So I was looking at VW's american website...

barura

Actaully, I did this years ago. Base engine in a VW Golf is a 2.5litre V6 (Actually its a 5 cylinder now!). I wonder if anyone has brought one over to this side of the pond?

http://www.vw.com/portal/en/configurator?context=Golf-Masthead#10103

puppetmaster

There
2.5 170bhp, 3dr for €13,700. How bad.

Here

1.2 60hp 3dr polo, €15,920....Sigh.

For Forks Sake

puppetmaster wrote: »

There
2.5 170bhp, 3dr for €13,700. How bad.

Here

1.2 60hp 3dr polo, €15,920....Sigh.

170hp is a disgracefully low amount of power from a 2.5l. I see they get TeeDeeEye engine options as well. I wonder has the gospel of 'felt spread over there yet?

Guy:Incognito

For Forks Sake wrote: »

170hp is a disgracefully low amount of power from a 2.5l.

23/33 mpg

Sure why bother with smaller engines for the grannies to tootle about in when you can keep burning an every diminishing resource as quick as possible.

puppetmaster

For Forks Sake wrote: »

170hp is a disgracefully low amount of power from a 2.5l.

Of course it is, but not as disgracefull as €16k for a 60hp polo.

T-Maxx

For Forks Sake wrote: »

170hp is a disgracefully low amount of power from a 2.5l.

Torque?

For Forks Sake

T-Maxx wrote: »

Torque?

177 @ 4250rpm.

To put in context, the 2.0TDi puts down 236 @ 1750

johnayo

I wonder if it "sounds just like a golf":cool:

THall04

For Forks Sake wrote: »

170hp is a disgracefully low amount of power from a 2.5l. I see they get TeeDeeEye engine options as well. I wonder has the gospel of 'felt spread over there yet?

I used to drive a 3.4L V6 Chevy Impala.....that had 180hp!

Matt Simis

For Forks Sake wrote: »

170hp is a disgracefully low amount of power from a 2.5l. I see they get TeeDeeEye engine options as well. I wonder has the gospel of 'felt spread over there yet?

Not this again. The capacity of an engine is a regional design thing, its largely irrelevant what CC it is, the figure you are meant to be looking at is their baseline engine is actually decently powerful.. in a country with lower speed limits than here. There is no inherent value in having tiny, stressed little engines. If you want a 170bhp entry level engine without a government imposed tax wall, the better engine is for sure this 2.5.

Imagine introducing them to the rattley 3pot piece of crap we call a Polo engine, let alone the poverty spec TDI engines? Oh but we have more BHP per CC... :pac:

For Forks Sake wrote: »

177 @ 4250rpm.

To put in context, the 2.0TDi puts down 236 @ 1750

How is that a context? The comparison should be to the 60bhp (isnt it 75bhp now?) entry VW engine.
By comparison the T[urbo]DI you mentioned is more expensive and vastly more complicated, weighs more, sounds like a cement mixer and drives like a JCB. While belching out noxious black smoke. Its not superior, it exists due to taxation on fuel products. The Americans can get some TDIs, but they fail testing in most states and only very specifically tuned models make it there at all. They have home grown Turbo Diesels, but they are much bigger (in CC and size), designed for Light to Heavy Trucks.

Besides, the TDI puts down 236 at 1750 and pretty much nothing anywhere else.

For Forks Sake

Matt Simis wrote: »

Not this again. The capacity of an engine is a regional design thing, its largely irrelevant what CC it is, the figure you are meant to be looking at is their baseline engine is actually decently powerful.. in a country with lower speed limits than here.

Imagine introducing them to the rattley 3pot piece of crap we call a Polo engine, let alone the poverty spec TDI engines? Oh but we have more BHP per CC... :pac:

I'm well aware of the regional design considerations. They need to discover the 1.9tdi with more torque than a military tank :P

galwaytt

For Forks Sake wrote: »

I'm well aware of the regional design considerations. They need to discover the 1.9tdi with more torque than a military tank :P

....US diesel is historically poor in quality, and high in sulphur content, so a lot of modern stuff won't stay running over there, for long..........

Mind you, it's changing: Porsche have officially launched the Cayenne Diesel in the US now........

puppetmaster

Matt Simis wrote: »

The comparison should be to the 60bhp (isnt it 75bhp now?) entry VW engine.

The Diesels are 75 alright but the entry petrol is still only 60

Matt Simis

puppetmaster wrote: »

The Diesels are 75 alright but the entry petrol is still only 60

I cannot even visualise how terrible they must be.