Jazz and VW's. Jazz you will remember the mint condition 2005 mk 5 golf i had bloody nice car drove well and in very origina

Page 2 / 9
thejazzpianoma, Feb 14, 4:50pm
Pretty much you can make a car like Toyota do with the bare minimum of components and ancient technology. This might give you a tiny edge on reliability.

However in the case of Corolla vs Golf the Corolla uses 25% more fuel. So every owner of a Corolla is GUARANTEED to have to pay extra for every km they do. (Roughly $500 a year for the average kiwi)

The owner of the Golf might possibly have a fault at some point with one of the "extra" components but its highly unlikely that the cost associated will ever cover the difference in fuel economy.

Basically. cars like the Corolla are for people incapable of basic math who can't think for themselves.
berg, Feb 14, 5:08pm
Hmm, the Corolla uses 25% more fuel than the Golf.
Personally I would think the fuel economy would very much depend on the driver as I have seen folks with V8s get good fuel mileage while folks in 1300s could use a handy fuel tanker.
Working for Mercedes put me off ever owning another Euro car. How to overcomplicate something so simple.
Oh and by the way Jaz, correct me if I'm wrong (after seeing you bag Suzuki's Swift) but didn't VW buy into Suzuki especially to obtain a better grounding in small car reliability!
trdbzr, Feb 14, 5:19pm
The new Golf's fuel use ranges from 6L-8.4L whereas the new Corolla uses 7.5L, more drivel from the one eyed village idiot. It also depends on the driver and the type of fuel used. Jazz you cherry pick far too much, and when it comes back to bite you in the arse, you come up with every excuse under the sun.
berg, Feb 14, 5:27pm
berg, Feb 14, 5:27pm
http://www.economist.com/node/21532502
Love the bit where Suzuki engineers have yet to see any VW technolgy worth adopting
carstauranga001, Feb 14, 5:49pm
I didn't think wiper motors and central door locking actuators were "extra" components. Come on Jazz, your clutching at straws now. BTW the wiper motor is buggered (not switch) as dosn't run on the bench either.
thejazzpianoma, Feb 14, 7:04pm
Right. so just as likely to have happened on a Toyota then.
BTW, try fixing a Toyota Harrier central locking unit (I have). Not only do Toyota charge you $50 for a $2 model shop motor with no suitable attachment on the end. They then expect you to cut open the non-servicible unit with a dremal and glue it all back together. unless you want to pay hundreds for a replacement unit.
berg, Feb 14, 7:38pm
Fair comparison, yea right jaz
The Toyota is 1800cc and 100kw where the V Trouble you is 1400cc and 90kw.
Another bonus is a Toyota dealership in just about every town in NZ. Try getting you VW serviced on the Kapiti coast.
taurus61, Feb 14, 7:48pm
I would think 90Kw v's 100Kw is a close comparison. It just looks like the Toyota is not very efficent, maybe older technology!
johnf_456, Feb 14, 7:55pm
Same old same old
foxdonut, Feb 14, 8:01pm
Why can't you people ever compare brand new 0 kay cars!

A car over 5 years old is scrap metal and recyclable plastic.
ema1, Feb 14, 8:08pm
Heck the wipers on the 1983 Toyota Grande I had about 15 years ago parked out of sight behind the rear lip of it's hood ( it's not unique to Euro's Jazz. That's nearly 30 years ago too! )and it was loaded with all the electrics and gizzmo's as standard fitment, also it had absolutely nothing go fut on it in all the time I had it and I covered about 250,000km while I had it on top of the already clocked 180,000km at time of purchase.
I have had heaps of the Toyota product and barring the odd gremlin they have been remarkably trouble free.
I also have a 1965 Mercedes Benz 220SEb and the latest offerings from Europe simply don't come within a bulls roar quality wise.
It's a pity the quality, care to detail and pride the manufacturers had when those old girls were built doesn't now extend to their modern product.
trdbzr, Feb 14, 8:16pm
yeah a 1.4L vs a 1.8L is a fair comparison . why don't you go and grab a few more straws and conjure up some more drivel and have another go!
taurus61, Feb 14, 8:22pm
But look at the power output, 90Kw Vs 100Kw The toyota looks like old tired technology having to use a 1.8 to get better power than a 1.4
trdbzr, Feb 14, 8:24pm
Please do list each and every one of them
thejazzpianoma, Feb 14, 8:30pm
LOL, I was waiting for that.
The Golf is actually the quicker car because the Toyota loses more than its extra 10kw from its very old technology.
* It has 3 less gears for a start
* It has a torque converter that will lose something like 30% of its power/economy whenever its unlocked
* Then there are the many many little things that add up, like the old fashioned power steering pump that saps power. Minor aerodynamic issues. and so on.

