# 2.5L being replaced?



## RyanVick5150 (May 28, 2012)

Does anyone have any additional information on the up and coming engine change? I heard there were "plans" to discontinue the 5-cyl 2.5L but now here we are. Is this good or bad?


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

RyanVick5150 said:


> Does anyone have any additional information on the up and coming engine change? I heard there were "plans" to discontinue the 5-cyl 2.5L but now here we are. Is this good or bad?


 Don't believe the rumors...


----------



## silverspeedbuggy (Aug 8, 2001)

RyanVick5150 said:


> Does anyone have any additional information on the up and coming engine change? I heard there were "plans" to discontinue the 5-cyl 2.5L but now here we are. Is this good or bad?


 I believe this is 100% confirmed: the 2.5L will, at some point, be replaced by an all-new 1.8TFSI engine. It is not related in any way to the old 1.8T. I have no idea when this will happen, but VW just showed the Passat Performance 'concept' at Detroit with an upgraded 1.8T. I'm thinking we may see this for 2014 in some or all 'base' VWs.


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

There's talk of the latest generation 1.8TFSI (EA888) replacing the 2.5L in the Golfs & Jettas... and possibly the Beetles. 

From reading the technical literature, it would be the most advanced and the most expensive "economy" engines to repair...


----------



## vincenzo (Oct 22, 2002)

Yes. It has been confirmed that the 1.8T will be replacing the 2.5. More power and more efficiency.


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

vincenzo said:


> Yes. It has been confirmed that the 1.8T will be replacing the 2.5. More power and more efficiency.


 Hi Vince, would you mind providing your source of the confirmed information? Thanks.


----------



## vdub10golf (Jan 23, 2010)

I'm pretty sure the new 1.8T will arrive for 2014 in the new MK7 Golf first, and will probably follow later in the Beetle, Passat and Jetta 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5497571-Confirmed-VW-to-replace-2.5-I-5-with-1.8t 

http://www.leftlanenews.com/volkswa...favor-of-1-8-liter-turbo-four-in-the-u-s.html 

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/18/vw-to-replace-unloved-five-cylinder-base-engine-with-turbo-four/ 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/volkswagen-to-replace-inline-five-with-1-8-liter-turbo-four-in-the-u-s/ 

oh and production on the engines already beginning: 
http://blog.caranddriver.com/vw-beg...-8t-and-2-0t-engines-for-jetta-passat-beetle/


----------



## vincenzo (Oct 22, 2002)

This has been talked about for quite some time now and very recently Mexico opened a new factory to produce the new 1.8t and 2.0t engines. 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/vw-beg...-8t-and-2-0t-engines-for-jetta-passat-beetle/


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

vincenzo said:


> This has been talked about for quite some time now and very recently Mexico opened a new factory to produce the new 1.8t and 2.0t engines.
> 
> http://blog.caranddriver.com/vw-beg...-8t-and-2-0t-engines-for-jetta-passat-beetle/


 
Thanks for the info guys. Not sure I like it. May further increase the resale value of mine, by then fuel will be illegal anyway...


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

There was also talk they would produce this: 

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/23/volkswagen-e-bugster-concept-lowers-its-lid-in-beijing/ 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/volkswagens-green-car-e-bugster_n_1721011.html 

http://www.gizmag.com/vw-e-bugster-a-glimpse-of-the-future-ot-the-beetle-cabriolet/22250/ 

And this: 

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/volkswagen-bluesport/ke3338.html 

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2013-volkswagen-bluesport-roadster.htm 

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2012/1202_volkswagen_future_plan/ 

And this: 

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/volk...d-edition-of-1-liter-car-282-mpg-in-2010.html 

http://iliketowastemytime.com/volkswagens-single-seater-1-liter-car-made-using-space-technology


----------



## vdub10golf (Jan 23, 2010)

the beet said:


> There was also talk they would produce this:
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/23/volkswagen-e-bugster-concept-lowers-its-lid-in-beijing/
> 
> ...


 The 1 Liter car turned into the "XL1 Concept" which has been caught testing. The others are just concepts and as far as I know were never officially confirmed 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/future-cars/spy-shots/caught-testing-2014-volkswagen-xl1


----------



## Babie (Jul 22, 2012)

I will vouch for that. The 2.5 had been a thorn in their sales with the bad reviews and it's doggy performance. Have you driven the 2.5....yuck..


