Topic: CD Article: 2010 Volkswagen Golf

[Autos_Editor]

         
First Drive:


Yes, you read it right: the 2010 VW Rabbit will once again be called the Golf, but unfortunately it won't get here until the Fall of 2009.  Contributor Gerry Frechette attended the Golf's media preview in, of all places, Iceland.
 
More:
Read the article | View the photos | All the First Drives

[1TSX]

How about a 1.4-litre gasoline four, supercharged AND turbocharged with direct injection, putting out 160 horsepower, driving through a seven-speed DSG? It's called the 1.4 TSI, and its combination of smoothness, performance (0-100 km/h in 8 seconds), and low consumption (6.0 L/100 km) is a very appealing one.

I want!! RIGHT NOW!! 

That sounds like a very fun, yet frugal combination.

[widefire]

That's a nice little piece of engineering! Good looking, that will still look good in 10 years. Way to go VW!

[ovr50]

I like it and am glad they are (once again) going back to the Golf name.

Leaning toward getting a Rabbit/Golf for wife to replace the HL in the Spring, but maybe have to wait until the Fall to get the new one.

[carcrazy]

I like it. Looking forward to hearing about the alternative powerplant (not crazy about the 2.5L I5 in this car).

[articsteve]

The 2.5 in the current Rabbit is totally the wrong motor for the new Golf.

[ovr50]

The 2.5 in the current Rabbit is totally the wrong motor for the new Golf.

Why? Only thing I have heard is that maybe it's a bit thirsty? Give us your reasons.

[initial_D]

Would like to see a TDI Diesel version of the Golf.

[mmret]

Tons of higher end features (active dampers, radar cruise, etc.) which would be great but I doubt we will see in Canada.

But yes the key to making this thing attractive will be the engines imo.

Also am I the only one who likes the front on the current one better?

[initial_D]

The 2.5 in the current Rabbit is totally the wrong motor for the new Golf.

Why? Only thing I have heard is that maybe it's a bit thirsty? Give us your reasons.

It is not a Chevy Small Block?

[articsteve]

The 2.5 in the current Rabbit is totally the wrong motor for the new Golf.

Why? Only thing I have heard is that maybe it's a bit thirsty? Give us your reasons.

Give us your reasons

1.  Undeniably the loudest gasoline engine at cold idle I have ever heard.

2.  Too heavy for the front end.

3.  It's a little more than thirsty.

4.  Future maintenance.  Does not concern buyers like you, but for somebody that holds on to their cars long term good lucky with DIY or economical engine repairs.    Lots of current vehicles have tight engine compartments, but that 2.5 in that engine bay is ridiculous.

5.  $100 plus oil changes.  Then after the 2nd change at 16k km it's every 16k km or 1 year.    DUMB.

Overall a very unrefined motor.  Hard to believe it comes from the same maker of the 2.0

[vdk]

The 2.5 in the current Rabbit is totally the wrong motor for the new Golf.

Why? Only thing I have heard is that maybe it's a bit thirsty? Give us your reasons.

Give us your reasons

1.  Undeniably the loudest gasoline engine at cold idle I have ever heard.

2.  Too heavy for the front end.

3.  It's a little more than thirsty.

4.  Future maintenance.  Does not concern buyers like you, but for somebody that holds on to their cars long term good lucky with DIY or economical engine repairs.    Lots of current vehicles have tight engine compartments, but that 2.5 in that engine bay is ridiculous.

5.  $100 plus oil changes.  Then after the 2nd change at 16k km it's every 16k km or 1 year.    DUMB.

Overall a very unrefined motor.  Hard to believe it comes from the same maker of the 2.0

1. Yes, it holds 1500-2000 rpm when cold. I think it warms up faster that way and the cat.. blah blah. It is  loud.


3. There's better choice out there if one's looking for fuel economy, the Volvo's 2.5 and the VW now drink pretty much the same ~8 highway.

4. Haven't done any DIY but they've fitted a 3.2 in that engine bay too.

5. It's VW, synthetic is not cheap.

Not trying to take VWs part, this is definitely not a great engine, and it's pretty unrefined. I also can't believe someone (an engineer perhaps) in Germany OK-ed it.

The difference between the older Volvo 2.5 I5 and the relatively new VW 2.5 I5 is day and night.

I do hope they'll improve the powerplant somewhat.

[tpl]

As the 2.0 turbo is certified for NA emissions why not ditch the 2.5 and put the 2.0 in all NA Golfs. Put a 250bhp version in the GTI.

As the article says, until the Americans come around to hatchbacks we probably won't get any of the fancy stuff.

Now Canada has aligned the bumper standards with the rest of the world, it would be a small step to allow either US or Eu emission standards here. That might mean that we would get all kinds of cars we don't see at all.

[The Mighty Duck]

VW Canada has already confirmed that the Golf will be once more actually called "Golf"; the "Rabbit" experiment is over, at least in this country.

  What a waste of time that was.  VW should have done their homework before calling it the Rabbit tp begin with...  shame, I like Rabbit better.

Also am I the only one who likes the front on the current one better?

No.  The current Rabbit one of the best looking small cars on the market, imo.  The new one is nice, and I'm sure it'll grow on me, but the current one is tough to beat.

[Thinking Out Loud]

So, if I understand the 'numberclature' correctly, this is the MkVI. 

Will this mean that the 'City' edition of the Golf and Jetta will be upgraded to the MkV platform from the current MkIV platform? 

[Mitlov]

So, if I understand the 'numberclature' correctly, this is the MkVI. 

Yes.

Will this mean that the 'City' edition of the Golf and Jetta will be upgraded to the MkV platform from the current MkIV platform? 

Not likely.  One of the biggest problems with the MkV platform is high production costs.  The MkVI was designed to be much cheaper to produce than the MkV, while delivering similar refinement and a similar driving experience.  The reason they still sell the MkIV in Canada is because a MkIV is significantly less expensive to produce than a similarly-equipped MkV.  That won't be true once the main model is a MkVI instead of a MkV.

[carcrazy]

Does it mean that, being cheaper to produce, will be cheaper too? I hope so.
Cheaper and better would make it a very appealing option.

[BernardP]

I am glad the Rabbit name is going to be dropped. Having spent so many years re-establishing the Golf name after the initial "Rabbit" North American naming (1975 I think), it was dubious, to be polite, for VW to re-introduce the Rabbit name.

Their next mistake: setting up a new factory in the US to build a bigger-for-North-America Passat, just as gasoline prices are trending up (long-term, at least). The current Passat is big enough, but like the current Golf/Rabbit, is too expensive to manufacture.

[TopGun]

Also am I the only one who likes the front on the current one better?

I'm with you...the front end is a regression in my mind...very Impreza like.

The Euro VW seats are awesome...aggressive bolstering yet very supportive.

[Spheric]

I've probably learnt more about the current Rabbit from this thread than all the fawning uncritical reviews I have read to date.

I always thought that the 2.5 powerplant was way too big for the Rabbit. VW should have brought in a 1.6 entry level engine (or something similar) - it seems that that manufacturers always seem to think that the big-is-better mantra always applies to North America.