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.
the 2.0T is underpowered for a car like that.
With the 2.0T, it was a grown-up version of the Golf GTI.
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.
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.
How could it be more luxurious when it's mostly the same car, save for the shape?
Luxury != Size
Luxury = better appointments, features and fit and finish, though.
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 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...
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".