That's really sad. Many people have a lot of things on their minds and don't pay enough attention while driving during the holidays. I'm glad you were OK.
Volkswagen CC
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
RIP Little Golf. I'm glad you're OK, FowVay.
Originally Posted By: FowVay
I love the 2.0 liter turbo engine also,, and I LOVE the fact that it comes with a 6-speed manual transmission.
The 2.0 has tons of low end torgue. On the GTI in sport mode you can spin the tires in the first 3 gears if it is wet. What is the weight of the CC? with that big of a car it might be a tad anemic but you would have to test drive to find out. I thought it was too little for the EOS when I drove it but then I was looking for a pocket rocket so I was biased.
I would take the 2.0l over the 3.2l any day. MPG is much, much better and 3.2 is very linear while 2.0 gas is extremely torquey and more fun IMO. A chip will get you about the same HP as 3.2 l if desired and costs $500-$600. I was really dissapointed with the 3.2 l in the R32 I drove.
I also drove a passat with the 3.6l That car has really crazy power but on the one I drove it had horrible torque steer and motor was not real smooth on that particular car. I did not like it but was amazed at the raw power of that thing.
I love the 2.0 liter turbo engine also,, and I LOVE the fact that it comes with a 6-speed manual transmission.
The 2.0 has tons of low end torgue. On the GTI in sport mode you can spin the tires in the first 3 gears if it is wet. What is the weight of the CC? with that big of a car it might be a tad anemic but you would have to test drive to find out. I thought it was too little for the EOS when I drove it but then I was looking for a pocket rocket so I was biased.
I would take the 2.0l over the 3.2l any day. MPG is much, much better and 3.2 is very linear while 2.0 gas is extremely torquey and more fun IMO. A chip will get you about the same HP as 3.2 l if desired and costs $500-$600. I was really dissapointed with the 3.2 l in the R32 I drove.
I also drove a passat with the 3.6l That car has really crazy power but on the one I drove it had horrible torque steer and motor was not real smooth on that particular car. I did not like it but was amazed at the raw power of that thing.
Originally Posted By: saaber1
I would take the 2.0l over the 3.2l any day.
Actually, in the CC, the 2.0 and the 3.6 are the only available engines, and from the reviews I came across, the 3.6 doesn't appear to be offering a whole lot more in terms of performance, while the price difference is pretty significant. So it looks like the 2.0 (+chip) is a better buy.
As for the weight, the CC 2.0 manual is listed at 3300 lbs; 3374 lbs for the auto. So, about 200 lbs more than a GTI, I'm guessing?
I would take the 2.0l over the 3.2l any day.
Actually, in the CC, the 2.0 and the 3.6 are the only available engines, and from the reviews I came across, the 3.6 doesn't appear to be offering a whole lot more in terms of performance, while the price difference is pretty significant. So it looks like the 2.0 (+chip) is a better buy.
As for the weight, the CC 2.0 manual is listed at 3300 lbs; 3374 lbs for the auto. So, about 200 lbs more than a GTI, I'm guessing?
Originally Posted By: FowVay
The Passat CC was rated at 31 MPG hwy while the TDI Jetta was rated at 41 MPG hwy. These numbers are embarassing when compared to my former Golf which was rated at 49 MPG hwy . . .
VW diesels never hit EPA estimates in the real world. They almost always do significantly better, particularly after 15k. We can pull high 40's hwy on our '09 with a modest foot and it's not even broken in yet.
The Passat CC was rated at 31 MPG hwy while the TDI Jetta was rated at 41 MPG hwy. These numbers are embarassing when compared to my former Golf which was rated at 49 MPG hwy . . .
VW diesels never hit EPA estimates in the real world. They almost always do significantly better, particularly after 15k. We can pull high 40's hwy on our '09 with a modest foot and it's not even broken in yet.
I meant a base 3 series BMW
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I meant a base 3 series BMW
The MSRP on base 3-series is $33,400. But the CC is a larger car. I'm not sure I'd compare it to a 3-series. It's closer to a 5-series territory.
