So are VWs actually crappy?

I was looking at getting a 2002 -2004 GTI for a dd. I like the look of them but Ive heard VWs tend to have problems, esp. electrical. I know Xtine had problems.

Im over the whole crown vic thing.

You have a Crown Vic?

no, i was considering one. i test drove an interceptor and it felt like i was driving the
titanic.

I don't know, but lately I've kinda wanted an old mk1 or mk2 GTI as a toy if I can't find a CRX Si eventually.

i even see vr6s for a decent price. not sure how the base gti compares performance/reliability wise though.

I would just want an old 4 banger. I don't care if its got a ton of power. I just want another small and light car to toss around.

Honor wrote:no, i was considering one. i test drove an interceptor and it felt like i was driving the
titanic.

LoL

Every German car that's past it's prime (out of warranty) seems to have issues. VW uses crappy thin rubberish plasticish tubing for its emissions and PCV systems, and they get oil soaked and become brittle and fall apart.
Other bits leak, injectors and coils fail, parts are hella expensive (except the coils iirc), and no one knows how to work on the diesels except experts.
Can't really comment on the newer stuff, as most of my recent experience ranges from 2000-2006 or so. We do have a 2011 Passat on the lot, but I don't think it needed much of anything.

Honor wrote:no, i was considering one. i test drove an interceptor and it felt like i was driving the
titanic.

You expected something else?  

I just didnt expect it to be so extreme. but i am used to driving a considerably modded wrx, so i guess thats why.

Honor wrote:Im over the whole crown vic thing.

I love big cars, but I wouldn't want one day-to-day. I did some of my learner's permit driving in a huge car, my first car was a boat, and I'm glad I spent my formative driving years at the helm of some big cars as it made everything else that came along afterwards cake. Occasionally I'll take my dad's Cutlass out, or rent a big car, and I enjoy it for a little while. But it's not something I want to deal with on a daily basis anymore. As a 2nd car, a big boat might be fun to cruise around in from time to time, but for a daily driver, that old Stratus was about the limit on bigness for me.

I am biased against VW. Maybe just from spending enough time with CK and hearing about his woes and all the driveway repairs he did. I think they are neat cars but I'd never commit to owning one.

Im also thinking about a 10 year old or so Mustang GT. Not the most nimble cars perhaps, but decently quick, and they sound great and look great. And I dont think they have the worst mileage ariund despite being a V8. And plus they only use 87 octane I think.

Honor wrote:Im also thinking about a 10 year old or so Mustang GT. Not the most nimble cars perhaps, but decently quick, and they sound great and look great. And I dont think they have the worst mileage ariund despite being a V8. And plus they only use 87 octane I think.

They are fun cars. I'd happily own another.

I've thought about selling my Evo to buy a 2013 Mustang GT.

Couldn't justify it, though.

The Leguna Seca Boss edition would be super tits.

I wouldn't buy a pre current gen 5.0 though. Way too under powered for what it is. Especially the mid-90s cars. Even the late 90s.

I mean, seriously? 215 hp out of a 4.6L V8? They bumped it up to like 260 in 99 but still not enough.

Yeah, I like the look of the 99-04s better, but the 05+ has 40 more hp. I think 260 hp would be fine for a daily driver. Still more than enough power to merge with traffic, etc. in most situations and enough to have fun with. Plus I'd probably add a few light mods like intake, exhaust etc. to bump it ip a bit. But mostly because it would sound like tits.

And Mustang is an American classic, I don't care how many V6 autos there are out there driven by teenie boppers.

Talon wrote:I wouldn't buy a pre current gen 5.0 though. Way too under powered for what it is. Especially the mid-90s cars. Even the late 90s.

I mean, seriously? 215 hp out of a 4.6L V8? They bumped it up to like 260 in 99 but still not enough.

haha, the 5.0 in the early 80s had 140hp. Thing would get probably get smoked by a Kia Soul or some shit today.

It's not about the HP, it's the torque. Which wasn't all that great, either.

People say that, but look at F1 cars, look at cars like the S2000. High hp, but comparatively not much torque, but theyre still fast. On the other hand, my first car, a 92 Camaro 305 had 170hp but like 270 ft-lbs. but it was slow as balls.

