Last post on Nov 04, 2012 at 2:48 PM
You are in the Volkswagen Golf
What is this discussion about?
Volkswagen Golf, Hatchback
#1436 of 1529 Re: 2005 VW Golf GL [_lennox_]
Sep 08, 2009 (8:28 am)
Get a diesel! You get more zip, 40-50 mpg, and it will run on biodiesel (even treated used ff grease). Best to get 2005 1/2 (first half of 2006 before the ultra-low sulfur engine). I installed a HHO system in mine and although the fuel mileage is the same I have a RACE CAR! The engine will last forever and it purrs very quietly. The exhaust doesn't stink like the inefficient pickup ones do. The interior is nice, quiet, solid, and converts to a wagon while still looking sporty. So to answer your question, yes and no. Be picky! Get a diesel or don't bother.
#1437 of 1529 Re: 2005 VW Golf GL [_lennox_]
Sep 08, 2009 (6:03 pm)
I beleive you will find most folks that follow the VW forums may feel positive.
I can tell you we have several VWs in the family... both of my daughters drive VWs. My one daughter drives the wheels off of her little Gulf. She drove from Montrial Canada to NorthCaralina back to Vermont this summer. With over 130K miles on it... it keeps on running.
You did not say which engine it has... that may tend to sway some folks one way or another.
The 12-year/unlimited milage corrosion warantee is a HUGE plus for me. (I am in Vermont where they use a lot of roadsalt)
#1438 of 1529 Re: 2005 VW Golf GL [bpeebles]
Sep 08, 2009 (6:18 pm)
It the 2.0L 4 banger. It really is just for getting back and forth to university and such. The diesels really carry a premium with them, one which I am fairly certain I'm not willing to spend.
Any other experiences/thoughts?
Thanks for the replies.
#1439 of 1529 1989 Cabriolet Wont start
Oct 09, 2009 (8:23 am)
The car was working fine and then just one time i went to start it just wont go. It turns over, just wont start. It was making some noises so i think the fuel pump may have gone bad, but i changed the in tank and still no different....HELP!
#1440 of 1529 Re: Uncomfortable front seats? [canoenut]
Jun 21, 2011 (6:23 pm)
I don't like the pressure on the under side of my leg. It will keep me from buying. I'm afraid the circulation in my legs will cut off.
#1441 of 1529 All new 2012 Golf
Jun 27, 2011 (10:47 am)
Not sure if this has been posted already
According to what I understand of the article, should be built on an all-new platform which promises better rigidity, less weight, less wind resistance, more passenger and luggage accomodation.
The promised motor mix is very optimistic with all kinds of technologies from ICE to pure electric, going through different hybrid technologies and stages.
A diesel pushing up to 220 HP would be in the plans, while revised versions of DSG would be available. An automated gearbox would help entry level engines yield 10% more mileage.
as an appetizer, a Youtube link would provide some teaser information on the future design
in the upper right section, we see some kind of body beign worked on. This may be some alternative design from which the future 2012 model was chosen, or not.
#1442 of 1529 Fuel efficiency
Jul 19, 2011 (5:57 pm)
In Canada, the Ministry of Natural Resources provides data regarding fuel efficiency. The 2011 2.5L Golf Wagon equipped with the Tiptronic 6 speed transmission rating are as follows : City, 9.1L/ 100 km equivalent to 31MPG (Imperial) or 25.8 MPG (US) ; Highway, 6.5L/ 100km equivalent to 43.46 MPG (Imperial) or 36.2 MPG (US). Could anyone currently driving a 2010 or 2011 2.5L Golf Wagon corroborate these readings or indicate what they are getting using regular gas at the pump. My view is that this big engine should not be as efficient as indicated. Thanks !
#1443 of 1529 Re: Fuel efficiency [zenfm]
Jul 21, 2011 (8:59 am)
I have a 2011 Golf 2.5 2dr with 5 speed manual. I usually got 23-24 (mpg) city and up to 35.5 mpg on highway in US. Im a high rpm driver, and the mpg really impressed me. I'm thinking about pick another Golf up when 2012 is available.
#1444 of 1529 Re: Fuel efficiency [juiyuan]
Jul 21, 2011 (10:11 am)
That confirms the EPA findings. Fuel efficiency should be a little better with the 6 speed automatic trans. Thanks !
#1445 of 1529 Re: Fuel efficiency [zenfm]
Jul 21, 2011 (10:52 am)
"Fuel efficiency should be a little better with the 6 speed automatic trans."
Highly-HIGHLY unlikely. While there are many cars which sport slightly better EPA numbers for Automatic versions, in the real world I've yet to see any (as in not even a single one) anecdotal reports where the Automatic equipped cars are even able to match their Manual equipped siblings. My SWAG based upon literally hundreds of reports is that the Automatic will deliver two or even three fewer miles per gallon in all driving environments compared to a Manual version of the Golf.