I meant a base 3 series BMW
The MSRP on base 3-series is $33,400. But the CC is a larger car. I'm not sure I'd compare it to a 3-series. It's closer to a 5-series territory.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Actually, in the CC, the 2.0 and the 3.6 are the only available engines, and from the reviews I came across, the 3.6 doesn't appear to be offering a whole lot more in terms of performance, while the price difference is pretty significant. So it looks like the 2.0 (+chip) is a better buy.
I've ridden in both and agree that the 2.0 seems the way to go.
I love this car. It is sharp looking inside and out -- I especially love the interior. If you don't have a skinny butt, however, I think you'll hate the seats. It's also very quiet and solid at highway speeds.
If I'm not mistaken the oil filter on the 2.0 is mounted nice and high at the front of the engine -- looks like a piece of cake to change.
Actually, in the CC, the 2.0 and the 3.6 are the only available engines, and from the reviews I came across, the 3.6 doesn't appear to be offering a whole lot more in terms of performance, while the price difference is pretty significant. So it looks like the 2.0 (+chip) is a better buy.
I've ridden in both and agree that the 2.0 seems the way to go.
I love this car. It is sharp looking inside and out -- I especially love the interior. If you don't have a skinny butt, however, I think you'll hate the seats. It's also very quiet and solid at highway speeds.
If I'm not mistaken the oil filter on the 2.0 is mounted nice and high at the front of the engine -- looks like a piece of cake to change.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,202
I also currently own a E46 chassis 3 series and it is NOT on my list of cars I enjoy to drive. The Volkswagen CC is head and shoulders above the BMW in practically every category that matters to me.
At the moment, the ONLY thing keeping me from having a CC in my garage for Christmas is the 7% sales tax that my government tacks on. That will set me back over $1800 in cold, hard cash. It's sad that the government makes more money on the sale of a car than the selling dealership earns.
As for the oil filter, it is mounted right on top of the engine in the front on the passenger side. The only problem is that it's mounted UPSIDE DOWN!! Just another one of those verucht ideas from der faterland.
At the moment, the ONLY thing keeping me from having a CC in my garage for Christmas is the 7% sales tax that my government tacks on. That will set me back over $1800 in cold, hard cash. It's sad that the government makes more money on the sale of a car than the selling dealership earns.
As for the oil filter, it is mounted right on top of the engine in the front on the passenger side. The only problem is that it's mounted UPSIDE DOWN!! Just another one of those verucht ideas from der faterland.
Last edited:
Does it have a dipstick? I've read that it has a dipstick tube (thank g0d for that), but that you have to buy the dipstick on your own.
Originally Posted By: FowVay
I also currently own a E46 chassis 3 series and it is NOT on my list of cars I enjoy to drive.
What's wrong with it? I test drove an e46 330ci a while back - it was pretty good.
I also currently own a E46 chassis 3 series and it is NOT on my list of cars I enjoy to drive.
What's wrong with it? I test drove an e46 330ci a while back - it was pretty good.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,202
There are numerous things I don't like. Outward visibility is horrible, the center console protrudes into the footwell to the point that it cramps my right leg. The ventilation system seems inferior to other vehicles I've owned, the backup lights are useless at illuminating as you back up at night,, etc.
The rear view mirror on the drivers side takes up too much of the A-pillar area making for a huge blind spot area. It just doesn't seem like a ergonomically well thoughtout vehicle.
It drives nice and sounds great but I was spoiled by my VW.
The rear view mirror on the drivers side takes up too much of the A-pillar area making for a huge blind spot area. It just doesn't seem like a ergonomically well thoughtout vehicle.
It drives nice and sounds great but I was spoiled by my VW.
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
The CC is a nice car. But for the price, why wouldn't you buy a new A4 with a souped up version of the 2.0T and a tighter chasis?
I like the A4, but the main reason to get one would be Torsen AWD. And that means $6K more than the CC.
The CC is a nice car. But for the price, why wouldn't you buy a new A4 with a souped up version of the 2.0T and a tighter chasis?
I like the A4, but the main reason to get one would be Torsen AWD. And that means $6K more than the CC.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: saaber1
I would take the 2.0l over the 3.2l any day.
