The new aerodynamics help a bit, but I doubt 5 MPG. I found 29 to be on the low side though, so maybe it was really always high but you know: under-promise and over-deliver.

It also has Bluetooth standard and alloy wheels as a $200 option.

 

I get 32-34 easy on the highway with my 1.8T running a tune/exhaust/intake. So no. I wouldnt consider a slow version of my car with a slushbox.

 

The improved aerodynamics as stated before. As VW stated, the new aerodynamics improve the mileage 10+%. They also will likely include LRR tires.
Also I believe the initial rating of 29 was incorrect. I drive a good mix of highway and city and averaged 33 so far this summer. I also get in the 40s on the highway BTW.

 

Yeah, the highway number was always a little low. With my '13, straight highway runs I usually see about 33 with a lot of inclines and around 36 with more normal ground. The city number is pretty spot on though, I doubt that has changed...

 

I came here to say that there is only one reason you buy a 2.slow ....

that is if you need a car that does all of these things:
a) is cheap
b) looks respectable and kind of cool
c) is reliable

you do not buy one hoping to:
a) get good fuel economy
or
b) go fast

that being said i am surprised to see the base economy up to 35 in the auto as my best average was 38 and that was hypermiling at is fullest in a manual

 

I wouldn't consider a 2.Slow unless the power also went up... to at least 140hp. 115hp was scary slow in my old light-er-weight MkIV. I can't imagine what it's like driving a MkVI with that little engine. Passing on the interstate is probably only achievable on downhills. And no one has yet mentioned whether or not the oil-guzzling tendency remains in the 2.Slow cars or was somehow rectified. Pass.

I'd like to see a comparison of MPG figures for other 4-cyl cars that have around 110-120hp. I bet they're all still way ahead of the '15 2.Slow.

It's mostly reliable (if you refill the oil in a guzzling car) and mostly cheap, but it's also mostly a stain on the Jetta name. It wasn't even super competitive when it was signed up for a second go round in 1999, and now, even subcompacts beat it. VW would have been better off offering a non-turbo version of the 1.8T.

 

WOW, you are very small minded.

 

Why? 115 HP and 34 MPG in a compact is laughable. The 2014 Jetta 1.8t (non 2015 aerodynamic upgrades) has 170 HP and 36 MPG with regular gas. The 2.5L was dumb, but now, why would you ever buy the 2.0L?

 

There are lots of valid reasons to buy the Jetta S. Some people use these as commuter cars and have there weekend toy. A bulk of 2.0's i sell are to younger kids who want an entry level car that looks grown up but isn't 22K

 

The anemic Jetta S makes sense to buy for one reason and one reason only: The buyer has no clue what they're buying. For the price of the severely underpowered 2.0, ANYTHING is a better option. Christ with rebates, you can get a Ford Focus for the price of a Jetta S.....which is far superior. A Fiesta is superior. A used car is superior. The 2.0 is a joke. It only makes sense if you have no sense. I mean seriously, why would you spend $17K (or $15K) for a 115hp Jetta....for any reason? You crave slow,anemic cars?

 

Actually, Volkswagen upside-downed the engine choices here. They should have made the 2.5L 5-cylinder standard on the base and S, and dump out the 2.0L. Is this a hard guess?

 

Money is the reason.

The S is made yo hit a price point. This is among the least expensive new cars sold in the US and it isn't a curmudgeon.

 

my problem with the 2.slow is that VW has somehow gotten away with not doing ANYTHING to this engine since like the early 90's and that is insane. How can this engine still have 8 valves and no VVT in this day and age - it's like a technological embarrassment. No offense if you have one as it is a great overall package for the money, but i think VW has made up their investment many times over on this lump and it would be a really great base engine with at least 16 valves. Not everyone needs/wants a turbo (and most Corolla/Civic buyers probably steer clear of turbos) in their econobox commuter special and it would be really smart of VW to have a good 2.0L normally aspirated I-4 in the stable as the base engine.

 

This engine was first introduced in the redesigned 1993 Jetta, so a new 2015 Jetta drives identically like a 1993 Jetta but with more comfort and refinement, and slower acceleration than 1993 due to larger-size and increased weight. Consumer Reports did rate the 1993-1998 Jetta good in reliability.

