no real power advantage, smaller in comparison to lots of midsizers. Had VW kept the interior pristine they could elevate themselves above being drug down into that morass.

Edited October 10, 2010 by regfootball

[Cory Wolfe]

That's not what I said at all. What I said is that VW has used their allure of premium refinement (whether styling, engines, driving, interior materials, etc.) to buoy poor manufacturing/assembly quality. VW is perennially at the bottom of quality surveys--this is a fact. There are a gazillion reasons people buy VWs, but of mainstream buyers who are generally brand agnostic, they largely choose VW because they perceive premium refinement at the segment-topping pricepoints. And VW knows it, which is why they market the cars the way they do. Have you ever seen a VW ad touting quality? No, but you see plenty of them touting safety, German engineering, refinement, quality of materials, premium market positioning, etc.

I'm also not sure I can agree with you on GM's horrible reputation for reliability. Quite a few GM vehicles were chart-toppers in long-term reliability and low cost-of-ownership throughout the 90s. What maligned GM was poor build quality, poor interior quality (which has only recently been addressed), and poor styling. Oh, and poor reliability in the 70s and 80s, which was the last time a Baby Boomer ever cross-shopped a GM.

I used MSN autos due to the very vague nature of the J.D. Power ratings (Seriously, bubbles don't tell me anything about reliability, I like knowing the exact problem and how much it would cost to fix) and the questionable nature of the Consumer Reports ratings (Not to mention, CR requires a subscription) and randomly chose to look at 2001 models. I compared the Volkswagen models to what I felt was their respective competitors from GM. The Golf/GTI are left out as they don't really have a close enough competitor from GM, unless you wanted to also compare them with the Sunfire/Cavalier.

2001 Jetta vs. 2001 Alero

2001 Passat vs. 2001 Intrigue

2001 Beetle vs. 2001 Sunfire

2002 Eurovan vs. 2002 Silhouette

Those show the VW's to be about equal in reliability with a slight advantage in some cases. The biggest reoccurring problem I see is MAF sensor issues. Also, to note, the Passat was listed with engine failure problems due the oil gelling up, which, if you change your oil, is a non-issue.

Edited October 11, 2010 by blackviper8891

[occupant]

I'm pretty impressed with the write-ups in CD and MT and I do want to see one of these in person, touch it, feel it, sit in it, drive it, breathe it, etc...

I'm a cheap person and I would only consider a 2.0L model, probably with a manual. At $15,995 I think I would be hard pressed to find a better value.

[Cory Wolfe]

I'm pretty impressed with the write-ups in CD and MT and I do want to see one of these in person, touch it, feel it, sit in it, drive it, breathe it, etc...

I'm a cheap person and I would only consider a 2.0L model, probably with a manual. At $15,995 I think I would be hard pressed to find a better value.

Coming from a VW fan... I'd look into the SE 2.5 model for $18,195. You wouldn't regret it.

[Croc]

I used MSN autos due to the very vague nature of the J.D. Power ratings (Seriously, bubbles don't tell me anything about reliability, I like knowing the exact problem and how much it would cost to fix) and the questionable nature of the Consumer Reports ratings (Not to mention, CR requires a subscription) and randomly chose to look at 2001 models. I compared the Volkswagen models to what I felt was their respective competitors from GM. The Golf/GTI are left out as they don't really have a close enough competitor from GM, unless you wanted to also compare them with the Sunfire/Cavalier.

2001 Jetta vs. 2001 Alero

2001 Passat vs. 2001 Intrigue

2001 Beetle vs. 2001 Sunfire

2002 Eurovan vs. 2002 Silhouette

Those show the VW's to be about equal in reliability with a slight advantage in some cases. The biggest reoccurring problem I see is MAF sensor issues. Also, to note, the Passat was listed with engine failure problems due the oil gelling up, which, if you change your oil, is a non-issue.

Well, seeing as JD Powers and Associates have done both the IQS and long-term reliability surveys for years and years, that's the valid metric here. On MSN autos, it's not scientific at all being a huge free-for-all on the internet. They say they get their data from a particular source, but they don't explain their metrics in taking that data and compressing it into check-marks, exclamation points and Xs. Your comparisons are also quite cherry-picked. Why Oldsmobile? Several of your links didn't work. The more apt comparison would be to look at the scores of all vehicles across the lineup and do a breakdown of what percentage of each respective company's models fall in what percentile. When I wrote my post, I actually had the Buick brand in mine as the LeSabre, Century and Park Avenue were known for super amazing reliability and low costs of ownership.