Actually, I service VW Golf's here at home, with some basic tools and that includes the major timing belt and transmission service. If I can do these things at home why can't any garage on the Kapiti Coast do that!

Oh wait. they can!
thejazzpianoma, Feb 14, 8:32pm
You are 100% correct. And you are only looking at the engine, add in the inneficient drive train and the Toyota is the slower car.
thejazzpianoma, Feb 14, 8:33pm
Why don't you actually use your brain before you make yourself look any more stupid. The Toyota is the slower car.
trdbzr, Feb 14, 8:35pm
A 1.4L middle of the range Polo using 7 gears makes 63kw and a fuel economy of 5.8L and a middle of the range 1.3L Yaris using only 4 gears makes 63kw and a fuel economy of 6.3L, why don't you do some more cherry picking jazz! alternatively you can always have another b!tch fit meltdown.
carstauranga001, Feb 14, 8:46pm
thejazzpianoma wrote:

.If you say the same BS enough times you start to believe it yourself.

You know it!

Nobody here promotes one brand more than you jazz, bar none!
thejazzpianoma, Feb 14, 8:47pm
1. The 1.4 Polo is bottom and top of the range. The 1.2 is the middle of the range car. (not that it really matters other than showing you are wrong again)
2. If you were capable of basic math you would realise that 6.3 is more than 5.8.
3. What happened to talking about Golf vs Corolla. you accuse me of cherry picking when you are doing exactly that.
thejazzpianoma, Feb 14, 8:50pm
That would be because the Golf and Passat are the best cars in their class. Something has to be the best and it only makes sense to point it out.

When someone else makes the best I will promote them.

Before the MK5 Golf came along I pushed mostly Fiats because they were the best value etc. When it came out I actually pushed the E100 Kiwi New corolla for a time because it was the best.
trdbzr, Feb 14, 8:57pm
A 1.4L Polo is not top of the range, the one I had picked to compare with the Yaris was priced very similar, $25290 vs $25750. If you were capable of using your brain for logical thinking rather than drivel and BS excuses, you would know that a 0.5L difference in fuel economy is going to translate to no real world difference due to driving style, petrol octane, load carried etc. Heck if you choose a manual Yaris then the fuel economy goes down 5.7L. Im not cherry picking as constantly as you do Jazz, im pointing out apples with apples. I dont run away from threads and stop posting in them and just wait for them to die down if I get shown to be full of BS unlike you.
richardmayes, Feb 14, 9:03pm
Well I'll have you know my 41 year old Triumph is "top of the range"

She drinks far more petrol than any grey plastic 4 cylinder POS.

And makes no more top-end power than a 1.8 Corolla despite having 40% more engine.

But I LUFFS her anyway.

She makes a GLORIOUS noise.

And she blasts up the Bombay Hill at 100km/h pulling 2500rpm in overdrive top gear, no problems at all. let's see any Corolla, Golf, Polo, or other sensible 4-cylinder commuter appliance do that eh! EH! EH!

And the original 1971 Lucas windscreen wiper motor is still trucking along just fine.

What a pointless, silly argument this whole thread is.
taurus61, Feb 14, 9:04pm
The thread is not about each and everyone of them. The comparison was the 1.8 Corolla Vs a 1.4 Golf. The 1.8 in the 1.8 Corolla appears to be older technology as it makes roughly 10% more Kw than a 1.4. Is that hard to understand!