The Jetta and Beetle diesels do indeed FEEL very fast. These little engines make their torque peak in an RPM range such that they do a very good job pushing your body back into the seat. This coupled with the low vehicle weight make them fun to drive.

When you drive one, however, notice how the seat of the pants (or back of the seat) feeling seems to go away a second or so after you feel it.

Torque makes a car fun to drive while horsepower wins races. I am not saying that the TDI's can't do both because I don't know. I do know that other than their weird, front engine, super understeering characteristics making them handle like a phone booth on a skateboard, they are a bit of a kick to drive, at least on straight roads.

I do believe, that if you put a really stiff sway bar under the back and put some decent rubber on the ground, you would have a neat car to drive, as front wheel drive cars go.

In fact, if you had a magic wand that could turn that engine 90 degrees and put a differential in the rear where it's supposed to be, you could make a car that would be a real kick in the A$$ to drive. It also would make that nasty timing belt job a good bit easier too.

My $0.02,

Larry, you're absolutely right on the torque. I would say all modern turbodiesels feel faster than they really are, especially if you don't rev them very high. They have a very narrow power band and in the case of my TDI the meat of the torque is approx. between 1800 and 2500 RPM. After that the torque noticeably starts to drop off.

Regarding the belt, it does have the advantage that it doesn't stretch and some even say it's easier to replace than a chain. Maybe not a 240D chain, but I don't think the chain is all that easy to replace on a CDI or Bluetec. Even on my OM606 the valve cover alone would be a pain to remove with all the injector lines in the way and to remove those the entire intake manifold has to come off too. A 240D valve cover on the other hand is a piece of cake to remove.

I'm not anti-FWD like you. It has its pluses, like better traction in snow and no differential/driveshaft to maintain. But worse weight distribution and torque steer can be issues to some.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Snow? In Nevada? True that a front-heavy car with FWD is better in a straight line in the snow.

It does have a differential though, ...

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff

I get that a lot. Yes it does snow and freeze here in Northern Nevada. Occasionally even down in Vegas, but it's generally a lot warmer there.

Yes, but I meant no separate differential from the transmission. They share the same oil pan/housing. One less fluid to worry about.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Now that's funny Larry, ... in fact, you might stiffen and stretch the chassis a bit, and call it a 190D Turbo.

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff

177 ft. lbs @ 1800 RPM is NOT what gives the car passing power. That is the part that pushes you into the seat back.

Horsepower is what gives you passing power. It is torque at higher engine speed that gives you horsepower. Horsepower is a calculated value, not a measured one. Making torque at high RPM shines more favorable on the result of the horsepower calculation.

Yes it does, particularly without downshifting. If you don't have good low-end torque, you can certainly compensate by downshifting and revving the engine really high to get some passing power, but you'll get lots of noise and fuel consumption. I'd much rather just depress the accelerator in 5th gear and let the turbo do its thing. Trust me, the top gear passing power in in my TDI is MUCH better than in our old Accord which actually had more horsepower but less torque. It's a night and day difference.

Yes, horsepower = torque * RPM * constant. Horsepower is great for racing. But it makes more sense for everyday driving to have maximum torque in the RPM range where you spend most of the time driving, i.e. the low end, especially if it results in better fuel efficiency as well.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

The dealer tried to blow us off like we were nuts, Interesting. They have yet to tell us of this recall.

VW recalling 13,500 vehicles over transmission

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/GLENNE%7E1.KLI/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
Thu Aug 20, 9:46 am ET
WASHINGTON – Volkswagen of America is recalling 13,500 vehicles to fix problems with a dual-clutch transmission that could lead to a warning on the dashboard.
The recall affects 2009 model year and a limited number of 2010 Jetta, Jetta SportsWagen, GTI and Eos vehicles built between September 2008 and August 2009. Volkswagen says some of the vehicles could have a faulty temperature sensor in the transmission, which could lead to the warning lamp lighting up on the dashboard. They said in rare cases, the transmission could shift into neutral.
Volkswagen officials say there have been no crashes or injuries reported. Owners will have their vehicles inspected and repaired if necessary. Customers can call (800) 444-8982 for more information