But either way it doesn't matter because during those years it isn't like GM was selling aspirational cars with amazing interiors but bottom-of-the-pack reliability. GM has usually been pretty middle-of-the-pack all around, and IMO they shine due to exterior styling...in some cases.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Croc

[Croc]

Here are appropriate links for comparison:

Dependability:

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/dependability-ratings-by-brand/

APEAL:

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/performance-and-design-ratings-by-brand/

Initial Quality Ratings:

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/quality-ratings-by-brand/

[Cory Wolfe]

Well, seeing as JD Powers and Associates have done both the IQS and long-term reliability surveys for years and years, that's the valid metric here. On MSN autos, it's not scientific at all being a huge free-for-all on the internet. They say they get their data from a particular source, but they don't explain their metrics in taking that data and compressing it into check-marks, exclamation points and Xs. Your comparisons are also quite cherry-picked. Why Oldsmobile? Several of your links didn't work. The more apt comparison would be to look at the scores of all vehicles across the lineup and do a breakdown of what percentage of each respective company's models fall in what percentile. When I wrote my post, I actually had the Buick brand in mine as the LeSabre, Century and Park Avenue were known for super amazing reliability and low costs of ownership.

But either way it doesn't matter because during those years it isn't like GM was selling aspirational cars with amazing interiors but bottom-of-the-pack reliability. GM has usually been pretty middle-of-the-pack all around, and IMO they shine due to exterior styling...in some cases.

As noted, those vehicles were picked due to being GM's closest comparable model to those specific models. I felt Oldsmobile exhibited a similar premium offering that was more in line with VW's offerings than, say, Buick. The exception being the Sunfire, as its hard to compare the Beetle to anything else. As for the links not working, that's my fault. A simple " / " that was misplaced threw off the links. Must've happened during the copy and paste process. Should be fixed as of my edit.

One thing I appreciated with MSN autos is how they actually list any issues along with dollar amounts for repairs.

[Croc]

I feel like this is getting circular. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with VWs. I'm not knocking the company, but I'm definitely questioning the wisdom of their conscious business decision to go downmarket. I mean, they've had quite an enviable market perception that has enabled them to command the MSRPs that they have...just because they have a VW on them. I really want to stress that my comments are based on my analysis of their business decisions. The only automaker I dislike is Toyota...I think the industry is better when ALL manufacturers are doing well because then designs become the differentiators.

I WANT VW to do well, but I don't think they've thought this strategy shift through and are making the same mistake GM did in pushing Oldsmobile and Cadillac toward volume at the close of the 70s and then into the 80s.

[Cory Wolfe]

I feel like this is getting circular. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with VWs. I'm not knocking the company, but I'm definitely questioning the wisdom of their conscious business decision to go downmarket. I mean, they've had quite an enviable market perception that has enabled them to command the MSRPs that they have...just because they have a VW on them. I really want to stress that my comments are based on my analysis of their business decisions. The only automaker I dislike is Toyota...I think the industry is better when ALL manufacturers are doing well because then designs become the differentiators.

I WANT VW to do well, but I don't think they've thought this strategy shift through and are making the same mistake GM did in pushing Oldsmobile and Cadillac toward volume at the close of the 70s and then into the 80s.

I agree.

[Drew Dowdell]

I feel like this is getting circular. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with VWs. I'm not knocking the company, but I'm definitely questioning the wisdom of their conscious business decision to go downmarket. I mean, they've had quite an enviable market perception that has enabled them to command the MSRPs that they have...just because they have a VW on them. I really want to stress that my comments are based on my analysis of their business decisions. The only automaker I dislike is Toyota...I think the industry is better when ALL manufacturers are doing well because then designs become the differentiators.

I WANT VW to do well, but I don't think they've thought this strategy shift through and are making the same mistake GM did in pushing Oldsmobile and Cadillac toward volume at the close of the 70s and then into the 80s.

That deserves a couple of +1s

[A Horse With No Name]

I'll gladly give it one. Croc is one of our most rational posters, and I thought this post was fabulous!

[ocnblu]

Volkswagen's move upmarket was wrong for the brand. It is nice to see a correction in that strategy with the new Jetta. Audi is VW Group's upmarket brand.