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

Babie said:


> I will vouch for that. The 2.5 had been a thorn in their sales with the bad reviews and it's doggy performance. Have you driven the 2.5....yuck..


 Good thing its saving grace is reliability... at least from 2009 or so.


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

300,000 turbo engines for north america from just the new mexico plant alone, that's a lot, 1.8 is definitely coming. the 2.5 isn't horrible, providing power comparable to the old 1.8T, it's just ancient in the same way the 2.Slow was, with damn near everything else vw is competing with doing a better job of efficiency or power or both, the all the small displacement turbos coming from EVERYONE (dodge for eff sakes) vw I think was caught off guard and needs to catch up soon.


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

Babie said:


> I will vouch for that. The 2.5 had been a thorn in their sales with the bad reviews and it's doggy performance. Have you driven the 2.5....yuck..


 Not really sure I want to go here, but here goes nothing... 

This is my second in line 5, 2.5 liter and have never had an issue. It takes off like a rocket and many a car has had difficulty even catching up. 

In fact, I have heard from many others that VW's turbo engines have had many problems. Maybe that was the previous versions. 

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not looking to start a 2.5L vs Turbo war. 

I personally have nothing against the turbo. Just don't think I would want it for my daily driver, that's all. 

I'm not sure why or how the 2.5 would be dogging VW. As it gets as good if not better MPG than the turbo. Is it the performance? If so, what are they comparing it to. As I mentioned, mine is fairly spunky.


----------



## ridgemanron (Sep 27, 2011)

The romance with 4 cylinder turbos is due to its ability to emulate a 6 cylinder car with 
regard to power and still give you good mileage.


----------



## vincenzo (Oct 22, 2002)

the beet said:


> Not really sure I want to go here, but here goes nothing...
> 
> This is my second in line 5, 2.5 liter and have never had an issue. It takes off like a rocket and many a car has had difficulty even catching up.
> 
> ...


 I haven't seen mpg numbers for the new 1.8t but I suspect it will be better. Another thing to point out is the weight difference between the two.


----------



## Pelican18TQA4 (Dec 13, 2000)

One need only reference the VWvortex Facebook page to read their post that states the following: 

*170hp 1.8TSI to replace 2.5l inline-5 this year*. Plus the 2.0TFSI is being upgraded to the newer version as well and base horsepower will go up to 210hp. New 2.0TFSI vehicles start rolling out in the Jetta and Beetle Turbo this spring. *1.8TFSI will start replacing the 2.5l later this year*. Better fuel economy and more power! We will have a full technical piece on the new EA888 1.8TFSI and 2.0TFSI next week.​


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

Thanks for the detailed info guys. Maybe it will eventually grow on me. I have just grown attached to the 5 cyl. 2.5. It has never failed on me thus far, and I drive about 100 miles a day. If I can eventually save on fuel, guess that's a bonus.


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

Pelican18TQA4 said:


> One need only reference the VWvortex Facebook page to read their post that states the following:
> 
> *170hp 1.8TSI to replace 2.5l inline-5 this year*. Plus the 2.0TFSI is being upgraded to the newer version as well and base horsepower will go up to 210hp. New 2.0TFSI vehicles start rolling out in the Jetta and Beetle Turbo this spring. *1.8TFSI will start replacing the 2.5l later this year*. Better fuel economy and more power! We will have a full technical piece on the new EA888 1.8TFSI and 2.0TFSI next week.​


 Because I'm primarily interested in the 2012+ Beetle, I bookmarked the section: Forum/Volkswagen/The Beetle, so rarely go to the home page anymore...


----------



## Pelican18TQA4 (Dec 13, 2000)

the beet said:


> Because I'm primarily interested in the 2012+ Beetle, I bookmarked the section: Forum/Volkswagen/The Beetle, so rarely go to the home page anymore...


 No worries, just wanted to point out that it's a reality that's happening in the current model year for the current vehicle lineup.


----------



## vdub10golf (Jan 23, 2010)

the beet said:


> Not really sure I want to go here, but here goes nothing...
> 
> This is my second in line 5, 2.5 liter and have never had an issue. It takes off like a rocket and many a car has had difficulty even catching up.
> 
> ...


