He did the math

[P-hack]

I have to say that with like zero other tdi options in the states in the small car department, I worry more than normal about random disparaging posts.

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

Any idea if those were manual or auto trannies? Rebuilds are possible for either the manual or auto trannies on the MkIV Jettas (the 2004 would fall under that), but the auto rebuild is pricey and since the autos (apparently) tend to fail more often than avg auto trannies, there's a chance that it'll fail again. The manual trannies, on the other hand, are pretty solid and can be rebuilt fairly easily. In my case, I swapped out the top (5th) gear on my 5spd for a taller one; I could have done it without removing the tranny from the car but since I was doing the clutch anyway, it was really easy.

That's kinda the point I was getting at... a lot of the folks buying the MkIV VWs (Jetta, Golf) new got to learn the hard way that the autos were crap. A used car buyer can look at the data and know if they want an auto tranny, they should avoid the MkIV VWs, thereby potentially saving themselves a bunch of money and grief. There are a LOT of nice used cars out there.

Obviously, I'm glad there are some folks out there that are buying brand new cars every few years, otherwise there wouldn't be enough good used cars for the rest of us to buy. Even with all the incentives and bonuses and discounts, I simply haven't gotten the math to work out in favor of buying a new car (at least not one I would want to own).

They were both automatics. And I think one of the best upsides of buying a used cars is being able to see trends and data on their performance- like with my vehicle, a lot of the standard transmissions have issues with the synchros. I definitely see both points, and more often then not, it's better to go with a used car- the right used car.

I have been looking at MP5s lately, and the KBB value was 12k+ for the base model, and this one had awesome features on it- they were asking just under 9k, and it really was excellent condition. One can tell from the photos, and info that they took good care of the vehicle.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Ryland

It's not hard for a single repair like a broken timing belt, to cost more then the value of a VW and VW are one of the most expensive vehicles to own, but still repair costs hardly ever end up costing more then the payment on a new car, so that part of the math does not add up.
I would opt out of owning a VW because I like cars that are not in need of expensive repairs every few months, the friends of mine who still own VW's are pouring money in to them all the time, if you buy a new car you don't have that issue unless you look at your monthly payment.

While I agree a broken timing belt can be a fairly expensive repair on a VW, with proper maintenance that's something that shouldn't happen unless there's an internal problem wearing the belt prematurely... the timing belt is supposed to be replaced every 100K miles, which is a fairly long service interval (longer than on some other makes of cars)... having it replaced isn't all that expensive, nor is it a unique VW thing.

When I bought my Jetta, it was one of the first things I had done, even though the previous owner said the timing belt had been done within the past 30K miles. Knowing the potential for damage, I didn't want to risk that the previous owner did a cut-rate job knowing the car was going to be sold relatively soon.

I would disagree that the VWs are one of the most expensive vehicles to own... I'd like to see the data on that. According to Kelley Blue Book, the Mid-size Car class 5 year cost of ownership for the "Best in Class" has the 2012 Hyundai Sonata as the "worst" of the top 5 at $36,099. A 2012 VW Jetta 2.0 gasoline sedan comes in at $33,266 (not sure why it's not in the "Best in Class" list also) and a 2012 VW Jetta 2.0 TDI comes in at $36,325. A Chevy Malibu, Ford Fusion, and BMW 328i all came in with a higher 5 year cost to own.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the site, so if you have a better source, please share.

Since you didn't provide any info on your friend's VWs, I can't really guess why they'd be pouring so much money into them.

[Ryland]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

While I agree a broken timing belt can be a fairly expensive repair on a VW, with proper maintenance that's something that shouldn't happen unless there's an internal problem wearing the belt prematurely... the timing belt is supposed to be replaced every 100K miles, which is a fairly long service interval (longer than on some other makes of cars)... having it replaced isn't all that expensive, nor is it a unique VW thing.

My old room mate had his timing belt brake twice, each time with 70,000 miles on it and my parents owned VW's for years, replacing timing belts, cv shafts, suspension and other major parts on a regular bases was common.

It' also easy to see that most of the time someone who trades in their old car to buy a brand new car is either bad at math or getting some kind of good deal that bucks the system.

