Interesting Perspective on the new Passat

[narf]

Over here they upped the price for 5->6 by a few hundred Euros. Kinda makes sense if the previous model wasn't giving a large enough profit... you'd have the same problem with the 6 if you passed on the savings in production costs to the customer.

 

[Shawn]

Prices may have shifted up a few hundred here too, I wouldn't have taken note of such relatively small amounts.

I was thinking more substantial amounts, I was under the impression the new NA Jetta was a couple grand cheaper than its predecessor. I guess I was wrong again, it's actually gotten about $300 more, at least for the most base model.

Whatever, I guess I really don't understand where VW is going with their North American plans. I know why I can't be objective though, because VWs are really popular here. If this city was an indication of the continent as whole, Jettas would be the best selling car in that segment.

 

[Vette Boss]

I love my B6 Passat, but I hate this new US-only model, it's completely pointless. The whole idea of the Passat, was that it's made in Germany and slightly above the mainstream price, but still attainable. With the 2.0T, it was a grown-up version of the Golf GTI.

This new US-only model, is just another stupid appliance car.

 

[narf]

the 2.0T is underpowered for a car like that.

With the 2.0T, it was a grown-up version of the Golf GTI.

 

[Shawn]

Is it so funny that different people have different points of view, and thus different opinions on a certain subject matter?

Also, I was referring to the Passat CC specifically. It's basically just a Passat, but that more sporty body probably brings in more customers who are after a sporty drive and therefore might want something more than the 2.0T.

 

[narf]

Is it so funny that different people have different points of view, and thus different opinions on a certain subject matter?

Also, I was referring to the Passat CC specifically. It's basically just a Passat, but that more sporty body probably brings in more customers who are after a sporty drive and therefore might want something more than the 2.0T.

Yeah, it actually is funny.

The point of the CC is to be more luxurious, bridging the gap between the regular Passat and the Phaeton. It pulls some of the old people from Merc, not the boy racers from BMW and Audi.

 

[Shawn]

The point of the CC is to be more luxurious, bridging the gap between the regular Passat and the Phaeton. It pulls some of the old people from Merc, not the boy racers from BMW and Audi.

The point of the CC is to be more luxurious? I could swear it was to be (look) more sporty. How could it be more luxurious when it's mostly the same car, save for the shape?

I'm not sure I agree that the 2.0T CC is a grown up version of the GTI. But just because one person finds the CC with the 2.0T underpowered doesn't meant someone can't find it adequately powerful.

 

[Vette Boss]

The thing about the Passat with the 2.0T, it's actually faster than all of it's 4-cylinder Japanese rivals and the driving dynamics are better as well. If you think the 2.0T is slow, you probably haven't tried an Accord or Camry. :lol:

 

[narf]

How could it be more luxurious when it's mostly the same car, save for the shape?

Luxury != Size

To name just two aspects, upscale interior and toys.

 

[Shawn]

Luxury != Size

Yes, exactly, I never mentioned size (shape is not the same thing). Luxury = better appointments, features and fit and finish, though.

The base CC probably offers a lot more as standard than a base Passat, but meh, it's still the same car made of the same materials using the same manufacturing processes.

Anyway, this is a pointless argument. I was not comparing the CC 2.0T to Camrys and Accords when I said it was underpowered; I was comparing it to the GTI which I test drove at the same time and was considering as well as the CC. Yes, I know the GTI and CC are totally different cars, but I was shopping between those two and so that's what I compared.

 

[narf]

Luxury = better appointments, features and fit and finish, though.

There you go then, answering your own question.

 

[Shawn]

No, the answer was right below that sentence. It's still using the same materials and manufacturing processes, despite what VW says the CC is much more akin to the Passat than the 7-Series or S-Class or whatever they dreamed the CC would compete with.

Look, before we get totally confused, let's get back to the original point. The CC and Passat are different cars that appeal to different people (regardless of who that different group of people is), and my original point was that while someone might consider the CC with 2.0T underpowered, they might consider the regular Passat with 2.0T adequate because it's a different car.

Whether the CC competes with the Passat or the CLS is no matter, the CC is not exactly the Passat so the same engine might not make as much sense in both cars.

 

[Vette Boss]

I think the CC is ideal for the person who wants a more unique car, without having to drop more money on a BMW or Merc. Even with the VR6 and 4Motion, it comes in cheaper than the Merc E350. I don't think having the interior based on the Passat is a bad thing, it's a great design and the materials are right up there with the best. My Passat has better interior materials than the current C-Class, which actually looks/feels kind of... cheap.

 

[narf]

There is a difference between "adequate" and "GTI". That's why I laughed. One man's underpowered car may be adequate to the next, but having one say "underpowered" while the other says "GTI" is just ridiculous.

 

[M3lover]

There is a difference between "adequate" and "GTI". That's why I laughed. One man's underpowered car may be adequate to the next, but having one say "underpowered" while the other says "GTI" is just ridiculous.

I wouldn't call it ridiculous. Remember that it's far from unusual for middle class sedans like Camry's, Altima's etc. in North America to have 280+ hp. So compared to the general market it might be considered "underpowered".

 

[thevictor390]

I always complained about my old Sebring being hopelessly slow, but it got 150 HP from an n/a 2L I4 in 1996, and weighed under 3000 lbs. Looking back, it could have been far worse...

 

[rickhamilton620]

I always complained about my old Sebring being hopelessly slow, but it got 150 HP from an n/a 2L I4 in 1996, and weighed under 3000 lbs. Looking back, it could have been far worse...

Indeed, it could have had 85 horsepower. *coughs loudly in my car's direction* Ok so my car is admittedly featherweight (around 2000 pounds) due to its construction, but still...at this age it probably makes 70 horsepower, or less.

About the Passat vs. CC debate. I think all three of you are right. Demographics for an item can be vastly different depending on where you are in the world or even within different parts of a country. While it's probably akin to the ES350 in Europe (entry level luxury, not saying it drives or feels like a tarted up Camry....although one could argue it's a tarted up Passat) here it's a decidedly sportier, more extroverted take on the upper end mid-size game. Think Nissan's Maxima to their Altima. Same platform, but decidedly different feel inside and out.

That's why I think they should hedge their bets and continue to offer the CC here alongside the Passat.

 

[narf]

I wouldn't call it ridiculous. Remember that it's far from unusual for middle class sedans like Camry's, Altima's etc. in North America to have 280+ hp. So compared to the general market it might be considered "underpowered".

If a Danish person considered it a GTI and an American considered it underpowered I'd be fine with that. However, both views come from the US market.