 
My previous car was a 2.5 Golf and I loved it. It did take off pretty quick and was very reliable, but compared to other models in the same class and to the 2.0T it could get a lot better mileage. I get the same MPGs in my Beetle that I did in the Golf, and the golf should have gotten better mpg's, especially considering how I drive the Beetle lol. I think that's the main reason for switching to the new 1.8T, more economical. I've also never had an issue with the engine in my car, just everything else haha. 

I also just realized, aside from the Touareg VW will just about have an all-Turbo lineup after these come out


----------



## Skimmy290 (Aug 19, 2012)

Curious about the maintenance part


----------



## LEBlackRob (Feb 1, 2012)

Honestly this has been in the works since 2010. Volkswagen is being forced to kill the motor. I does not meet the new emissions standards that will be mandatory to meet by 2014. I have had a 2.5 and they are a great motor. Just compared to new technology they are a relic. If VW wanted to keep them around they would have make them more fuel efficient. Which they won't because they made the 1.8 TSI and have had great luck with it. I want to say they have been selling it in cars since 09. In other markets that is. We will have to see how this works out.


----------



## eunos94 (Mar 17, 2002)

LEBlackRob said:


> I have had a 2.5 and they are a great motor. Just compared to new technology they are a relic.


 Yup a relic. Simple, strong and reliable. 

After 11 years of dealing with a turbo Volkswagen and it's maintenance headaches I'm happy I got a 2.5 while they were available. I will morn the passing of "The relic"


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

Skimmy290 said:


> Curious about the maintenance part





eunos94 said:


> Yup a relic. Simple, strong and reliable.
> 
> After 11 years of dealing with a turbo Volkswagen and it's maintenance headaches I'm happy I got a 2.5 while they were available. I will morn the passing of "The relic"


 This!


----------



## silverspeedbuggy (Aug 8, 2001)

If you read all the complaints on this forum, the 2.0T in my GLI (it's a FSI engine, not the TFSI engine) is *allegedly* a total nightmare. My car has 72,000 miles and the engine has only had two problems: bad PCV and a bad 'intake flap motor.' The intake flap motor was repaired under warranty. Seven years of ownership and the car has been nearly bullet proof. 

Don't believe everything you hear/read.


----------



## LEBlackRob (Feb 1, 2012)

eunos94 said:


> Yup a relic. Simple, strong and reliable.
> 
> After 11 years of dealing with a turbo Volkswagen and it's maintenance headaches I'm happy I got a 2.5 while they were available. I will morn the passing of "The relic"


Was not insulting you or your motor. Just my personal feeling. I have learned over the years that you have to pay to play. That is why I not have a 2.0T. I wanted something fun that with a couple bolt ons. Would be transformed to being a very fun car. So I got one I under stand that I will have some added maintenance because I have a turbo. This is such as life. The things that I can't get past is the mpg that the 2.5 has is not competitive. I get better mileage with the 2.0T then I did with the 2.5. Now I am a die hard VW guy and will admit that I liked the 2.5. I know I will probably own another one because they are cool fun motors to own. I guess what I am saying is it will be sad to see it go. 

Also if you do some digging the Jetta section has a long debate on this, and allot of people are butt hurt and calling each other out.

Just be happy you don't have an early motor. Which where 06-07. They where revised in 08 with big improvements. Then in 09 they took the maf's off which was nice. So as long as you have a 2.5 newer then 08 you have a good motor to have fun with.


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

eunos94 said:


> Yup a relic. Simple, strong and reliable.
> 
> After 11 years of dealing with a turbo Volkswagen and it's maintenance headaches I'm happy I got a 2.5 while they were available. I will morn the passing of "The relic"


It's funny because my first car was a 1990 Audi 100 with... a five banger, 2.3L. Kinda crazy how long VW has been at that same game, 23 years. Just wow.


----------



## eunos94 (Mar 17, 2002)

LEBlackRob said:


> Was not insulting you or your motor.


I didn't think you were. :thumbup:


----------



## LEBlackRob (Feb 1, 2012)

eunos94 said:


> I didn't think you were. :thumbup:


Cool :beer:


----------



## Sixtysomething (Aug 7, 2003)

I don't object to turbos, in fact I had a 2007 Passat with the 2.0T, and it was great. Then again, I'm one of those guys that is perfectly content with a non-turbo VW. I've had two different 2.0s and now a 2010 Beetle S with the 2.5. It's cool how VW makes a tiny 4-cyl engine that feels like an old V8, but what I don't like about turbos is having to shell out 30 cents more a gallon for Premium fuel!  So....if this new 1.8T is really coming, I hope that's negated by the cars getting about 38-40 mpg........