They say horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races. How did horsepower get to be the thing more associated with the "speed" of a car? Why wasnt the credit given to torque all along? And if horsepower isnt important why is it still one of the first things people, even "car guys" talk about? This has always been a bit murky for me.

Honor wrote:People say that, but look at F1 cars, look at cars like the S2000. High hp, but comparatively not much torque, but theyre still fast. On the other hand, my first car, a 92 Camaro 305 had 170hp but like 270 ft-lbs. but it was slow as balls.

The S2000 may have been deficient in torque as compared to its horsepower, but it also redlined quite high and I believe near-peak torque is available much of the way toward 8,000 RPM. Plus it weighed a good 500 pounds less than a 3rd-gen Camaro, and probably had a transmission more suited to deliver that torque.

The nice thing about the powerband on a Mustang, even in my lowly 260hp '04, was that you could just leave it in 3rd in the twisties and not shift if you didn't want to. Its not like it was a dog, 0-60 was sub 6 seconds if I recall correctly on the 99-04 GT.

2 buddies in that range had problems this month. Blown diff, blown axles, blown shocks, blown engine mounts, blown chassis bushing, blown lights if course

My wife had a Rabbit that had zero problems. And she had it past its warranty.  My GTI (for as long as I had it) had zero problems.  My parents have a TDI with a ton of miles on it (though it's not particularly old), and its had zero problems.  My wife's new TDI has had zero problems.  If buying one, I'd be sure to buy a Golf, and to not buy the bargain basement version.

So, no old cars, but I can honestly say that things have been absolutely perfect for us so far.  Knock on wood.  My parents used to have an old VW camper van that had a couple technical issues, all related to the electrical system.  But it was also a 1992.

Also, I'm definitely going to own a Mustang at some point. Either a new one, or a vintage one. But something. I think vintage would be nice - mid 60s, V-8 with a 4 speed. Of course they're becoming ridiculously pricey in decent condition.

Gf owned 3 VWs. Jetta, then beetle shook themselves apart multiple times left stranded. 2008 jetta from new burned 1-1.5l+ of oil per 1000km. Burned through lights every few weeks. Never had interior lights and accessories working 100%. Been in a jetta that blew trans, a rabbit that took 8 hrs to drive 100km before we abandoned it and picked it up a week later. Always check engine lights on all cars. I've had such horrible experiences. All diff cars.

Soliz Jr. wrote:Gf owned 3 VWs.  Jetta, then beetle shook themselves apart multiple times left stranded.  2008 jetta from new burned 1-1.5l+ of oil per 1000km.  Burned through lights every few weeks.  Never had interior lights and accessories working 100%. Been in a jetta that blew trans, a rabbit that took 8 hrs to drive 100km before we abandoned it and picked it up a week later.  Always check engine lights on all cars.  I've had such horrible experiences.  All diff cars.

That's crazy. I, on the other hand have had much worse luck, and been left stranded more than once, with the Honda's I've owned. Well, the CR-Z at least.

thewalrus wrote:Also, I'm definitely going to own a Mustang at some point.  Either a new one, or a vintage one.  But something.  I think vintage would be nice - mid 60s, V-8 with a 4 speed.  Of course they're becoming ridiculously pricey in decent condition.

Theres a guy near me who owns a red 67 or 68 convertible. It's a V8, not sure what size engine they might have had, 302s or 289s maybe? But it's a sweet ass car and it sounds great.

Honor wrote:

thewalrus wrote:Also, I'm definitely going to own a Mustang at some point.  Either a new one, or a vintage one.  But something.  I think vintage would be nice - mid 60s, V-8 with a 4 speed.  Of course they're becoming ridiculously pricey in decent condition.

Theres a guy near me who owns a red 67 or 68 convertible. It's a V8, not sure what size engine they might have had, 302s or 289s maybe? But it's a sweet ass car and it sounds great.

I know the initial V8s had 289s. Not sure if they upgraded that for 67 - 68. I'm inclined to think not.

The thing I don't like about them, though, is that V8s with the 4 speed are rare, and command high prices. That, and Steve McQueen screwed up any chance I'd have of ever owning a 68 GT Fastback with a standard transmission for something resembling a reasonable price.