Volkswagen Jetta vs. Toyota Corolla ??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Here is the problem I have with "test drives". Once you drive one, you need a machete and a 9 MM double stack to get away from the salesmen. No one, and I mean NO ONE, delivers sales pressure like a car salesman. That I'M NOT looking forward to! I hate dealing with those guys!


Oh come on, just say thanks, take his card and walk away. It's not hard at all.

Regarding the turbos - I have had three Euro cars with turbos. All have gone well over 100,000 miles w/o turbo failure. Yes, an early air-cooled Volvo turbo dies at around 80K, but the water cooled replacement upgrade was still kicking hard at 283,000 when the car went away. Turbos have not been a reliability issue for decades. They just work and they do what they are supposed to - stay out of the way on light throttle cruise and get good mileage. Get into when you want to GO
laugh.gif


They also effectively cancel any elevation changes en route. Go over the Rocky's or the Sierra's w/o one and you'll be dogging in the slow lane. Go over with one and you won't know the difference between that trip and a drive around a the bay. There are just too many pluses for turbos to rule them out off hand...

CVT - not goinna happen in this house ...
 
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Unless its a 911, GTR, Grand National or Supra... no turbo for me.


Met a guy yesterday with a black 911 turbo, I think the year was an 08, bought out of Chicago. I think he said he bought it for $57k with original msrp of over 100k and had a tune done to it. Previous to that he had the same car but the last year of the air cooled engine, so maybe a 98 iirc. He said he wished he never sold that one but it had 68k miles on it.
 
Last edited:
I had a turbo car (Chevy Cruze) and it got really good gas mileage w/o any hint of issues. My personal issue is that I just can't tolerate an econobox anymore. I'm getting old and unwilling to settle.
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Regarding the turbos - I have had three Euro cars with turbos. All have gone well over 100,000 miles w/o turbo failure. Yes, an early air-cooled Volvo turbo dies at around 80K, but the water cooled replacement upgrade was still kicking hard at 283,000 when the car went away. Turbos have not been a reliability issue for decades. They just work and they do what they are supposed to - stay out of the way on light throttle cruise and get good mileage. Get into when you want to GO
laugh.gif


They also effectively cancel any elevation changes en route. Go over the Rocky's or the Sierra's w/o one and you'll be dogging in the slow lane. Go over with one and you won't know the difference between that trip and a drive around a the bay. There are just too many pluses for turbos to rule them out off hand...

I assume you mean Volvo oil-cooled turbos. Mine (in an '86 Volvo 740 Turbo) was still going strong at 285,000 Km (178,000 miles) when I sold it to friends. They drove it for 5 more years and had no problems with it either.

I assume the water cooled Turbo from '87 on would have been even better.

I like turbos as well and wouldn't hesitate to buy a new one. They're really nice in the mountains. Nothing much could pass that Volvo on a long uphill climb. It just hunkered down and pulled.
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Originally Posted By: billt460
Here is the problem I have with "test drives". Once you drive one, you need a machete and a 9 MM double stack to get away from the salesmen. No one, and I mean NO ONE, delivers sales pressure like a car salesman. That I'M NOT looking forward to! I hate dealing with those guys!


Oh come on, just say thanks, take his card and walk away. It's not hard at all.

Regarding the turbos - I have had three Euro cars with turbos. All have gone well over 100,000 miles w/o turbo failure. Yes, an early air-cooled Volvo turbo dies at around 80K, but the water cooled replacement upgrade was still kicking hard at 283,000 when the car went away. Turbos have not been a reliability issue for decades. They just work and they do what they are supposed to - stay out of the way on light throttle cruise and get good mileage. Get into when you want to GO
laugh.gif


They also effectively cancel any elevation changes en route. Go over the Rocky's or the Sierra's w/o one and you'll be dogging in the slow lane. Go over with one and you won't know the difference between that trip and a drive around a the bay. There are just too many pluses for turbos to rule them out off hand...

CVT - not goinna happen in this house ...




Unbelievable.........
 
I think a lot of this comes down to the kind of driving you do.
I use my Accord to commute to work in moderate traffic and for interstate slogs in moderate traffic.
The lack of the fun factor found in earlier Accords that we've owned is rarely missed.
If we spent a lot of time on twisty two lanes where you can make daring third or even second gear passes (our older Accords were usually sticks) then I'd probably find it less satisfactory than I do.
You're talking about two pretty cheap cars here. If the undeniably superior driving dynamics of the VW matter to you, then that's your choice.
If you value reliability over all else, then the Corolla wins hands down. Just don't expect the driving experience to match the racy look of the current generation.
Neither car should cost much to own and run and the VW does have the edge in real world fuel economy.
 