This engine will be available until 2017 (24 years unchanged, interesting how VW can stay in business today). Hang on... eace:

 

I have an S. Bought it solely for commuting and love it, Yep it’s not fast at all but then I have a 540I if I need that. But someone please explain to me what other cars out there in are comparable? I don’t see many other brand new cars out there that you can pick up for under 18K that have a proven reliable engine, Enough room to fit adults in the back not just 13 year olds or younger, A huge trunk, Decent MPG and a decent badge that you will be semi proud of

Kia and Hyundai – I can’t do the Korean thing so that strikes that
Ford Focus/Fiesta - Too small and the Fusion is 23K
Honda Accord – 23K
Corolla too small – Camry – 23K
Prius C – Too small
Malibu – maybe???
Mazda 3 – Too Small

what comparables are being used here? I honestly don’t think you can find a car considered in the small category that is actually this big on the market at the same price.

Bottom line is you can get a S for 18K or less, The SE is gunna run you 21/22K and for me, it just wasn’t worth it

 

Corolla too small – Camry – 23K

A new Camry LE automatic sells for around $17,999 after rebates every week in Saturday Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register newspaper.

 

On a good day, I get up to 38 mpg on the highway on my '13 S lol...

 

I actually went onto VW's website after I saw this post. If you drill down to the Jetta S page and look at the technical info section, only the Manual transmission is now rated for 34 MPG. The Automatics are still rated for 29 MPG

 

Check fueleconomy.org. 2015 Jetta 2.0 with 6-speed automatic now rated 34 MPG highway.

 

In Phoenix you will never get a Camry for 18K. Market is just to hot for them

 

There are lots of valid reasons to buy the Jetta S. Some people use these as commuter cars and have there weekend toy. A bulk of 2.0's i sell are to younger kids who want an entry level car that looks grown up but isn't 22K

If you're looking to lease why not the stripper TDI? It starts at $21,000. I can't say for positive, but I bet the lease rate is similar to a Jetta S. The buyback price on the TDI is going to be way higher lowering the monthly payments. It's exactly why I leased my TDI. I went in looking at a GLI and walked away with the TDI because even though it cost $2,000 more than the GLI, it leased $30 cheaper a month (along with all the other ways it'll save money for me). And I am that younger buyer (22, just graduated from college, the whole shebang that auto makers get semis for) and it didn't take much for me to see that the TDI was financially the right choice.

 

If a Forte, Sonata, Fiesta, Cruz, are so much better why didn’t you buy one?
You have no idea what I paid for my car, Then you come on here making assumptions about how I buy my cars.

Go troll somewhere else, You have an SE so no need for your input out the 2.0

 

If a Forte, Sonata, Fiesta, Cruz, are so much better why didn’t you buy one?

You mean "better than a 2.0"? I would have instead of a 2.0. I never said they were a better value than a 1.8T. I think you're confused.

You have no idea what I paid for my car, Then you come on here making assumptions about how I buy my cars.

I made assumptions based on the info you provided. And you say "18K or less" for a Jetta S, so that looks like your price point. And you list MSRP of other cars for comparisons. So you make it very easy to assume that you don't know how to shop for cars. But that's probably why you have a Jetta S to begin with. Ignorance is bliss.

You want to make an argument for it being a good deal. I happen to think it's not.......along with most of the automotive world. If you can't take a different opinion.....well then don't post anything.

 

No time for Idiots like you dude. Your here to troll.

 

No time for Idiots like you dude. Your here to troll.[/QUO

"you, dude. You're"

No, you just seem to be frustrated b/c you can't really defend your "argument" of what a great deal the Jetta S is for the price.

 

Because I need cheap and reliable. I ended up paying $12,700 plus ttl/destination/dealer fee. I think I gave them a couple hundred to shut up about the $900 worth of add-ons (nitrogen, splashguards, pinstripes, cargo net, etc). $14K and change out the door. 2014 2.Slow, 5 speed, literally no options.

 

No. I would Never consider an NA Gasoline SOHC 2.0 4CYL. If i really wanted MPG i would get a TDI..:thumbup::thumbup: The TDI 2.0 destroys the Gas NA SOHC 2.0 in performance and efficiency:thumbup::thumbup:

 

Except that you cant touch a TDI for under 22K. I paid 9K less for a 2.Slow. Given that Diesel is about 15% more expensive than gas where I live it would take appx forever to recoup the cost of the TDI because it gets about 2% more miles per *dollar* Christ you're thick.

 

If I just needed a commuter to beat it's pretty tough to find a respectable car for $13k. I wonder how long it would take to make up the difference in fuel savings if purchasing a TDI? The TDI blows it away in every respect except price. Seriously, manual 2.0 is extremely tough to beat when attempting to be practical.