VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How many of you would like to see the 2.3L V5 offered in North America?
Here is some of my reasons for asking such a question:
1) The 2.SLOW is an ok engine, it's fine for a base model. However, I personally believe that for the fuel consumption it offers, that it should produce more power than it does.
2) The TDI is an excellent engine for city and highway cruising, and it's fuel consumption is excellent. However, due to North America's diesel quality - the technology's full potential is not obtained.
3) The new 1.8T leaves a rather large gap in the engine options. (nothing between 115 hp to 180 hp). The 1.8T is a great enthusiast's engine because it can be tuned for more power quite easily. I am still not convinced that it is for everyone, though. Those who don't like turbos, those who say "there's no replacement for displacement", and the like will not buy the 1.8T.
4) The VR6. It's hard to say much about the VR6 because the current one is on it's way out, and the new one is yet to be driven by many. Lets just assume for this that I am talking about the new 24V-VR6. It will be the most powerful engine in the Jetta lineup, and probably the one that people who do not want a 2.SLOW or a turbocharged engine would opt for.
I believe that the 201hp VR6 is going to be more engine than some people really want. I know this is true for me. This is why I think it would be good if the 150hp V5 were to come to North America - to fill the void between the 2.SLOW and the 1.8T. Think of it as the engine for the people who want something a bit better than the 2.SLOW.
Before somebody says it, I know that the V5 is now 20-Valve and 170 hp, but I just think that 150 hp is a bit more centred between the 2.0 and 1.8T.
What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Jaw)

The V5 engine does not have much of a following in Europe and I don't think it is worth the extra engine option. There are already four options as it is. Rather, VW should upgrade the 2.0 liter engine to about 130hp which would close the gap to the 1.8t and ameliorate some of the often-heard complaints about alleged lack in power of the existing 2.0.
The answer is: "no"


[Modified by VW Jetta GLS, 6:04 PM 11-26-2001]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Jaw)

Nope, you don`t need the V5.
I had a 1.8T Golf and then changed to a 20v V5, the V5 felt slower than the turbo although the power output and torque are higher. The V5, although a good engine is suited only to the Passat in my opinion. It has a lazy character, yes it goes once you cane it (and it makes a good noise in the process) but the turbo is just more urgent.
All VW need to do is send the 180 bhp turbo and the 24v V6 to the States and it will clean up. The new V6 24 valve is a fantastic engine but with petrol at 70 pence a litre in the UK ( that`s just over a dollar I think) it`s too expensive to run for a lot of people. But then again we get the 115, 130 and 150 bhp PD TDI`s!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Re: 2.3L V5 (20vV5)

I think you missed my point. Speed isn't my consideration here at all. I don't want a 1.8T because I hate turbos. I don't really want the VR6 because it's more power than I care to have. I don't want a 2.SLOW because its too little power for such a heavy car. I can't believe not one person feels like I do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,752 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Jaw)

Somehow I really don't see how VW would benefit from adding another engine choice. This is already 4 choices, and these engines suit most peoples needs. I agree that a 16v 2.0 would be really nice, although I think that is the only option that I would do for changing the engine lineup.
BTW: Why do you hate turbos?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Re: 2.3L V5 (wolfsburger)

It's cold here... I like starting my car early to warm up the interior, and everyone says that you shouldnt' do that with a turbo. Plus, I don't like having to run the car for 3 minutes after parking it to cool down the turbo... plus theres all those wastegate problems I've read about.
A 2.0L 16V would be ok, but I would rather that it be increased in size to 2.2L or something like that to gain a bit more torque. The fact that the V5 already exists and is pretty close to that is why I brought it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,982 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Jaw)

Without the TDI in California anymore, I'd like to see the 150HP 2.3L VR5 as a base engine for the Passat -- as an alternative to turbo-power. Personally, I'd rather have a normally-aspirated engine than a turbo in the long run.
 

·
Get Off My Lawn!!!
Joined
·
29,544 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Lwize)

I've advocated having the V5 available in NA for a long time. Forget about power and torque issues, and turbo/natural aspiration.
I want one just because a five-banger makes such g-o-o-o-o-o-o-d noises.



[Modified by vwlarry, 8:26 PM 11-26-2001]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,633 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (matt007)

Sounds okay but as the current 'entry level' type car in the VW lineup, I think that one of 2 things will happen:
1. The 2.0 will stay as the current entry level engine
2. The 1.8T will become the entry level engine, minus the 'T' I think without the turbo, the 1.8 makes about 125 hp or so?
 