With the new VW warranty, the obvious durability and reliability edge of the Corolla is attenuated. Not eliminated. Attenuated.
 
Easily the Corolla. If you need more space, there's the Corolla iM hatchback

If you're worried about the long-term CVT reliability, you can always change the fluid annually. Castrol makes a fine CVT fluid that goes on sale at the parts stores for $5/qt a few times a year, and when they don't have it on sale, Amazon has it by the case of 6 for $35

What I would do is use the mfr-spec interval during the warranty, then annually with Castrol after the warranty expires.

The biggest issue with CVT design is the amount of torque they can handle, but a Corolla is no problem for a CVT
 
I rented a 2016 Corolla a few months back and it was the worst car I’ve driven in ages. BUZZY engine, poor handling, poor steering feel. I’m sure it’s reliable, but I could never live with it.

I’d take a Focus, Mazda 3, Golf, Civic, Cruze anyday over it.
 
Originally Posted By: E365
I rented a 2016 Corolla a few months back and it was the worst car I’ve driven in ages. BUZZY engine, poor handling, poor steering feel. I’m sure it’s reliable, but I could never live with it.

I’d take a Focus, Mazda 3, Golf, Civic, Cruze anyday over it.
I had a new Yaris last year as a rental for less than 2 hours before I took it to another Hertz location and exchanged it for a Sonata hybrid. Dreadful car, a Corolla is probably like a Lexus.
 
Ive rented both. The corolla has tried way too hard to be fancy, that its about intolerable.

CVTs shift strangely, just had one that I drove about 250 miles on - driving gently, yes, it keeps revs low and you dont know its there. Try to get any sort of power and it sluggishly has to adjust and adapt.

Turbo fears are overrated. Even a friend of mine who had an 01 GTI, about the worst of the worst in terms of VW reliability, was running strong with busted rubber parts and the car practically falling apart around it. It still had its original clutch, and was a hair under 190k.

I dont like the dash setup, the car layout, or the false pretenses of the latest corolla. The VW can be had in a pretty basic setup which should be very reliable. We had no issues with our 08 VW.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Turbo fears are overrated.


I'm starting to believe much the same thing about CVT Transmissions. There are simply far too many of them out there, that if there was any type of serious reliability issues with them, it would have surfaced by now. There isn't, in spite of the fact most all of the compacts from the biggest manufacturers all use them, and have for years. There are literally millions of them on the road in this country alone. Millions more throughout Continental Europe, where 4 cylinder compacts are even more popular than in this country, due to high fuel costs.

And one thing people do with Toyota's is keep them, and rack up high mileage in the process. So if all these CVT Transmissions currently out there were so bad, and had serious reliability issues coupled with high failure rates, there would have been massive recalls with them. There hasn't been. I think what makes them so unpopular is they drive much differently. And in the process somewhat "detune" the car, and turn off people who like, want, and expect performance in most everything they drive. You have to accept these 4 cylinder compacts for what they are. Basic A to B transportation and grocery getters, and nothing more. If you want "excitement" in your driving, buy a performance car. Not a 4 cylinder compact with mag wheels.

I just think people expect way too much from these vehicles. And because they don't deliver it, right away they want to blame and complain about the CVT as being part of the problem. At least that's my take. I base it on the fact I'm not hearing from people who tend to badmouth them, and give problems and failure as the reason why. They just don't like them. Which is fine. But that in itself should not tarnish the reliability and dependability factor of them.
 
VW makes some of the most unreliable cars on the planet. Certain years of Passat are 10x worse than a Camry!

However, the Jetta is well refined, is more reliable than in the past and they drive quite well.

The Corolla on the other hand is about as disagreeable a car as I can imagine. I actively avoid renting them. In particular, they are noisy and "tinny" sounding inside, I find the seats uncomfortable and they are unresponsive in every way, from sluggish power, to imprecise steering and soft, limited suspension. I don't like anything about them.

I give the Jetta the advantage in this comparison, based on driving dynamics and known reliability.
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
VW makes some of the most unreliable cars on the planet. Certain years of Passat are 10x worse than a Camry!

However, the Jetta is well refined, is more reliable than in the past and they drive quite well.

The Corolla on the other hand is about as disagreeable a car as I can imagine. I actively avoid renting them. In particular, they are noisy and "tinny" sounding inside, I find the seats uncomfortable and they are unresponsive in every way, from sluggish power, to imprecise steering and soft, limited suspension. I don't like anything about them.

