The Volkswagen Rabbits back!!

[Ext User(David Z)]

Volksagen does it.... again! Rabbit's back:

http://www.vw.com/rabbit/index.html

The new Golf has just been released in the US and is now called the Rabbit.
Can't believe they ditched the Golf name.... must have taken an awful lot
of convincing VW in Germany to allow it.

[Ext User(Deltic)]

In article <rPLsg.2987$tE5.1399@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Volksagen does it.... again! Rabbit's back:
>
> http://www.vw.com/rabbit/index.html
>
> The new Golf has just been released in the US and is now called the Rabbit.
> Can't believe they ditched the Golf name.... must have taken an awful lot
> of convincing VW in Germany to allow it.
>
>


I wonder if the Passat will now revert to the Dasher as well.

[Ext User(Ben Thomas)]

David Z wrote:
> Volksagen does it.... again! Rabbit's back:
>
> http://www.vw.com/rabbit/index.html
>
> The new Golf has just been released in the US and is now called the Rabbit.
> Can't believe they ditched the Golf name.... must have taken an awful lot
> of convincing VW in Germany to allow it.
>
>

Presumably the Golf will be called the Rabbit in Aus in a few years time
too, seeing as the Bora is now called the Jetta here, like it is in the USA.

:(

Ben

[Ext User(Ron)]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:rPLsg.2987$tE5.1399@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> Volksagen does it.... again! Rabbit's back:
>
> http://www.vw.com/rabbit/index.html
>
> The new Golf has just been released in the US and is now called the
> Rabbit. Can't believe they ditched the Golf name.... must have taken
> an awful lot of convincing VW in Germany to allow it.
>
>

You maybe too young to remember!
Many years ago when you were a thought of "Lust" in your Daddies eye, I
owned a VW Gold GLD. The Yanks had the same car and it was called a VW
Rabbit GLD.

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

Ben Thomas <no.sp@m.thanks.mate> writes:
>David Z wrote:

>> Volksagen does it.... again! Rabbit's back:

Who's "Volksagen"?

>> http://www.vw.com/rabbit/index.html
>>
>> The new Golf has just been released in the US and is now called the Rabbit.
>> Can't believe they ditched the Golf name.... must have taken an awful lot
>> of convincing VW in Germany to allow it.

>Presumably the Golf will be called the Rabbit in Aus in a few years time
>too, seeing as the Bora is now called the Jetta here, like it is in the USA.

>:(

The Bora was always the Bora, except in the US (and maybe ZA)

The Jetta started off as the Golf-with-boot in Germany and carried
on being such until the 4th generation (also of the Golf) whereupon
it became a Bora. The name "Jetta" continued to be used in the US
(and a couple of other markets) because the sedan-like cars were
more popular than the hatch.

No need to frighten the public with a new model name; just because
the car's different. :-)

The Golf-with-boot reverted to Jetta around the world, with the
current (5th) generation of the Golf.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

[Ext User(John Henderson)]

Bernd Felsche wrote:

> Who's "Volksagen"?

Not quite as bad as Volkswagon.

John

[Ext User(David Z)]

The US "Rabbit" is superior in almost every way to the model we get here.
For starters, all models there are made in Germany, not South Africa. ALL
models there get a standard 2.5L 5-cylinder engine (as does the New Beetle &
Jetta), not a 1.6L. (the only 'downside' if you will, is that they don't
get any diesel engines).
Next, they get both 2 and 4 door options, while we only get a 4 door (they
refer to the models as 2/4 door, not 3/5 door - they really do have a thing
about hatches in the US!).
Lastly, the 4 door models there all have full color coding. With color
coding, it is almost hard to believe its the same car we get here. Of
course, you can get that here too but you have to fork out $33k for the
Sportline. Compare that to US$16,990 for their 4-door, 2.5L model and its
some $10,000 more that we pay here.

