Cory Wolfe

I saw a Ginster GTI. I was amazed.

I just saw one of those orange SVT Focus's today.

I agree.

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.

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

Spy Photos: 2011 Dodge Grand Caravan - Edmunds Inside Line By Mike Magrath | October 8, 2010 These are the first spy photos of the newly redesigned 2011 Dodge Grand Caravan. This new Dodge minivan is showing a dramatically redesigned face showing the new Dodge crosshair grill and a -- dare we say it -- sporty lower fascia. The headlights are also redesigned, or should we say, designed as the last ones were lifeless rectangles. And out back there's more.... Yep, those are LED tail lights on a Chrysler Mini van. They also stick out from the body now, much like the last gen Durango with two 3d tunnels that house the LED rings. A DODGE logo now replaces the Ram head logo that was centered over the license plate, and the rear bumper has been modified...presumably to not catch on the power tailgate during hot weather. The 2011 Grand Caravan will get its power from the new 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 that makes 290 horsepower in the Jeep Grand Cherokee. Shifting will be handled by a six-speed automatic.

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.

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.

Good deal on both accounts. I'm not sure who created that group, but its been there since about the beginning of Flybrian's reign.

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.

I'm all willing now that I'm back regularly. I'd love to keep my unique member group, but I suppose I can forgo that for a good cause. If you need any help test driving and reviewing, I'd be sure to help there as well. ;-P

*thumbs up* I've been meaning to offer my help, if you were still in need.

Am I the only one who just lost the main forum index? It's not loading for me, but specific threads, new content, and the main page... basically everything else, is.

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.

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.

It's nothing new and, actually, that is more expensive to engineer and manufacturer... technically. MK4: MK5: MK6: Polo: Touareg: Phaeton: ...And so on.

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.

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

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

Funny story... 4 door Golf is the only one without a standard (or available) manual transmission, thus, it puts it over $20k. In that way, no, you cannot get a automatic Golf with blue-tooth and alloys for under $20k while you can in the Cruze. However, as with the new Jetta, that also sticks you with inferior material quality, torsion beam suspension, rear drum brakes, trunk hinges, etc. Oh, and 170 hp vs. 138 hp, I might add. The Golf is still in another world compared to the rest of its compact competition (which, it really doesn't have, hatchback-wise).

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.

The cluster is purely the cluster. It's something these MK3's are known for having issues with. If you need to see proof, I made a nice video of the changes that occurred today. Now, the speedometer works... but its a tad optimistic. For example, I had the needle buried far past 140... and I promise I was only going about 60. The laws of physics are on my side. Per the fuel pump and fuel gauge, its a singular design from what I read. In order to fix the fuel gauge, I have to replace the fuel pump. And apparently it's a sign that it's going.

That's probably the fuel pump going, which is the reason my fuel gauge is inoperable in the first place.

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.