I give the Jetta the advantage in this comparison, based on driving dynamics and known reliability.



This. Drive them both, and buy based on which one you enjoy driving more.

It's kinda dumb to buy a car based only on it's perceived reliability and nothing more. I have a few friends with Jettas and my sister also owns a 2013. All of them have been flawless so far. I would have a hard time buying something with a CVT because I hate how they drive with the rubber band vague feeling.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Turbo fears are overrated.


I'm starting to believe much the same thing about CVT Transmissions. There are simply far too many of them out there, that if there was any type of serious reliability issues with them, it would have surfaced by now. There isn't, in spite of the fact most all of the compacts from the biggest manufacturers all use them, and have for years. There are literally millions of them on the road in this country alone. Millions more throughout Continental Europe, where 4 cylinder compacts are even more popular than in this country, due to high fuel costs.

And one thing people do with Toyota's is keep them, and rack up high mileage in the process. So if all these CVT Transmissions currently out there were so bad, and had serious reliability issues coupled with high failure rates, there would have been massive recalls with them. There hasn't been. I think what makes them so unpopular is they drive much differently. And in the process somewhat "detune" the car, and turn off people who like, want, and expect performance in most everything they drive. You have to accept these 4 cylinder compacts for what they are. Basic A to B transportation and grocery getters, and nothing more. If you want "excitement" in your driving, buy a performance car. Not a 4 cylinder compact with mag wheels.

I just think people expect way too much from these vehicles. And because they don't deliver it, right away they want to blame and complain about the CVT as being part of the problem. At least that's my take. I base it on the fact I'm not hearing from people who tend to badmouth them, and give problems and failure as the reason why. They just don't like them. Which is fine. But that in itself should not tarnish the reliability and dependability factor of them.


The irony is with the 10 speed, 12 speed (and probably more gears coming) the "conventional" automatics will be "shifting and hunting" for the right gears continually. So-I guess some find this preferable.....apparently.
 
How do you know that they will be hunting? Just because it shifts doesn't mean it isn't where it wants to be.

It does appear that CVT fears are bit misplaced. Initial units, yes. Now, not so much. Although will they still be thought of as a replacement item after 150k?

I wonder what will wind up cheaper to replace: assume a maker sells 100-250k of each type transmission, per year. Which will be cheaper to rebuild? A CVT that has like four parts; or the 10 speed with, umm, lots more? [I'm not saying neither will see 150k, just that they are wear items, so be it 150k or 500k, which will be cheaper to repair?]
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
CVTs shift strangely, just had one that I drove about 250 miles on - driving gently, yes, it keeps revs low and you dont know its there. Try to get any sort of power and it sluggishly has to adjust and adapt.


Your 2015 Accord hybrid has a cvt trans.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: supton
How do you know that they will be hunting? Just because it shifts doesn't mean it isn't where it wants to be.

It does appear that CVT fears are bit misplaced. Initial units, yes. Now, not so much. Although will they still be thought of as a replacement item after 150k?

I wonder what will wind up cheaper to replace: assume a maker sells 100-250k of each type transmission, per year. Which will be cheaper to rebuild? A CVT that has like four parts; or the 10 speed with, umm, lots more? [I'm not saying neither will see 150k, just that they are wear items, so be it 150k or 500k, which will be cheaper to repair?]


You go up an ever so slight incline-the transmission will downshift. It doesn't take much to have it shift back and forth-just a small amount of pressure on the gas pedal will make it shift. Like I said-I guess some (for reason(s) only known to the universe find this preferable to a CVT.
 
We own a CVT car and basically the loud pedal sets the revs while the CVT provides the acceleration that that throttle opening gives with almost constant revs.
You can accelerate fast or slow and do so very smoothly with little noise.
There is none of the constant shifting that you get with lotsa gears automatics in normal driving.
An eight speed automatic trying to deal with very tall gearing sucks as compared to a CVT in my driving experience while a tall geared five speed automatic like that in our newer Accord simply feels like it could use a couple more intermediate ratios.
A CVT provides an infinite number of ratios and there is no shifting but only smooth power delivery.
CVTs are the future and conventional automatics are a dying technology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

supton
2012 Jetta Sportwagen?
2
Replies
28
Views
556
supton
rstcso
Small SUV needed; advice?
5 6 7
Replies
124
Views
3K
HemiBenny
rstcso
Out with the Audi & In with a Pilot
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
CKN
Nessism1
Driving Dynamics vs Reliability
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
2015Corolla
J
2025 Honda Pilot
2
Replies
39
Views
936
nwjones18
Back
Top Bottom