[UltArc]

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but looking forward to more info.

The 2013 Passat diesel gets better fuel economy in the city than the 200 gets on the highway.

Compare Side-by-Side

[Xist]

I used to have a coworker that sounded just like Pat, from the Toyota commercials. He had actually been a Toyota salesman and still sang praises to them, but he mentioned one couple that came in to trade-in their car and his colleagues managed to work the deal so that the couple actually did not receive any money for their car.

Apparently, some guy out here named Mark owns several dealership (Mark Kia, etc). They regularly have annoying radio ads where they offer three, five, or even eight thousand dollars for any trade-in, and then the guy says "And, exclusive of that offer, take $3\5\8,000 off any car in our new car lot."

It always sounded like you would get the new car for the same price, regardless of whether or not you had a trade-in. So, why would you?

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Ryland

My old room mate had his timing belt brake twice, each time with 70,000 miles on it and my parents owned VW's for years, replacing timing belts, cv shafts, suspension and other major parts on a regular bases was common.

That is unfortunate... I can only say that I don't think the experience you were exposed to is "typical" for VWs. I do know that the timing belt service has to be done "right" for it to last the 100K miles, meaning that everything the belt rides on must be replaced (water pump, tensioner, rollers) along with new bolts & seals, and unfortunately some service shops (including dealerships!) cut corners in order to entice customers with a lower price. I can't say that's what happened with your old room mate, but that is one possible explanation.

I'm not going to say that my VW has been all sunshine & roses, but considering it's got 350K miles on the clock, I think it has really held up well. Most of the common problem issues I've fixed myself and it's been far from a money sink. On the other hand, my Honda VX has given me all kinds of headaches... none that make the car undriveable, but enough to irritate me to the point that I'd rather not drive it. Luck of the draw, I guess.

[Fat Charlie]

Sorry about any confusion- there's no agenda here and he didn't want VW to work on his car. He didn't need any repairs. He was just coming up on a service and talked, one tech to another, about how they do the service over there and what parts he should get (Just a flush? Filter?). They talked about things the car would need in the future. The only one he mentioned to me was the DPF replacement at 120k, but I really don't think that alone would steer him away from the car (we also know that it probably won't need replacing then...). A non serviceable automatic would scare the hell out of a transmission tech.

I'm not disparaging Volkswagen here. I was just so shocked that someone would move from a TDI to a 200 (and get the the 6 instead of the 4) that I had to share- and this isn't a "I want more ____ in my car" situation. This is a guy who believes in preventative maintenance and it's his wife's car. Looking at the DPF alone, he'd rather replace it when the book recommends than wait for her to mention that her car's been running badly for a while and then have to diagnose the VW in his spare time. He doesn't like DPFs, or explaining to his own customers that they need to be replaced. Having an expense like that looming is never fun, and neither is trying to sell a car with over 100k that has expensive stuff in its immediate future- and trying to trade one in when it has the "replace DPF" light on is a great way to take a bath.

If I already owned a TDI I'd keep it and milk the fuel savings. To him, cashing in on the VW's resale value while it's still young and getting a replacement that the dealership is happy to get rid of ahead of the 2014s is probably a good move.

But for this one guy:
-The VW gets much better mileage than the 200, but...
-A standard, known service on the VW costs a lot no matter who you are.
-A dealership tech can keep a car from his brand in top shape without even trying for just the price of parts, and we take care of him.
-It's all the same to his wife what she drives.
His math said to get out from under the VW while the getting was good, into a platform he knows to be reliable. He probably got a service contract for less than a DPF would cost him- so not only will just about everything be covered, but he'll get paid to do the work instead of the other way around.

So while it just looks wrong, it made sense for him.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by jeff88

I feel like we are missing something here.

I wonder how many miles it would take for the cost of 19/29 MPG of the Chrysler to match the cost of repairs for the v-dub.

Missing two things: cost of repairs on the VW, and cost of repairs on the Chrysler.

[Fat Charlie]

Yep. In some circumstances, lower mileage can still have lower total cost of ownership.