"Ben Thomas" <no.sp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:mdfdo3-kpt.ln1@teri.unico.com.au...
> David Z wrote:
>> Volksagen does it.... again! Rabbit's back:
>>
>> http://www.vw.com/rabbit/index.html
>>
>> The new Golf has just been released in the US and is now called the
>> Rabbit. Can't believe they ditched the Golf name.... must have taken an
>> awful lot of convincing VW in Germany to allow it.
>
> Presumably the Golf will be called the Rabbit in Aus in a few years time
> too, seeing as the Bora is now called the Jetta here, like it is in the
> USA.
>
> :(
>
> Ben

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> writes:
>"Ben Thomas" <no.sp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
>> David Z wrote:

>>> Volksagen does it.... again! Rabbit's back:
>>>
>>> http://www.vw.com/rabbit/index.html

>>> The new Golf has just been released in the US and is now called
>>> the Rabbit. Can't believe they ditched the Golf name.... must
>>> have taken an awful lot of convincing VW in Germany to allow it.

>> Presumably the Golf will be called the Rabbit in Aus in a few
>> years time too, seeing as the Bora is now called the Jetta here,
>> like it is in the USA. :(

>The US "Rabbit" is superior in almost every way to the model we get
>here. For starters, all models there are made in Germany, not
>South Africa. ALL models there get a standard 2.5L 5-cylinder
>engine (as does the New Beetle & Jetta), not a 1.6L. (the only
>'downside' if you will, is that they don't get any diesel engines).

What's wrong with Uitenhage? FWIW, the German-made Golfs (regardless
of the badge) are much more expensive to make because the Golf is
*very* labour-intensive to assemble. That means that the prices are
much more volatile; or overly-inflated in order to allow some
headroom to absorb production price fluctuations.

Further; the 2.5-litre donk is "straight out of" the T4 transporter,
It's not a highly-developed engine because fuel quality in the USA
universally sucks big time. They do NOT get FSI. They have to get
something like the same power from greater engine capacity and lower
efficiency resulting in increased fuel consumption.

>Next, they get both 2 and 4 door options, while we only get a 4
>door (they refer to the models as 2/4 door, not 3/5 door - they
>really do have a thing about hatches in the US!).

Selling a large, 2-door hatch in Australia? Homologation costs would
make them much more expensive than the 4-door.

>Lastly, the 4 door models there all have full color coding.

That's important? Are you joking? I'd much rather have black,
scratch-obscuring bump strips on the doors and bumpers than
colour-coded (expensive to fix when scratched).

>With color coding, it is almost hard to believe its the same car we
>get here.

Maybe you shouldn't drive if your vision is so blurred.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

[Ext User(David Z)]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:fcieo3xh9p.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> writes:
>>"Ben Thomas" <no.sp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
>>> David Z wrote:
>
>>>> Volksagen does it.... again! Rabbit's back:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.vw.com/rabbit/index.html
>
>>>> The new Golf has just been released in the US and is now called
>>>> the Rabbit. Can't believe they ditched the Golf name.... must
>>>> have taken an awful lot of convincing VW in Germany to allow it.
>
>>> Presumably the Golf will be called the Rabbit in Aus in a few
>>> years time too, seeing as the Bora is now called the Jetta here,
>>> like it is in the USA. :(
>
>>The US "Rabbit" is superior in almost every way to the model we get
>>here. For starters, all models there are made in Germany, not
>>South Africa. ALL models there get a standard 2.5L 5-cylinder
>>engine (as does the New Beetle & Jetta), not a 1.6L. (the only
>>'downside' if you will, is that they don't get any diesel engines).
>
> What's wrong with Uitenhage? FWIW, the German-made Golfs (regardless
> of the badge) are much more expensive to make because the Golf is
> *very* labour-intensive to assemble. That means that the prices are
> much more volatile; or overly-inflated in order to allow some
> headroom to absorb production price fluctuations.
>
> Further; the 2.5-litre donk is "straight out of" the T4 transporter,
> It's not a highly-developed engine because fuel quality in the USA
> universally sucks big time. They do NOT get FSI. They have to get
> something like the same power from greater engine capacity and lower
> efficiency resulting in increased fuel consumption.