Actually, in the CC, the 2.0 and the 3.6 are the only available engines, and from the reviews I came across, the 3.6 doesn't appear to be offering a whole lot more in terms of performance, while the price difference is pretty significant. So it looks like the 2.0 (+chip) is a better buy.
Ah didn't realize 3.6 already replaced 3.2l. Found this thread on failure of 3.6l engines. I think the drive gear bolt of the oil pump is the most common issue?
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3193697&page=1
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
As for the weight, the CC 2.0 manual is listed at 3300 lbs; 3374 lbs for the auto. So, about 200 lbs more than a GTI, I'm guessing?
On the vw website it lists 0-60 times of the cc 2.0 about the same as the GTI. Impressive for a big car. Really looks like the 2.0 is the way to go. 2006?-2008's (VW USA) 2.0 FSI is a great engine with the cam follower for the fuel pump a weak point. 2.0 TSI is new and eliminates the cam follower weak point. 2.0 TSI hasn't been out that long but it should hopefully be a great engine. Ideally one would wait a while and see if there are any weak spots with the new TSI engine that need to be worked out.
Originally Posted By: saaber1
I would take the 2.0l over the 3.2l any day.
Actually, in the CC, the 2.0 and the 3.6 are the only available engines, and from the reviews I came across, the 3.6 doesn't appear to be offering a whole lot more in terms of performance, while the price difference is pretty significant. So it looks like the 2.0 (+chip) is a better buy.
Ah didn't realize 3.6 already replaced 3.2l. Found this thread on failure of 3.6l engines. I think the drive gear bolt of the oil pump is the most common issue?
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3193697&page=1
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
As for the weight, the CC 2.0 manual is listed at 3300 lbs; 3374 lbs for the auto. So, about 200 lbs more than a GTI, I'm guessing?
On the vw website it lists 0-60 times of the cc 2.0 about the same as the GTI. Impressive for a big car. Really looks like the 2.0 is the way to go. 2006?-2008's (VW USA) 2.0 FSI is a great engine with the cam follower for the fuel pump a weak point. 2.0 TSI is new and eliminates the cam follower weak point. 2.0 TSI hasn't been out that long but it should hopefully be a great engine. Ideally one would wait a while and see if there are any weak spots with the new TSI engine that need to be worked out.
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Ah didn't realize 3.6 already replaced 3.2l. Found this thread on failure of 3.6l engines. I think the drive gear bolt of the oil pump is the most common issue?
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3193697&page=1
That's pretty sad. I wonder how wide-spread the issue really is.
Ah didn't realize 3.6 already replaced 3.2l. Found this thread on failure of 3.6l engines. I think the drive gear bolt of the oil pump is the most common issue?
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3193697&page=1
That's pretty sad. I wonder how wide-spread the issue really is.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
That's pretty sad. I wonder how wide-spread the issue really is.
Yea it's hard to tell based on forum posts plus the 3.6 is a relatively new engine.
In terms of the 2.0l, I have been simply amazed why there are not more negative posts on the 2.0l because there are thousands of highly modified 2.0ls running around. Kids buy these cars and tune the heck out of them.
Simple modifications bring it up to 240-270hp from it's original 200. Next stage is around 300-350hp and top stage is over 500hp with bigger turbo etc. I know a couple people with over 300hp and no issues in about 40k miles. I am glad these guys push the limits because it finds the weak spots but I am amazed there aren't more problems when they run so high over the stock specs.
That's pretty sad. I wonder how wide-spread the issue really is.
Yea it's hard to tell based on forum posts plus the 3.6 is a relatively new engine.
In terms of the 2.0l, I have been simply amazed why there are not more negative posts on the 2.0l because there are thousands of highly modified 2.0ls running around. Kids buy these cars and tune the heck out of them.
Simple modifications bring it up to 240-270hp from it's original 200. Next stage is around 300-350hp and top stage is over 500hp with bigger turbo etc. I know a couple people with over 300hp and no issues in about 40k miles. I am glad these guys push the limits because it finds the weak spots but I am amazed there aren't more problems when they run so high over the stock specs.
- Status
