I think acesinghit works for Neal and Massy, remember his Mazda 3 VS Elentra comparison?

_________________
Follow My Mom On Twitter. www.twitter.com/ladygaga

acesinghit may not say it in the right way but just cause it causes chestbun doh mean you should just dismiss it as fanboyism.

Jetta sedan trunk volume - 510 litres
Mitsubishi lancer trunk volume - 292 litres
Suzuki swift hatchback trunk volume: 211 litres
jetta wagon trunk volume - 505 litres with seats upright, 1495 litres rear seats folded.

Jetta sedan 1.4 litre 0-60: 8.3 sec
Mitsubishi lancer 2 litre 0 - 60: 9.6 sec (10.5 sec with auto tranny)
Jetta wagon 1.4 litre 0 - 60: 8.3 sec


Jetta sedan fuel consumption: hiway - 5.2, city - 7.5, combined - 6 litres per 100 km
lancer 2.0 gt fuel consumption: hiway - 5.8, city - 8.4 litres per 100 km

Jetta sedan front - boring/conservative
lancer front - sporty
jetta wagon looks - if u studying looks and buying a wagon bess u get a legacy wagon

Jetta sedan cost - $230,000 (with sunroof and 17's - $240000)
Lancer 2.0 GT cost $255,000 (automatic - $266,000)
Jetta wagon cost $227,000 (dealer run arounds included free of charge)

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/jetta-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/

http://www.guideautoweb.com/en/specifications/mitsubishi/lancer/

http://www.diamondmotors.co.tt/brochures/10_lancer_ex_gene.pdf

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/volkswagen/jetta/saloon-2011/50808/

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/suzuki/swift/hatchback-2010/54045/

One could go like top gear and argue that the stats doh mean much but thats subjective unlike figures and you know we on tuner like to go with figures like cost and fuel consumption blah blah. Based on the figures mostly it seems like the jetta sedan and jetta wagons are cheaper initial purchases and are more practical than the lancer 2.0 GT

_________________
VW Multifunction Steering wheel AND Airbag for sale: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=484239

Cheaper? yes.

Practical? I don't see how one is more practical than the other.


Again, I still am waiting to hear how a Jetta TSI makes a Lancer GT seem as slow as a 1.2 march.

Also, looking at the swift's trunk, I cannot see how the lancer's trunk can even be classed in the same category. It's an odd and flawed comparison.



If 0-60 times were all that mattered, I'd get a swift sport. Pulls a 0-60 around the same brack as the TSi (the new sport does it in 8.4-8.5 sec, old manual one did it in 8.7), and it costs around 50k less than the TSI (180 vs 230k)


I see your angle Allergic2BunnyEars, but that wasn't my point.

No don't get me wrong, the Jetta TSI is still a fantastic piece for the price. It's unparalleled in it's price range! It's a good car, quick, and fuel efficient, and has good looks in the new body style, and good tech.

What grinds my gears however, it's when it's made out to be something it's not. It's not a sports car, it's not a rocket (0-60 in 8 second range? The new swift sport does similar times). If I wanted a VW sports car, I'd get a Golf GTi, or the old Jetta GLi if they still offer that now (do they?)

In almost every instance that acesinghit posts in this thread, it's about how superior the Jetta is and it's the only thing worth buying. e.g.

"Want to buy swift sport" - bai JETTA tsi better bai. Is only 50k more an' it have turbo

"Want to buy koup"? - bai JEtta TSI better bai - is only 40k more an it have turbo.

Then if that were the case, I would recommend the Fiato Bravo turbo. It ha' turbo turbo, is quick-ish, handles better, and costs LESS than Jetta TSI by a MILE!!!

_________________

I see no lies!

_________________
Follow My Mom On Twitter. www.twitter.com/ladygaga

Well I agree it's not a sports car. If acesinghit really says buy a jetta tsi over a swift then he on his own with that one.