__________________

Diesels:
'85 300D, "Max, Blue Benz", 155K, 27.0 MPG
'84 190D 2.2, "Eva, Brown Benz", 142K, 40.2 MPG
'77 240D (parts car)
'67 Eicher ES 202 Tractor "Otto" (2cyl, Air Cooled, 30HP)
Gassers:
'94 Ford F-150, "Henry", 170K (300 Six) 17.5 MPG
'85 190E 2.3, 148K....Parts Car
'58 Dodge W300M Powerwagon (Flat Fenders) Less than 10 MPG

Like I said, don't buy a DSG. VW has never, ever made a good automatic themselves, with the exception of the 010 3 speed from the 70s and 80s. I just did the timing belt on an 04 New Beetle DSG... and after just 100k its dual mass flywheel is coming apart

-Jason

My brother sent me this link to an ABC story about the Jetta Transmission....

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8378724

SB

__________________

Diesels:
'85 300D, "Max, Blue Benz", 155K, 27.0 MPG
'84 190D 2.2, "Eva, Brown Benz", 142K, 40.2 MPG
'77 240D (parts car)
'67 Eicher ES 202 Tractor "Otto" (2cyl, Air Cooled, 30HP)
Gassers:
'94 Ford F-150, "Henry", 170K (300 Six) 17.5 MPG
'85 190E 2.3, 148K....Parts Car
'58 Dodge W300M Powerwagon (Flat Fenders) Less than 10 MPG

I avoid automatic transmissions REGARDLESS of who makes them. They are just something that require too much maintenance and they are too expensive when they break.

That said, I could drive a Hitler Wagon TDI with a manual transmission and probably get along with it okay in spite of the fact that I would be cussing my butt off every time I put a stupid timing belt on it. Where I would absolutely draw the line would be about one with an automatic.

If I bought one, however, I would be afraid that it would fall of the road before I could get it home and install the thickest rear sway bar that I could find for it. What a goofy handling car.

Come on, the handling is not that bad. At least I've never had the problem with my Jetta of "falling off the road". The only difference I can detect in handling between my MB and Jetta is that the MB has less body roll, but I've never broken traction even in the Jetta (except on snow/ice) or had any other handling problem. Unless you drive like a maniac I don't see what the big deal is.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I don't understand why you guys hate timing belts so much. They're more precise over their life cycle, not hard to replace (way easier then a chain! Ya you can just roll in a new chain.. but what about the guides and sprockets that wore because the chain stretched?), and cost less to maintain in the long run then a chain. Ya they're nice on a car you only plan to keep for 150,000 miles from new, but some of us like to keep a car longer then that Speaking of that I think the interval on the new TDIs is something lke 140,000 miles? Crazy!

I'm sad VW is going to chains on all of their new engines. I bet a lot of the 2.5 gassers are going to be thrown away around 180k miles when the chains are due because the owner doesn't want to pay to have the transmission removed and the engine taken apart for the service!

-J

Well if you enjoy changing timing belts for entertainment, then I think that you should just go for it. I personally like the fact that I've NEVER had to change a timing chain on an MB. The timing chains outlast the engine. If the time ever comes to roll in a new one, it will take less time to do so than to change a belt on most anything beyond a 71 Pinto.

What do you NOT like about having a cam timing system that lasts longer than the rest of the engine?

My first 240D went 280,000 miles before getting rid of it with no timing chain change or any other serious engine work for that matter.

My second 240D went 380,000 miles before engine overhaul due to wear on items OTHER THAN the timing chain.

My 300E has gone 320,000 miles and still has the original timing chain in great shape.

SO... had they been TDI's I would have enjoyed the fun of changing the timing belt about 10 times during this period and that's assuming a 90,000 mile interval. Sorry, but I have other, more enjoyable things to do with my time.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that there is ANYONE ON EARTH that would rather have a timing belt as opposed to a double roller, tensioned, timing chain.

Don't guides wear out before timing chains ?

__________________
2010 ML350 Bluetec
2012 Mustang Convertible