Last post on Oct 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM
You are in the Volkswagen Jetta
What is this discussion about?
Volkswagen Jetta, Sedan
#12720 of 12749 Re: Should I buy a 99-04 Jetta? [bpeebles]
Jan 15, 2009 (7:55 am)
Thanks for your reply bpeebles. Good to know about the dipping thing since I live in Mn. Salt is a constant on the roads here in the winter. I don't mind giving a vehicle attention as I do that anyway with my current vehicle (04 F-150 4x4 Supercrew). I run full synthetic AMSOIL in it and detail it almost weekly.
#12721 of 12749 Re: High Mileage 2000 VW Jetta? [mochalatte]
Jan 15, 2009 (8:02 am)
I'm looking at a 02 Jet with the 1.8T. AUTO, 80K miles, in Mn. Car is in excellent condition. Dealer is asking 5999.00 (below book, NADA and KBB)
Is this a good deal? Is this 1.8T less problematic than the VR6? or more?
#12722 of 12749 Re: What's the buzz? [backy]
Jan 15, 2009 (8:39 am)
We have the new body style, so not sure if it the same thing we hear, it sure sounds like it is...we were told or read that that is the fuel pump.
#12723 of 12749 Re: What's the buzz? [jeffyscott]
Jan 15, 2009 (9:40 am)
Priming it for action, as it were?
#12724 of 12749 Which engine is better?
Jan 16, 2009 (8:43 pm)
I'm considering buying a 2000-2004 Jetta (no specific model) with a automatic tranny and was wondering which engine has a better track record as far as reliability? the 1.8T, the 2.0, or the VR6? I've test driven both the VR6 and the 1.8T and honestly I like both of them, although the 1.8 seemed to be somewhat smoother upon acceleration and I must admit I liked it when the turbo kicked in. But I've read SO many negative posts about this vehicle in general I'm still a bit hesitant about investing in a used one. I do love everything about this VW and I want one but I have serious reservations about it's future reliability. Also, I live in Minnesota so how will each of these engines handle really cold temps?
I look forward to the replies. Thanks in advance.
#12725 of 12749 Re: Which engine is better? [gforce211]
Jan 17, 2009 (11:07 am)
I can tell you how the 2.0L handles cold temps in MN, as I recently bought a 2005 GL (the "old Jetta", not the New Jetta from 2005.5) with the 2.0 and AT, 47k miles on it. It handled the cold weather (down to -25 F actual temperature) just fine. Car started right up, and it ran fine (I let it warm up for about 30 seconds minimum just to let the fluids circulate in the morning). I did find the heater a little slow to warm up the car at those temperatures, slower than some of my other cars like a '04 Elantra and '07 T&C, but hey, it WAS -25 F. So no problems with the cold weather.
I have no experience with the VR6 or 1.8T, but I have heard that turbos require special care and maintenance, so the more you know about the ownership and maintenance history, the better.
#12726 of 12749 Re: Which engine is better? [gforce211]
Jan 17, 2009 (9:04 pm)
The word "reliability" in your question can have many different meanings.
If you are looking for lowest maintainance costs, the 2.0L is your choice. This engine is essentually the same as the very 1st watercooled VW (1981?) which has had many years of refinements. It is as good as an engine can get. Some of these tend to consume oil (NOT a problem if you keep the oil topped up.)
The VR6 is more engine than the vehicle really needs and is pretty expensive to maintain properly. It hangs down further than the other engines and is suseptible to getting clobbered by road-debris. You can lose all your oil and destroy the engine. It also requires synthetic oil!
The 1.8T (An Audi engine) Gained an unwelcome reputation for reliabilty when there was a rash of bad ignition-coils for a couple years. All of these were recalled and fixed. It offers the efficency of a small engine on the highway while the turbocharger gives it the power of a much larger engine when you want it. (synthetic oil too!))
#12727 of 12749 Re: Which engine is better? [bpeebles]
Jan 18, 2009 (7:36 pm)
Thanks for the replies fellas....I appreciate it. I test a 1.8T with a auto this past Friday night and really like it. For being such a small engine I thought it propelled the Jetta with ease. It was smooth and acceleration was smooth and on tap when needed. For me I think the 1.8 is what I need (my daily commute to and from work is about 45 miles) because of the fuel economy. The turbo will come in handy when merging into traffic or passing. Does this 2.0 require synthetic oil like the other two? and do these engines require premium gas or will they run fine on reg unleaded?
#12728 of 12749 Re: Which engine is better? [gforce211]
Jan 18, 2009 (8:23 pm)
I know the 2.0 doesn't require either synthetic oil or premium gas. But since you are looking for maximum fuel economy, you might want to use synthetic anyway. With a 10k miles oil change interval as on the Jetta 2.0, it really doesn't cost much more to use synthetic.
#12729 of 12749 Re: Which engine is better? [gforce211]
Jan 19, 2009 (8:09 pm)
1.8t requires premium fuel and synthetic oil...you gotsta pay for that performance 8-)
In general ANY turbocharged engine should be fed with synthetic oil. This is because the turbocharger can cook the dyno-oil rendering it a useless goop. Keep in mind that the turbocharger bearings are spinning at over 10,000 RPM and are in the very hottest part of the exhaust sytem... these conditions requre the very best lubricating oil which will not break down.