----------



## Pelican18TQA4 (Dec 13, 2000)

The whole regular vs. premium debate is kind of overrated. Yes, premium costs more, but for the average person we're talking somewhere around $20-$30 more per month. Yes, a difference, but a small one in the grand scheme of things when talking about a car. Furthermore, if that small increase in monthly expenses is a problem, you (not directed at the post directly above) should probably be looking at a less expensive car, period.


----------



## LEBlackRob (Feb 1, 2012)

Pelican18TQA4 said:


> The whole regular vs. premium debate is kind of overrated. Yes, premium costs more, but for the average person we're talking somewhere around $20-$30 more per month. Yes, a difference, but a small one in the grand scheme of things when talking about a car. Furthermore, if that small increase in monthly expenses is a problem, you (not directed at the post directly above) should probably be looking at a less expensive car, period.


Just to add to this comment. Running premium in the 2.5 you will see a performance gain. Just because the car will catch the better octane ratting. Also feel that its just better in general to run 91-93.


----------



## Beets (Sep 22, 2012)

LEBlackRob said:


> Just to add to this comment. Running premium in the 2.5 you will see a performance gain. Just because the car will catch the better octane ratting. Also feel that its just better in general to run 91-93.


This!! My 2.5L gets about 3 mpg better on premium than 87 also. I have never run 10% Ethenol in it, I refuse to put crap in my gas tank...but the car definitely appreciates the premium fuel.


----------



## Sixtysomething (Aug 7, 2003)

I have no choice but to use E-10 when I get 87 gas because that's all that's available in Wisconsin. I've never tried premium in my 2.5 and I didn't know it would get better mpg. I may experiment just for fun, especially if future VWs will all require 91-93, anyway. I will say on a recent road trip, I pulled 32 mpg in the 2.5 with 87, and that was with an automatic. Considering they're only rated at 29, I thought that was pretty good. But.....to be fair, I also had to drive slower than I normally do because I was in an ice storm! :sly:


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

It's too bad VW decided to drop this engine instead of improving its fuel efficiency and emission, especially now that it has proven to be reliable. 

If the Honda 2.4L motor (185 HP & 181 lb-ft) can achieve a combined 28-30 MPG and meet emission regulation, why can't VW 2.5L?


----------



## Pelican18TQA4 (Dec 13, 2000)

Cadenza_7o said:


> It's too bad VW decided to drop this engine instead of improving its fuel efficiency and emission, especially now that it has proven to be reliable.
> 
> If the Honda 2.4L motor (185 HP & 181 lb-ft) can achieve a combined 28-30 MPG and meet emission regulation, why can't VW 2.5L?


It has to do with a lot more than the engine displacement. For starters, combustion chamber design and fuel injection method have a big impact. Not sure about the Accord's combustion chamber design, but it uses direct fuel injection, which is more emissions-friendly. VW's 2.5l I-5 uses port injection.


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

If they're going to replace the engine, then it should get a significant MPG increase (40+mpg.), otherwise, really not work it IMHO.


----------



## GLXdreams (Feb 3, 2007)

Pelican18TQA4 said:


> It has to do with a lot more than the engine displacement. For starters, combustion chamber design and fuel injection method have a big impact. Not sure about the Accord's combustion chamber design, but it uses direct fuel injection, which is more emissions-friendly. VW's 2.5l I-5 uses port injection.


Im sure the weight of the car has some impact on this as well, but Honda has just recently started into the direct injection design, they had been using port far longer and where one of the last to start changing. I think if VW put time and effort into that they could make the 2.5 way more efficient but the 1.8t is prob more cost effective for them...


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

GLXdreams said:


> Im sure the weight of the car has some impact on this as well, but Honda has just recently started into the direct injection design, they had been using port far longer and where one of the last to start changing. I think if VW put time and effort into that they could make the 2.5 way more efficient but the 1.8t is prob more cost effective for them...


There is no major difference in fuel economy between the 2.5 and the 2.0 T...


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

Base model 2.5L:

Consumption city: 22mpg**
Consumption highway: 31mpg**

Turbo 2.0:

Consumption city: 21mpg**
Consumption highway: 30mpg**

TDI 2.0:

Consumption city: 28mpg**
Consumption highway: 41mpg**

Info from VW website Beetle specs.


