Rob Guenther wrote:

It would appear that the V6 in the next Passat will be the 3.2 VR6,
probably not as highly tuned as in the R32, so making somewhere around
220-230 hp. Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure, but not as much as the
Accord's 240 (assuming the Honda still only has 240 by the time the new
Passat is released in the US - it may have even more by then!).

--
Mike Smith

Rob Guenther wrote:

Where I live (Long Island, NY), there are some *very* short onramps on
the parkways, and during busy traffic periods I've gotta floor it, even
with the V6, and hope for the best. (Of course these moments of
excitement are balanced out by periods of crawling at 5 mph once you
actually get *on* the parkway... :-/ )

--
Mike Smith

jimbehning (AT) doesthisblockporkmindspring (DOT) com wrote:
That's right. And if I'm spending the money, then I want to get what I
*want*, not what some beancounter thinks I *need*.

--
Mike Smith

"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith (AT) acm (DOT) DOT.org> wrote

I live where you do, and have been driving diesels (48hp and now 52hp) since the
late 70's and a lack of power really isn't an issue, even on those short parkway
ramps. I think the whole horsepower war is silly. No one needs 200+ horsepower
in a mid-size car. Sure, having it can be fun, but it isn't a necessity. We are
all a bunch of sheep for the marketers and listen too much to heavy footed
writers in car magazines. The latter seem to judge every car in a manner totally
different from the way it will be used in the real world. If someone says they
"like" a lot of horsepower...go have fun, but don't tell me it is essential.
(Not that you said this Mike Smith...I am not picking on you or your
words...just tossing in my opinions...I don't want you running me off the
parkway!!)

Just my opinion.

--
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)

<jimbehning (AT) doesthisblockporkmindspring (DOT) com> wrote


Snip

I agree with this 100%. I traded a 2002 Jetta GLS with triptronic
for a 2003 Jetta GLS TDI with 5 speed, manual trans. Since the
trade I have never been as happy with a car.

I did not like the triptronic transmission at all because of the
"wrong" shift points it selected. The 1.8T is an awesome engine
when combined with a manual transmission. I know this because
I recently got one as a loaner from a local VW dealership. It was
so much quicker than my old one with the auto.

The TDI is the most balanced car I have ever driven. The power is
just right.

Those kind of on ramps scare me. The few times I have had to deal with
them I just wait. But maybe where I experienced those ramps the
traffic was lighter. On the other hand big trucks somehow manage to
get on those ramps don't they? Of course the sight of 40,000 lbs of
truck earns a little caution from those maniacal car drivers.

How does that work flooring a V6? My TDI spins the tires a good bit
with a slight turn of the wheels. On bumpy roads with straight travel,
full throttle from a stop light spins.

Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith (AT) acm (DOT) DOT.org> wrote:


Jim B.

Porsche is running an ad for the Cayenne Turbo at the moment that says
something to the effect of
"Does anyone really need 450 Horsepower to pick up diapers?
Ever run out of diapers?"
Needing it and wanting it are different things. If driving 40-60Hp diesels
works for you, that's fine. But that isn't the trend auto makers are seeing,
and it's obviously not where they're going. You're arguing something completely
different from what I'm talking about, and I'm not sure why. My criticism of VW
had nothing to do with providing people with the things they need, it had to do
with providing the things people *want*.

I don't think anyone here is calling it "essential". What I've been saying is
that it's what people are asking for, and you don't get by in business by
telling the consumer "no". BTW, I read today that the next Passat isn't due
till' Fall of 2005...

The essence of my point. Thanks Mike.

One point is that your want is maybe 5% of the market. The rest don't
give a crud. You market for the masses. The manufacturer decides what
the masses are based on their market research, not Vortex or
automobile magazines like Road & Track. If they decide to do one off
to humour the minority then more power to them. Other manufacturers
choose other strategies. If you really want a sweet car you get a
performance car with all weheel drive or rear wheel drive anyway. The
compromise of FWD is just that.

oneactor1 (AT) aol (DOT) com (Steve Grauman) wrote:


Jim B.

jimbehning (AT) doesthisblockporkmindspring (DOT) com wrote:

No, these are no-commercial-vehicles parkways. (Once upon a time, not
even SUVs were allowed on the parkways, but that has since changed.)
They were built in the '20s and '30s to connect the state parks that
were being established on Long Island at the time, and were expressly
intended to be free of commercial traffic. They were also designed for
the cars of that day, and the speeds they were capable of; the speed
limit was originally 40 mph, and some of the shortest entrance lanes are
no more than a couple of car lengths (and some of the exit lanes are
that short too!).

If I turn off the traction control I can spin the tires off the line,
sure, but that's not too hard for a front-wheel-drive car anyway.

--
Mike Smith