Yes thats true. The point I was trying to make was that we get a hugely
underpowered 1.6L engine here in both the Golf & Beetle. In fact, that is
the only petrol option on the new Beetle! If the 2.0 FSI was standard on
the Golf here, I would not be complaining, but it isn't.

>>Next, they get both 2 and 4 door options, while we only get a 4
>>door (they refer to the models as 2/4 door, not 3/5 door - they
>>really do have a thing about hatches in the US!).
>
> Selling a large, 2-door hatch in Australia? Homologation costs would
> make them much more expensive than the 4-door.

The Golf is a small car. Also, 2-door hatches have been successful here.
The 6th generation Civic hatch was a big success here, more popular than the
sedan at the time, and much cheaper.

>>Lastly, the 4 door models there all have full color coding.
>
> That's important? Are you joking? I'd much rather have black,
> scratch-obscuring bump strips on the doors and bumpers than
> colour-coded (expensive to fix when scratched).

Its a matter of opinion of course but most people prefer color coding - have
a look at the photos yourself, in particular the 3rd one down on the right:
http://www.vw.com/rabbit/photos_ext.html
It can dramatically change the appearance of a car.

[Ext User(Stan Marsh)]

What about the Vento Bernd? :P
Pete

> The Golf-with-boot reverted to Jetta around the world, with the
> current (5th) generation of the Golf.
> --
> /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
> \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
> X against HTML mail | they threaten."
> / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

"Stan Marsh" <neddo69 AT hotmail DOT com> writes:

>> The Golf-with-boot reverted to Jetta around the world, with the
>> current (5th) generation of the Golf.

>What about the Vento Bernd? :P

Bunch of hot air. :-)

Yeah; forgot about that one. Mk3 Golf with a boot.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

[Ext User(Ben Thomas)]

David Z wrote:
> The US "Rabbit" is superior in almost every way to the model we get here.
> For starters, all models there are made in Germany, not South Africa. ALL
> models there get a standard 2.5L 5-cylinder engine (as does the New Beetle &
> Jetta), not a 1.6L. (the only 'downside' if you will, is that they don't
> get any diesel engines).
> Next, they get both 2 and 4 door options, while we only get a 4 door (they
> refer to the models as 2/4 door, not 3/5 door - they really do have a thing
> about hatches in the US!).
> Lastly, the 4 door models there all have full color coding. With color
> coding, it is almost hard to believe its the same car we get here. Of
> course, you can get that here too but you have to fork out $33k for the
> Sportline. Compare that to US$16,990 for their 4-door, 2.5L model and its
> some $10,000 more that we pay here.

The Sportline doesn't have colour coded (lower section only) front and
rear bumpers.

The GTI has an unpainted plastic skirt on the sides of the car, to match
the bumpers. Looks good in light colours IMHO, but would look even
better if they were at least painted gloss black.

Ben

[Ext User(David Z)]

I should also add that the 2.5L I-5 offers the same power (110 kW) but
*significantly* more torque than the 2.0L FSI (228 Nm vs. 200 Nm).

Also, I don't know what you're talking about with the Transporter T5. I see
a 2.5L diesel engine offered in that model, but not a 2.5L petrol.

If VW want to pose a serious threat to the Japanese makes in this country
they need to offer more powerful engines. The new Jetta & Passat are not
selling as well as expected, and considering they both come with 2.0L
engines standard, its not surprising. The 2.5L I-5 would be a perfect
engine for the Jetta, Golf, Passat, and Beetle and I am very surprised we
don't see it in any models here..

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> writes:

>I should also add that the 2.5L I-5 offers the same power (110 kW) but
>*significantly* more torque than the 2.0L FSI (228 Nm vs. 200 Nm).

Significant? 10% For the sake of putting in an antique that guzzles
and doesn't want to rev? It's a TRANSPORTER engine and is designed
to lug heavy loads from low speeds. Hence the numerically-high
torque.

