Let me be the first, for once
, to
to Mr. Yarokony for this piece.
It cannot be easy to take a combined what, 6,000km, three 'different' vehicles, and sum up well the points that are made in logical succession.
, as always.
However, the 1.8T is the Goldilocks option, a birdie, if you will, in links parlance.
I think this is the most important point, however. I noticed it with the overall fuel costs, with the 1.8T mayhaps not being the most efficient, but certainly the most reasonable to run (and making the TDI all-but moot unless you drive solely highway and >~25,000km/year).
This is what Subaru (et al.) needs to learn - a base engine that is undesirable can seriously harm a vehicle's desirability, but here VW shows that an engine alone can be a selling feature: many flocked to the VW group for the exclusive diesel offerings for years, and now every new VW (E&OE) comes with a decent engine. While GM's 1.4T may not be up to the task in anything other than the Sonic (by weight), or even maybe the Cruze, Hyundai and Nissan are both doing well with their 1.6Ts.
As a final thought, most Europeans that I speak to don't say "100hp is enough for me". Though my sample size is admittedly small, they accept it as 'sufficient, barely,' but complain that they would like more (but-for having to pay for more fuel burned). If gas prices were to drop (dramatically...), sales of small, weak cars in Europe would slow very quickly, me thinks.
Any way, great article, JY, and if the Golf R comes with its AWD and has some good deals on the hood (HA!), I could consider one, but the Golf 1.8T does, indeed, seem like the 'right' VW for many.