----------



## GLXdreams (Feb 3, 2007)

the beet said:


> Base model 2.5L:
> 
> Consumption city: 22mpg**
> Consumption highway: 31mpg**
> ...


Interesting..... 
From looking at this info they should be getting rid of the 2.0T instead


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

GLXdreams said:


> Interesting.....
> From looking at this info they should be getting rid of the 2.0T instead


This! 

Anyway, looks the the estimated mpg on the TDI is pretty good. That is diesel though, right?


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

the beet said:


> If they're going to replace the engine, then it should get a significant MPG increase (40+mpg.), otherwise, really not work it IMHO.


That's what they've already stated for the MkVII, drop in weight of 200lbs+/- depending on trim combined with more efficient smaller displacement engine and transmission should allow for 40mpg in petrol, 50 in diesel.


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

VWNDAHS said:


> That's what they've already stated for the MkVII, drop in weight of 200lbs+/- depending on trim combined with more efficient smaller displacement engine and transmission should allow for 40mpg in petrol, 50 in diesel.


Hopefully the reduction in weight will not have an adverse effect on the overall structural integrity. I don't like those tinny Japanese cars...


----------



## Beets (Sep 22, 2012)

the beet said:


> Hopefully the reduction in weight will not have an adverse effect on the overall structural integrity. I don't like those tinny Japanese cars...


This! That's the biggest thing I prefer between my Beetle and my wife's 2012 Sonata. The Hyundai is a very nice car, and drives remarkably well, but feels very tinny and insignificant compared to the Beetle.


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

the beet said:


> Hopefully the reduction in weight will not have an adverse effect on the overall structural integrity. I don't like those tinny Japanese cars...


considering how vw's explained the reduction as a part of increased use of lighter and stronger materials, and that the new platform is even stiffer, i wouldn't worry. anyone completely unaware of the new platform should really check out vwvortex' few articles on the subjects, pretty fascinating how far vw has gone.


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

here's the link, vw really is the world leader when it comes to platform sharing, this single platform will scale from hatchbacks all the way up to their three row suv. 

MQB


----------



## the beet (May 5, 2012)

VWNDAHS said:


> here's the link, vw really is the world leader when it comes to platform sharing, this single platform will scale from hatchbacks all the way up to their three row suv.
> 
> MQB


Interesting chassis. I realize that this is for the Gold, but does that mean that our Beetles' gas tank is just behind the passenger rear wheel? Or is that just the prototype? It seems it would make for an unbalanced platform.


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

the beet said:


> Interesting chassis. I realize that this is for the Gold, but does that mean that our Beetles' gas tank is just behind the passenger rear wheel? Or is that just the prototype? It seems it would make for an unbalanced platform.


Is or will be? This is the Golf MkVII which will begin reaching european dealerships this year and the US a bit there after. Given The Beetle was just released I'll go ahead and bet it will be the last of VW's lineup to move to the new platform.


----------



## silverspeedbuggy (Aug 8, 2001)

the beet said:


> Interesting chassis. I realize that this is for the Gold, but does that mean that our Beetles' gas tank is just behind the passenger rear wheel? Or is that just the prototype? It seems it would make for an unbalanced platform.





VWNDAHS said:


> Is or will be? This is the Golf MkVII which will begin reaching european dealerships this year and the US a bit there after. Given The Beetle was just released I'll go ahead and bet it will be the last of VW's lineup to move to the new platform.


MQB is a little tough to understand; it's not a platform, but a set of components that connect up. This allows VW to make all types of cars on one assembly line (among other things). If I remember correctly, the tank you see is not the gas tank, it's a tank for urea (for TDI models). Gas tank is under rear seat where it's less likely to damaged in an accident. 

I'm betting the same on MQB for Beetle/Jetta. I believe here in the States, the Audi A3 sedan will be the first MQB model we see. Golf won't be here until 2014 when it will be built in Mexico as well as Germany. Since they will be moving Mexico to MQB it's only a matter of time until the Jetta and Beetle are moved to MQB.