·
Registered
2020 Mercedes A250 4Matic
Joined
·
18,874 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Red Baron Golf)

quote:[HR][/HR]Sounds okay but as the current 'entry level' type car in the VW lineup, I think that one of 2 things will happen:
1. The 2.0 will stay as the current entry level engine
2. The 1.8T will become the entry level engine, minus the 'T' I think without the turbo, the 1.8 makes about 125 hp or so?[HR][/HR]​
The non-turbo 1.8 20v was a lousy engine and has already been dropped in Europe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Hajduk)

Replace the 2.slow with the 150 hp V5.

V5- 150 hp = base engine
Optional:
1.8T- 180 hp
TDI PD- 100 hp (will run on our crap fuel)
VR6- 230 hp (3.2 liter version please, thanks)
Come on everybody, chant with me:
Hell no. I don't want no 2-point-O.....Hell no. I don't want no 2-point-O.....Hell no. I don't want no 2-point-O....Hell no. I don't want no 2-point-O......Hell no. I don't want no 2-point-O.....Hell no. I don't want no 2-point-O....Hell no. I don't want no 2-point-O
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Re: 2.3L V5 (matt007)

quote:[HR][/HR]Size of a 4cyl with the power of a 6cyl?
Well, it is a good idea, but..If it was a base engine, then we would have to pay extra for the 1.8T in the Passat[HR][/HR]​
Well... then maybe it shouldn't wind up in the passat. But I think it would be great in the Golf/GTI/Jetta, though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,321 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Jaw)

quote:[HR][/HR]I think you missed my point. Speed isn't my consideration here at all. I don't want a 1.8T because I hate turbos. I don't really want the VR6 because it's more power than I care to have. I don't want a 2.SLOW because its too little power for such a heavy car. I can't believe not one person feels like I do?[HR][/HR]​
it's not our problem if you're messed up!!!!

it's not just about you man, most people who drives mk4 jettas don't care that it's a 2.slow engine, it's all about fuel economy. the v5 doesn't have a place in north america


[Modified by mk2jetta, 6:42 PM 11-27-2001]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (mk2jetta)

Give that man a pint of beer!
The V5 (especially the 150 bhp) is a very poor engine in my opinion. I know, I had the later 20v 170 bhp in my last Golf. The 1.8T is better in every respect.
Jaw, you say you hate turbos. The good thing about the VAG 1.8 turbo engine is that it doesn`t fell like a turbo unit at all. Remember that this engine produces loads of torque from about 1700 rpm. There`s no real turbo lag, just a smooth rush of power, OK it`s not as refined as the V5 above 5000 rpm but in all other respects it`s a lot better than the V5.
If I was in the market for another Golf it`d be;
150 bhp PD TDI,
1.8 Turbo,
And that`s it! But as I`ve only had my Mini Cooper for a month or so I`ll keep it until the Mk5 hits these shores.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Re: 2.3L V5 (mk2jetta)

quote:[HR][/HR]
it's not just about you man, most people who drives mk4 jettas don't care that it's a 2.slow engine, it's all about fuel economy
[HR][/HR]​
Yeah, the 2.SLOW offers such great fuel economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Re: 2.3L V5 (Jaw)

Jaw,
are you serious? You drive a Tercel and at the same time you complain about the lack of power of the 2 liter engine? Frankly, I have to tell you that I am growing a bit annoyed with you constantly calling the engine "2.slow". That was funny a few years ago when it appeared on the forum for the first time. The engine may not be the most powerful powerplant out there but it is not supposed to be. The role the engine plays is the one of the affordable entry-level engine that is more or less bullet-proof and it plays it well.
The V5 is more expensive, less powerful, uses more gas and is generally not in as high regard as the 1.8t. Also, competitively, bringing a V5 with 150hp or 170hp just doesn't cut it in the US market anymore. That's just a reality.
As I mentioned above, and someone else mentioned later on, what VW needs is not another engine choice. The thing they need to do is increase the base engine by about 15-35hp while trying to keep the price even. That way they keep up with the competition while also keeping maintenance and operating cost in check. Entry models do not have to be glorious they just have to work and get people into the cars so they don't get flats on the dealer lots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Re: 2.3L V5 (VW Jetta GLS)

Dude my tercel is faster than a 2.slow, not by much but it is.. so whats your point? All I asked is if someone else would like the V5 here... I didn't expect to get chewed out.
Why do you have to get mad at me for saying 2.slow, everyone says it....


[Modified by Jaw, 8:32 PM 11-27-2001]
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top