2.5 litres should give more than 200kW and 300Nm using 21st-century
engine technology based on the availability of clean fuels.

>Also, I don't know what you're talking about with the Transporter
>T5. I see a 2.5L diesel engine offered in that model, but not a
>2.5L petrol.

I wrote T4 ... e.g. engine code AAB multipoint EFI.

The bit YOU snipped.
>>Further; the 2.5-litre donk is "straight out of" the T4 transporter

http://bernd.felsche.org/tests/Caravelle/Caravelle.html

>If VW want to pose a serious threat to the Japanese makes in this
>country they need to offer more powerful engines. The new Jetta &
>Passat are not selling as well as expected, and considering they
>both come with 2.0L engines standard, its not surprising. The 2.5L
>I-5 would be a perfect engine for the Jetta, Golf, Passat, and
>Beetle and I am very surprised we don't see it in any models here..

Why don't you stop dreaming and look up the facts?

Better performance (50% more torque) and much lower fuel consumption
are available from a 2.0 TDI. Gee... I wonder why they sell so well?

I explained *why* we don't get the 5-cylinder petrol engines here.
It's pretty much why they don't get them in Germany: US fuel is
filthy.

FWIW: They start with 1.4-litre engines in Germany, from 59kW/132Nm
to 125kW/240Nm. Yes *more* than the 2.5-litre donk you want.
Fuel consumption is about 5.8 l/100km highway and 9.9 l/100km urban
with the most-powerful 1.4; cf the 2.5's 7.8 / 10.7 l/100km urban.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

[Ext User(David Z)]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:93gho3x19i.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>I should also add that the 2.5L I-5 offers the same power (110 kW) but
>>*significantly* more torque than the 2.0L FSI (228 Nm vs. 200 Nm).
>
> Significant? 10% For the sake of putting in an antique that guzzles
> and doesn't want to rev? It's a TRANSPORTER engine and is designed
> to lug heavy loads from low speeds. Hence the numerically-high
> torque.

14% is very significant. 228 Nm is heaps and is more than many V6 engines
manage. It would certainly put it ahead of Honda & Toyota, who manage only
220 or 225 Nm from their 2.4Ls.

> 2.5 litres should give more than 200kW and 300Nm using 21st-century
> engine technology based on the availability of clean fuels.
>
>>Also, I don't know what you're talking about with the Transporter
>>T5. I see a 2.5L diesel engine offered in that model, but not a
>>2.5L petrol.
>
> I wrote T4 ... e.g. engine code AAB multipoint EFI.

Ok fair enough. I see it managed 85 kW/200 Nm on that model. Hardly the
'same' engine.

>>>Further; the 2.5-litre donk is "straight out of" the T4 transporter
>
> http://bernd.felsche.org/tests/Caravelle/Caravelle.html
>
>>If VW want to pose a serious threat to the Japanese makes in this
>>country they need to offer more powerful engines. The new Jetta &
>>Passat are not selling as well as expected, and considering they
>>both come with 2.0L engines standard, its not surprising. The 2.5L
>>I-5 would be a perfect engine for the Jetta, Golf, Passat, and
>>Beetle and I am very surprised we don't see it in any models here..
>
> Why don't you stop dreaming and look up the facts?
>
> Better performance (50% more torque) and much lower fuel consumption
> are available from a 2.0 TDI. Gee... I wonder why they sell so well?

Well I'm talking about petrol engines here, not deisel. Deisels are noisy,
dirty, and expensive.

[Ext User(John Henderson)]

Bernd Felsche wrote:

> I wrote T4 ... e.g. engine code AAB multipoint EFI.

A minor point, but the AAB code engine is a naturally-aspirated
2.4 litre 5 cyl Diesel putting out all of 57 KW. I've got one
in my Transporter.

Not the most powerful engine in the world but economical for
such a large vehicle. My average fuel consumption since
purchase 225,000 km ago is 8.26 litres / 100 km.