Practicality wise I think a bigger trunk goes a long way in determining what is more practical. I was going from that perspective in saying the jetta is more practical than a lancer but it depends on what you would use d car for anyway so it's not the final decider. acesinghit prolly means that the jetta is faster than the lancer for less money and hence his march statement. Again over the top but I would say doh shoot d messenger cuz I think his main argument is within its price range the jetta is hard to beat and well you saying the same thing.

What grinds my gears is that options are limited in the price bracket that you sorta forced to compromise in what you getting. What ends up happening is that we forced to talk about the same cars over and over. You really think acesinghit likes only talking bout d jetta?

We should be able to argue about cars with figures comparing the entire car to another entire car as opposed to cherry picking the best of features of several cars to discredit one car.

I haven't seen a 2 litre turbo jetta offered in Trinidad yet so can't say if the jetta gli is sold here. Only seen it offered in Australia, us and some Latin american countries under different names.

If meh post doh make sense I on d road.

_________________
VW Multifunction Steering wheel AND Airbag for sale: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=484239

EH!? I highly doubt eh.. where u got that info from

caranddriver.com has a 0-60 time of 7.8 with 5 spd manual and I myself (although not at all entirely accurate) timed 0-60 just short of 9 seconds with the auto tranny..

_________________
1Cross + 3Nails = 4Given

Actually, yes I do.



Yes I am saying the same thing - the Jetta is hard to beat. But some of the comparisons made by acesinghit are again, like you said, over-the-top for the Jetta (1.2 march comment etc)....and sound like sound logic, tainted by fanboyism because he drives one.

_________________

If you bothered to check the links in my post u would you would see the PDF file for the lancer from DIAMOND MOTORS TRINIDAD that shows the 0-60 times for all the engines and trannies for the lancer here.

_________________
VW Multifunction Steering wheel AND Airbag for sale: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=484239

Didn't see them first time around. Now seeing it..My bad..
Still very odd for diamond motors to have those stats.

_________________
1Cross + 3Nails = 4Given

Why is it odd? The stats you quoted from car and driver are for their lancer gt which is a 2.4 litre na engine which would explain the shorter 0-60 times.

Diamond motors 0-60 lancer stats are pretty much inline for a 2.0 litre na vehicle. Nothing at all strange.

_________________
VW Multifunction Steering wheel AND Airbag for sale: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=484239

Yeah that seems about right.

Welcome to Trinidad.....where the '10 seconds' in a 10 second car refers to 0 to 100km times.

epic chessburn in here oui..........dsm calling me a fanboy. Dude let me give you a lil automotive ownership background of myself:

owned the following:

323, 626, civic, galant, legacy, wingroad, almera, sentra, elantra, tercel, corolla, swift, focus

Not because I own/owned a particular brand I'll be all patriotic about it. Despite owning a vw product up to this very day i maintain every past vw b4 my version was nonsense including the most recent bora. I argued against the bora so much I had the top vw boys in this forum calling me a mazda fanboy.

When I started giving credit to the nissan boys, the honda crew called me a fanboy. When I had my ek4 and argued against the nissan and mitsu boys again I was labelled a fanboy. Then I bagan to appreciate the koreans and thus got labelled yet again.

Truth is, you pay for what you get and 2012 is the best year yet for auto makers since all products are pretty much up to very high standards. We have so sort out exactly what we like in terms of looks in concert with what we can afford.

Best value SUV's in the market continues to be the:
Terios, Grand Vitara, Sportage and Tucson

Best pickups are:
hilux, navara, ranger, sportero etc.

best value sub compacts:
rio, accent, fabia, polo, fiesta

best value compacts:
tiida, jetta, elantra, sx4, cerato, octavia, focus

best value mid size:
optima, sonata, passat, mondeo

you get the point. The Yaris gives us so little for so much, I cannot endorse it especially having a 1.3 engine which means less mvt. by default the yaris should be better priced.

the lancer, corolla, civic, 3 and impreza are all good but I simply cannot endorse it because they got so expensive today especially the corolla and civic.

no need to beat up stephon, the elantra gives u more for less vs the mazda. I who use to be a "mazda 3" fanboy at one time realize we must give credit where its due. Hey the said elantra got the NA COTY award for crying out loud. Are the experts fanboys?

