Last post on Nov 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM
You are in the Prices Paid - Buying & Leasing Experiences
What is this discussion about?
Volkswagen Passat CC, Car Buying, Car Leasing, Sedan
#73 of 112 Re: Help! Should we consider this deal??? Quickly..... [thors]
Aug 24, 2009 (10:17 am)
I bought my 09 CC VR6 with tech package last week for $8750 off MSRP. Added bluetooth (Volk-L, which is what the dealer can install) for $450. Note that there was an early 2009 change in the tech package that added the backup camera and something like $1000 to the price (combined with price increase all models saw). So if you don't need the backup camera, you can save quite a bit. Mine was a 12/08 build, so doesn't have the camera, and I don't miss it. With the backup sensors and tilt-down passenger mirror, I'm not sure what else is needed to help park the car, LOL.
My previous car was an 06 VW GLI, which has the 2.0T engine. I really liked that engine, it was fantastic in the GLI. I didn't even bother with test driving a CC with the 2.0T because I wanted the 18" wheels and HIDs, and you can't get those with the smaller engine. I really like the smoothness of the V6, and my gas mileage (car has 300 miles on it now) has been decent, with highway in the mid 20's.
Let me add that the selection is dwindling fast. I didn't have much in the way of color selection (in Houston), nor build date (later=better, IMO), so you don't want to think about it too long. The car was far too expensive at MSRP, but these are incredible deals!
#74 of 112 Thanks!
Aug 25, 2009 (10:49 am)
Very much appreciate the info ...... I had a back-up camera and do like that feature, so thinking to go w/ the tech....will research a little more if the $32... sounds high for the 2.0T Lux w/ BT/iPod conn/Tech....like that $403 payment...what was your final financed price after your ownership loyalty and $ down? Since we're coming to the end of the month, how much do you think they would be willing to go?
#75 of 112 Re: Thanks! [thors]
Aug 25, 2009 (11:12 am)
Before taxes and fees, I paid 32,750 for the VR6 with old tech package. If you are close with the 2.0T, then the extra features of the VR6 should be enough to justify it over the 2.0T, IMO.
I didn't finance, so it wasn't an issue. My credit union was offering 3.7% for up to 66 months, though, so that would be hard for any dealer to beat. You won't get the cash off the MRSP AND good financing from the dealer, it is one or the other.
#76 of 112 Re: Thanks! [chris_tx]
Aug 25, 2009 (1:38 pm)
Thanks for the info...now I realize about the 2 different tech packages, so guess this is the older one as well.....so their current offer of $34 and change is too high.....figured as much on the either or for the cash back / financing...my credit union is a bit higher than yours, but still lower than what I have heard so far, so will double check that......
#77 of 112 Re: Thanks! [thors]
Aug 25, 2009 (2:03 pm)
$34k for the VR6 is only a ~$7500 reduction from MSRP. They need to add $500-1000 to that number. Shop around as I found some dealers had better deals than others.
#78 of 112 Re: Thanks! [chris_tx]
Aug 25, 2009 (6:48 pm)
From reading, gathered that so will definitely shop around......
#79 of 112 EPA MPG difference '09 vs '10
Aug 30, 2009 (4:10 pm)
Was walking the lots today and noticed that the '10 CC Sport sticker said 22city/31hwy. The '09 Sport was 19city/29hwy. That is a huge difference. Same engine and tranny. EPA didn't change computations since '08. Does anyone know why this would be???
#80 of 112 Re: EPA MPG difference '09 vs '10 [m6user]
Aug 30, 2009 (7:24 pm)
Yep. Go back and check the '09 against the '10. According to my dealer, the '10 has these changes: badging where there was none; a touch screen radio vs. buttons; AND the DSG transmission in place of the 6 speed automatic.
However, there is one other possibility. It got retested. Following other forums, the average combined mileage is about 29 mpg. Some have gotten highway of upwards of 37 mpg with 26 mpg around town for '09 models. I've had an ongoing similar experience where I'm getting a tank rang reading of 585 miles at fill up. If it's 18 gallons of fuel, dividing 585 by 18 gets me 32.5 mpg average.
I'm guessing you looked at auto trannies. So, I'm going with my first shot. As for the DSG tranny, based on all of the recent recalls, no thanks. I would kind of like the badges though as I'm bloody well sick of people standing by my car asking me what the heck it is.
#81 of 112 Re: EPA MPG difference '09 vs '10 [davelja1]
Aug 31, 2009 (9:07 am)
Aha. It's probably the DSG as you point out. I did notice the DSG as an option listed on the sticker and forgot that the 09 had the 6 speed auto. Didn't realize it would make that big of difference in MPG. I kind of agree about the DSG. Concerns about it's long term viability have been voiced quite a bit even before the recent recall.
#82 of 112 Re: EPA MPG difference '09 vs '10 [davelja1]
Aug 31, 2009 (3:15 pm)
First, most 2010 VW's get a better mileage, mainly because of better programming of the engine.
Specifically regarding CC - 2010 CC 2.0T gets DSG transmission, which is much more efficient