John

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> writes:
>Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> I wrote T4 ... e.g. engine code AAB multipoint EFI.

>A minor point, but the AAB code engine is a naturally-aspirated

Sorry... I can't read straight. I'll find the table again and get
the ~100kW petrol engine's code for the Transporter. Sold in Europe
"recently", post-2000. Could be one of AVT, AUF, AHY, APL, AJT, ...

ISTR a 2.5l engine used in the previous US "GTI". That was
modified from T4 roots by changing manifolds, pistons and
injectors... maybe valves.

It's claimed that the 5-cylinder in the "Rabbit" and US Jetta is
"all new" being half of a Gallardo V10; "de-tuned". If it's all new,
and from the Gallardo, then it should be able to do much, much
better and also have the alloy block of the Gallardo.

But it's cast iron in the Rabbit/Jetta. Just like in a T4.

For fun, Wikipedia says "The Gallardo uses a V10 engine based on
Audi's old straight-5 design."

In 1981, Audi sold the 5+5 with a 2.1-litre 5-cylinder engine (WE,
iirc) producing 81kW. Only a 10-valve engine and simple K-Jet
injection. I sure as hell hope that the fat 2.5-litre grandchild
with 20 valves can do a lot more than 110kW; even without a blower.
Its 20V mum produced about 100kW from 2.3 litres in 1990.

There was a 2.2l 5-cyl/10-valve (code KV) in the Passat/Santana
(32B) with 100kW in the mid 1980's.

Audi "abandoned" the inline-5 engine and so did VW in its normal
passenger car range, instead trying to make the VR5 work. The I5
remained consistently in the T4 Transporter range for a decade (and
the LT, FWIW), as both petrol and diesel.

>2.4 litre 5 cyl Diesel putting out all of 57 KW. I've got one
>in my Transporter.

>Not the most powerful engine in the world but economical for
>such a large vehicle. My average fuel consumption since
>purchase 225,000 km ago is 8.26 litres / 100 km.

Somewhere in my stack of Gute Fahrt, there's a road test of a T4
Caravelle with 125kW TDI and 4-motion. Sinfully expensive but
quicker than the VR6 version with masses of torque; while a lot less
thirsty.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

[Ext User(Ben Thomas)]

Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I should also add that the 2.5L I-5 offers the same power (110 kW) but
>> *significantly* more torque than the 2.0L FSI (228 Nm vs. 200 Nm).
>
> Significant? 10% For the sake of putting in an antique that guzzles
> and doesn't want to rev? It's a TRANSPORTER engine and is designed
> to lug heavy loads from low speeds. Hence the numerically-high
> torque.
>
> 2.5 litres should give more than 200kW and 300Nm using 21st-century
> engine technology based on the availability of clean fuels.

No way Bernd! If a 2.0l FSI is capable of 110kW with "21st century
engine technology" then how could an engine with only 25% more capacity
be capable of 90% more power?

Ben

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:24:25 +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> Significant? 10% For the sake of putting in an antique that guzzles
> and doesn't want to rev? It's a TRANSPORTER engine and is designed
> to lug heavy loads from low speeds. Hence the numerically-high
> torque.

I might add, a problem engine for rev-heads, especially with shite
fuel that doesn't want you to slam the throttle open at low RPM -
hell, it doesn't want you doing that ant *any* RPM:-)

--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:36:46 +1000, John Henderson wrote:

> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>
>> I wrote T4 ... e.g. engine code AAB multipoint EFI.
>
> A minor point, but the AAB code engine is a naturally-aspirated
> 2.4 litre 5 cyl Diesel putting out all of 57 KW. I've got one
> in my Transporter.
>
> Not the most powerful engine in the world but economical for
> such a large vehicle. My average fuel consumption since
> purchase 225,000 km ago is 8.26 litres / 100 km.
>
> John

Hmmm - methinks it's time to go out and buy a Caddie.
Pity every other T4 owner has the same bright idea at the moment:-(
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur