If you can dish out the extra bucks, get the 1.8T. The performance
difference is very noticable, drive the 2.0L and see for yourself. I'm not
sure but i believe that the 2.0L does not come with traction control and the
electronic differential that makes the 1.8T an excellent choice in front
wheel drive cars in snowy areas (i live outside of montreal, quebec, in the
hills, and these features have proven their worth).

I had the 2.0L in a A3 golf and find that the difference in fuel consumption
between the two engines is negligable (with the exception of the cost
difference of premium fuel). I get about 515kms to the tank and do ~50/50
city and highway driving.

My mother has the 1.8t in tiptonic (mine is manual) and her car is just as
fun to drive, the transmission is funny at times but i'm not much of a
resource on that issue because i'm a stick kind of guy and quite biased
(even on my fathers E320 mercedes i find the transmission funny at times).
She used to have a 2.0L A4 jetta with non tiptronic automatic and enjoys the
extra gump provided by the 1.8T.

The torque curve is flat in the 1.8T and power comes at low rpms (2200 i
believe) and tapers off around 5500rpm, which makes it a fun car to drive.
Acceleration for around town driving is quite satisfying and even
excillerating when pushed. Especially in first and second gear but pushing
the car in third gear brings you into impratical and illegal speeds.

Highway driving is nice, but lacks the same power at those speeds that you
can enjoy around town, but by no means is unacceptable. If this is important
to you look into the V6 models.

Turbo lag is negligible for town driving, and with my driving technique is
only noticable at highway speeds but even then it only takes an instant for
the turbo to spool up but no need to down shift. This is my fisrt turbo but
according to some of my friends that had some early 90's turbo's
(dodge&saab) the lag is a joke in comparaison.

As far as i'm concerned this is the best car i've owned to date. I love the
jetta no matter what engine is is it, it's a little audi in vw clothing. My
only complaints are the quality of the stock 4 season tires, the fact that i
can't put 3 baby seats in the back (not vw's fault of course), and the
second class service offered by our local dealership (might not be the case
4 u)

Good luck with your choice!

inbetweendays
2003 1.8T Jetta


"Mr. A" <rocklobsterNOSPAM (AT) techie (DOT) com> wrote

In article <c78hfa$uc6q$1 (AT) ID-73954 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Mr. A" <rocklobsterNOSPAM (AT) techie (DOT) com> wrote:

As far as I know, VW recommends using 91 octane gasoline in the 1.8T.

When my daughter was shopping for a Jetta in early 2003, we rode in both
a 2.0 and a 1.8T, both auto trans. There was no comparison. With the
auto trans, the 2.0 was a dog. After that she wouldn't even consider
the 2.0 so she bought a 1.8T with Tiptronic. I've driven the car and it
is very lively. It shifts fine. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't
like it.

My wife and I have a 2002 1.8T Passat with Tiptronic. It's a great
driving car with plenty of power for me, even though it is a heavy car.
I drive a 95 2.0 Golf with a manual transmission. I love it but it
feels underpowered compared to the Passat in "round town' driving. At
highway speeds, though, it has plenty of power.

Bill
78 Rabbit...10/77 - 4/02 82 Convertibles(s)...since 93
95 Golf GL...since 11/99 02 Passat 1.8T Tip GLS...since 4/02

--

Take out the invalid if replying by email

"Peter Parker" <nospam (AT) zero (DOT) com> wrote

I prefer a manual tranny to automatic, but your statement about transmission
life is not really true. I have seen many cars go over 100,000 miles with no
automatic transmission problems. If one is bad at driving a stick, or has bad
habits, it is easier to toast a manual than an automatic these days. The
replacement of clutches is a lot more complex in some high tech cars...and
aren't they all pretty high tech these days?

As for why Americans love automatics, I think it has more to do with the type of
driving we do, what we use our cars for, and a lack of concern over maximizing
fuel efficiency. As for the latter, take the VW TDI for instance. It is beyond e
why anyone would by a car like this, primarily noted for efficiency, and get an
automatic which will get 5 mpg less on the highway.

The only car I have that is not a stick is my van...and I wish it was!!

--
Tony Bad

02 Jetta Wagon
01 Eurovan MV
91 Jetta 1.6 Diesel
86 Jetta
79 Rabbit 1.5 Diesel (semi-retired for now)
Schwinn Continental 10 Speed
Radio Flyer Pedal Car (my daughter made me add this)

On Tue, 4 May 2004 12:47:45 -0400, "Mr. A"
<rocklobsterNOSPAM (AT) techie (DOT) com> wrote:

**I had a 2003 Jetta GLS 2.0 automatic. Eight months later, I traded
it in (yes, ouch) for a 2003 Jetta GLS 1.8T manual. If someone flies
by you screaming "Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!" it's probably me I was
chatting with the manager when I bought the 1.8T and he said that I
could use regular gas. I was kinda skeptical but he insisted, he said
that his family had two of them and they used regular. I've heard
other stories of managers or salesmen saying the same thing. After
discussing it with my bro-in-law, he made a *very* convincing case for
using premium and thusly, I only use premium.

**I don't know, but I think they might last longer. A little knowledge
about owning a turbo goes a long way towards preserving it. The
difference between the engines is that the 1.8T is freakin' FUN!
Effortless acceleration, awesome for squeezing around traffic and I
think the engine is just much more ready-to-go at all speeds. I test
drove a 1.8T automatic and it was pretty cool but I think the manual
is a bit more responsive. Maybe because you're more in control of the
car. Could just be me

However, the 2.0 is a fine engine. It had more than enough power on
the highways for passing. Its one weak spot was accelerating hard
(like from an onramp) from 35 to 45 mph up to whatever speed. I would
have the pedal to the floor and the car would just slowly accelerate.
Kind of like it was out of breath. But if I was doing 70 and got stuck
in the midst of a bunch of tractortrailers, I would squeeze the pedal
and the car would rocket right up to 90 easily. Strange, huh?

**I learned how to drive standard on this car though I wasn't totally
unfamiliar with it. I just had some problems stalling in 1st gear in
that first week but I was fine with the other gears. I love driving
manual, however, I can see how it would be a pain in the arse if I had
to do a lot of city driving.

Oh! The 1.8T gets better gas mileage than the 2.0. I couldn't believe
it. In the middle of winter with winter gas, the 1.8T was getting
27mpg. Of course, I got used to driving standard and began to drive it
faster and it sank to 25mpg. That's mostly city and rural driving,
also.

kaboomie

On Wed, 05 May 2004 01:53:55 GMT, "Numan" <tbrdmann (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net>
wrote:
Is the mileage as phenomenal as I keep hearing? A buddy of mine's
girlfriend is thinking of a Prius (she's very green) and he's trying
to steer her towards a Jetta TDI.
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911
1983 Porsche 944

My 2003 Jetta wagon TDI gets 50+ mpg consistently the way I drive. I
am in no rush to get anywhere. I drive 90 plus miles a day with a good
bit of that on the highway at 70 mph. The diesel model gets a little
less. The Jetta handles better than an old Prius. I have no experience
with the new Prius. Mileage between the two is similar. My friends
Prius is a bit hard on tires but I suspect he does not have them
inflated to optimum pressure.

E Brown <epbrown01 (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote:


Jim B.

"Peter Parker" <nospam (AT) zero (DOT) com> wrote

In the old days you could get a 5 speed, but since 97 or so, when they
re-emerged in the US after being a way for a while, it was automatic only.

Tony

The Toronto star compared both car a few weeks ago... the average fuel
economy came out the exact same... With the TDI being a better highway car
then the Prius (more comfortable, super stable - drove like a bigger car)...
The one guy loved the TDI, while the other guy was rather impressed with the
Prius' improvements over the old model, but said both are good, the Prius
better if you care more about the environment.
<jimbehning (AT) doesthisblockporkmindspring (DOT) com> wrote

"Peter Parker" <nospam (AT) zero (DOT) com> wrote

Unfortunately no diesels made it to the US but the 2.4D made it to Canada.
It's pretty slow though. None of the TDI versions made it to Canada but
Europe got some 5-cylinder TDIs.

They're 4-cyl and 6-cyl...pretty sure all of the AWDs are 6-cylinder.
Unfortinately they have their issues. My dad had a '93 up until about six
months ago. It had all sorts of electrical issues. Went through shocks a
lot too. Right after he sold it to the new owner, the head gasket blew. A
Eurovan is far better built. When the Aerostar was running right though it
wasn't a bad van, esp. for a rear driver.

I think so too. It was an electronic AWD system sold on XLT and Eddie Bauer
trim Aerostars. I've never heard about anyone actually liking that vehicle, I'm
surprised there's a cult following for it.

I liked the way the old Vanagons drive. Rear-drive with the weight over the
drive wheels. The Synchro models were cool too. But the Vanagon was crazily
underpowered. I've seen a couple with 2.0 litre, turbocharged Subaru motors in
them but it'd pain me to put a Japanese motor in my VW. Doing a 24 valve VR6
conversion would work though.