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

silverspeedbuggy said:


> MQB is a little tough to understand; it's not a platform, but a set of components that connect up. This allows VW to make all types of cars on one assembly line (among other things). If I remember correctly, the tank you see is not the gas tank, it's a tank for urea (for TDI models). Gas tank is under rear seat where it's less likely to damaged in an accident.
> 
> I'm betting the same on MQB for Beetle/Jetta. I believe here in the States, the Audi A3 sedan will be the first MQB model we see. Golf won't be here until 2014 when it will be built in Mexico as well as Germany. Since they will be moving Mexico to MQB it's only a matter of time until the Jetta and Beetle are moved to MQB.


For sure, just saying, given how long the new beetle soldiered on with the platform et-al that it did, and given how new The Beetle is, I think there's a very strong chance it'll be last in the lineup to receive the same diet as others.


----------



## silverspeedbuggy (Aug 8, 2001)

Oh yes, it definitely could. But if what I understand is correct with MQB, any MQB car can be built on the same assembly line at the same time. So once all other VWs move to MQB they'd have to keep a separate line just for the Beetle. With how flexible VW is becoming with their parts and manufacturing, I can't see them leaving the Beetle alone. Anything's possible though. 

There's also a large cost savings to MQB; if they can make the Beetle cheaper there's more profit. I think that alone would move VW to think twice about keeping the car on an 'old' chassis.


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

SiverspeedB is right. ModularQuerBau isn't really a platform as in previous generations; it's "modular" construction or assembly that allows multiple vehicles to be built on the same assembly line. 

I'm holding out for the assembly line that builds both the Beetle and the R8. By then VW will probably have it made in Kazakhstan by Borat's cousins' cousins' children that VW design. 

When the 1.8T (EA888) arrives in the Beetle, it won't cut 200 lbs off the curb weight in any trim level... more like 30-50 lbs.


----------



## Pelican18TQA4 (Dec 13, 2000)

VWNDAHS said:


> Is or will be? This is the Golf MkVII which will begin reaching european dealerships this year and the US a bit there after. Given The Beetle was just released I'll go ahead and bet it will be the last of VW's lineup to move to the new platform.


Probably a safe bet, considering the New Beetle was built on the MkIV platform from 1998-2010, totally skipping the MkV platform.


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

Cadenza_7o said:


> SiverspeedB is right. ModularQuerBau isn't really a platform as in previous generations; it's "modular" construction or assembly that allows multiple vehicles to be built on the same assembly line.
> 
> I'm holding out for the assembly line that builds both the Beetle and the R8. By then VW will probably have it made in Kazakhstan by Borat's cousins' cousins' children that VW design.
> 
> When the 1.8T (EA888) arrives in the Beetle, it won't cut 200 lbs off the curb weight in any trim level... more like 30-50 lbs.


Right. the 200lb quote relates to the minimum VW has stated they expect any car on MQB to save, it's more in cases like SUVs, up to 700lbs. No one's arguing a reduction in displacement and the inclusion of a turbo would provide any weight savings, let alone 200lbs.


----------



## VWNDAHS (Jun 20, 2002)

also the use of platform is just for lame-men-speak, as opposed to saying platform-and-totally-unqiue-different-awesome-shared-approach-vw-takes .


----------



## jtrujillo86 (Aug 21, 2005)

I wanted to add my $.02 about the 2.5. We've had a handful of cars with this engine and it's been flawless in terms of durability and reliability. We had two 2005.5 Jettas, a 2007 Jetta, a 2007 Rabbit, and now our 2012 Beetle that all have (or had) the 2.5 and I've had zero issues. My mom has a Passat now with the engine and same thing...no issues at all. Two of those cars had over 115k miles, while another two had over 80k miles when they were sold/traded.

I also don't think the engine is a dog, not by a long stretch. It's important to keep in mind that it wasn't made for power or OTL performance, yet can hit 60mph in under nine seconds. I regularly saw 34 MPG in my 2007 2.5 5-speed when I switch to Bridgestone Ecopia tires :thumbup: Besides, the Bridgestone Turanza's the car came with were awful. 

- Jeremy.


----------



## eunos94 (Mar 17, 2002)

jtrujillo86 said:


> I wanted to add my $.02 about the 2.5. We've had a handful of cars with this engine and it's been flawless in terms of durability and reliability.
> 
> - Jeremy.


2010 JSW 2.5 SE - 60,000ish miles at trade in time. Zero problems, issues or returns to the dealer for anything other than maintenance.
2012 2.5 Beetle - Multiple trips to dealer in 1500 miles for windows but not for the motor.

2013 JSW 2.5 SE - 3000 miles and so far so good.


----------