I cannot recommend a camry, accord and teana for its lackluster designs and high price per feature ratio when cars like the sonata and optima exist!

WRT SUV's, how can I buy a 400k crv when I can 'settle' for the sportage and tucson?

Granted the cheaper vehicles sometimes does not have the nicest interior because they have to cost cut somehow. It's the level of compromise we are willing to accept. To me, the jetta gives you the best of both worlds and that is why I rate it #1 amongst local compacts. Not everything for me is about performance because the octavia is easily overlooked and believe me, for the price, it is hard to beat.

When we combine all elements of security and safety, the europeans are hard to beat. WRT fuel economy and resale value, the top japanese brands are hard to beat.

When it comes to vehicles that are pure fun to drive, nothing beats a mazda and despite all of the above, somehow when you sit in a new corolla and drive it you somehow say to hell wit d turbo jetta. There is a way toyota builds an automobile that defines exactly what a car should be and despite the lack of technology features and power, its an investment you can count on for years to come until the day it is ready to be sold, a used car value that is hard to beat up to this very day. I drove a 2012 rav4 2.4 and I told myself damn, if money was never a problem, I would buy this over the tucson because the quality of overall construction in a toyota product is superior and that is why TTTL still sells practically everything in their showrooms because it is evident, buyers are willing to spend. I settled for my 220k trouble free no resale value jetta 2 years ago.

Cheers

_________________
2013 Audi A4 1.8TFSI Ambiente Plus

I haven't driven the latest RAV4, but I have driven all the previous models and honestly, I was not at all impressed with them. The interiors looked and felt cheap, even in comparison to the offerings from the Koreans. They also did not have that Toyota bulletproof reliability and the vehicles I drove only used to be serviced by TTTL.

_________________
I am an artist, the track is my canvas and the car is my brush - Graham Hill

Erm no eh.. It from the 2008 2.0 GT. check it yourself and the car performs much much better than that from personal experience.
And really, which 2.0 engine of this age doing a 0-60MPH in more than 9s

and Manager, im pretty much aware of the units involved.
To be exact 0-100km/hr is 0-62mph

_________________
1Cross + 3Nails = 4Given

I see the Grand Vitara has fallen off of this list. You listed the SGV previously if I recall correctly. Any reason?

_________________
v.3.0

If u want to prove it you post d link nah. I show u where Mitsubishi themselves show 0-60 times in high 9s to 10s and you just bumping yuh gum just cuz it "felt" fast.

_________________
VW Multifunction Steering wheel AND Airbag for sale: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=484239

I was about to say "tl;dr", but I stopped and read this post.

This is the first sensible non-fanboy post I've seen from you in this thread for a while.

Like I said, reading back to earlier pages in this thread, you had some good insight and solid/reliable input. Then it seemed to deteriorate to "Jetta or nothing" or "VW or nothing" (take a glance at around 5-8 pages back, sometime after you got rid of that SiR of yours). But if you post solid arguments like what you did up there^^, you'd have alot more people actually taking you seriously.




Hate to break it to ya bub, but Allergic2BunnyEars is right. I also have the same brochure (hard copy) and the times he quoted are spot on.

Also, C&D magazine has a 0-60 time tested ONLY for the 2.4L Lancer GTS. The USDM market does not get a 2.0 GT lancer, but has the 2.0 as their base model engine.

That 7.6 time was quoted for the 2.4L engine. I'm surprised it's that much faster though.

_________________

the SGV definitly deserves to be in that post as well, it has been amended. i am eager to learn of your replacement.

_________________
2013 Audi A4 1.8TFSI Ambiente Plus

Alright here it is..

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test

and it not only 'felt' fast. I timed it as well. roughly late 8s auto.

Have nothing else to say concerning this

_________________
1Cross + 3Nails = 4Given

Clearly car and driver mixed up their timing data as they are the ONLY one to claim those figures from the 2.0 litre NA. C&D are clearly quoting specs for the 2.4 litre engine but listing them under the 2.0 litre data sheet.

"The GTS with a manual transmission accelerates from zero to 60 mph in a quick-for-its-class 7.7 seconds. The base engine (2.0 litre) with the five-speed does the same sprint in 8.8 seconds, while the CVT gets there in 9.1. The Ralliart dispatches with the 0-60 dash in a sizzling 5.8 seconds."

http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/lancer/2010/#fullreview

At the end of the day I would take the manufacturer's word on product info vs one website and an excited tuner with a stopwatch. Makes no sense for Mitsubishi's own product info to sell their cars proclaim them to be slower than they really are. None.

_________________
VW Multifunction Steering wheel AND Airbag for sale: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=484239

Well look at that. Wonder how they got such different numbers from the manufacturer's claim.
Anyway, I still think you should stop saying it 'felt fast'. 8.7 or 7.8 ain't fast.

excited tuner and 'felt fast' oui!
Yal misunderstanding me.. I meant that it's much faster than the figures given by Diamond Motors...
Look at forums as well who own 2.0 lancers.. Users claim around the same 0-60 times as carandriver.com!
And pretty much every other site that ever gave the 2.0 lancer a review gave times around the same thing as well
So...if EVERYBODY (who actually drove the vehicle or gave it a legit review) saying something else, allyuh choose to believe whatever yes.. And call whoever 'excited' or what not
Besides, if any of you have experience driving any vehicle that not super heavy like a 2003 cefiro with a 2.0 engine, would know that those kinda figures kinda odd. Heck even my 2006/7 model rav4 with a slightly lower powered 2.0 engine in a much heavier vehicle (approx 500lbs heavier) 4WD does a 0-60 in around 10s everytime
Good Morning fellas

_________________
1Cross + 3Nails = 4Given

Actually, displacement issues aside, it is possible that C&D got a faster 0-60 time. Manf'rs claim 0-60 from idle rpm w/o a launch (or so I'm thinking). C&D and other mags "launch" the car (high rpm, drop clutch etc) and sometimes pull quicker times. I believe C&D pulled a faster 0-60 time than claimed for the Evo iX and the STi when each first came out in the US. Motortrend also pulled a faster 0-60 for the GTR when it first made it to the US as well.



Seems legit to me. And it makes sense.

It's a bit harsh to call S_buttons an excited tuner.

_________________

back to new car prices:

I saw the Audi A6 2.0T is now reduced to $563k from $575k now how unexpected is that? It's now a better bargain than the MB E250 and the overpriced bimmer 523i

now the Passat 2.0 TFSI Highline is below $400k, would you all say the A6's price is justified over its lesser sibling?

_________________
2013 Audi A4 1.8TFSI Ambiente Plus

Off the bat I would always expect the equivalent Audi to be more expensive than its VW counterpart just based off of Audi being the upscale brand in the VW group. that said I eh check out the A6 yet so I dunno what it has apart from possibly more luxury to justify the price difference between that and the Passat.

A6 looks nicer for sure.

_________________
VW Multifunction Steering wheel AND Airbag for sale: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=484239

so gonna test drive the elantra today at lunch.... i have high hopes and darren ( newbs eh goh know who this is) highly recommends them.

i looked at the gt lancer at carmax and while they are good. they have nicks and dents and cosmetic work to be done on them which for that money i cna get a brand new elantra which woudl last me 4-6 years comfotably before i need to sell.

elantra also looks damn sweet

_________________
Understeer: You hit the wall with the front of the car.
Oversteer: You hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower: How fast you hit the wall.
Torque: How far you take the wall with you.

The Elantra is good kit for the money but I still iffy about the interior material quality used in terms of how well it wears and the electronics hold up over the years.

Let us know your take when u get back.

_________________
Raises monocle to face...interesting, very interesting...

A6 is quieter, rides better, smoother shifting, better quality leather, more features, significantly better looking and is a more upscale brand. That's basically some of what you're paying for. Considering that it's also cheaper than the Merc/BMW I'd say it's not so bad.

anyone has info on 'work horse' model 4x4 pickups (base models with the black bumpers). Looking for one for work use. Looking at the Frontier, BT50, Ranger and maybe Mahindra. Any input is appreciated.