Toyota vs Mazda vs VW Help Please

Focus is European design sold by ford world wide, even states. A world car made in few places but not Aus though there was talk of it.
You might be thinking of the small holden Cruze which isn't so good, a cut price General Motors design designed to be made cheaper than their usual hatch back Opel design. That had some Aus influence but was Daewoo design and is partly made in Aus in some manner I think. Doesn't compare well with focus.

Just a quick clarification the Ford Focus is not Australian

Cheers

Are most of the Aus and NZ cars supplied from the factory in Thailand since mid 2012 ?

Yes I think focus and their ute is, not read of mondeo in Thailand. Believe build quality same as other plants.
I visited triumph bike plant in UK and they have factory units that are basically identical, same equipment etc, so they can produce parts or whole bikes either UK or Thailand and even if finished in one place may have parts from another. Suppose if they own it and have strict practices and quality systems it won't matter where it is made.

No, they're a good motor. Have owned 3, 316i (E36), 320i (E36) and 330i (E46). The 330i was bliss, but the 1.6 and 2.0l were both good cars. The 2.0l I sold with well over 200k on the clock, and the 330i with 160k. They were religiously serviced as I do with all my cars, and anything that needed replacing was replaced. I had no issues with gearbox or motor on any. The worst break I had was a window regulator that broke (with the window down!) as I was heading into the city for an urgent meeting. Other than that they were fantastic open road cars, comfortable and all maintained a really good resale value when I finally sold.
BTW, my Golf has now done 165,500km and I'm still smiling. It's the 2.0l turbo model with 6spd DSG. Cheers.

OP I think you should re read your first post and go with your first initial thought TOYOTA. (o:

As Tamarillo suggests, but seriously consider the 6-cylinder motors. As a comparison, my Golf and the 330i were on a par for fuel consumption if that concerns you. (Edit) Not meaning at all that the Golf is heavy on fuel, but just to prove how economical the Beemers is. Good luck.

Worth a look to see if you can find a lowish km Suzuki Kizashi. Relatively unknown but having brought one I'm smitten. Awesome bloody car. I've got a six speed manual one and get 7.4ltrs per 100km at this stage and unfortunately that's mostly short running at the moment.
Just another idea
https://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/full/366369685.jpg

I drove a Toyota Corolla ( = Auris) 1800cc 6-speed manual for several years from brand new as a company car.

Not a bad car, but probably not very good for your needs, as follows:

1/
Rear seat legroom is very poor and certainly not suitable for multiple adults for anything other than very short trips.

2/
In manual gearbox form, 5th and 6th gears are just about the same, and you are doing just about 3,000rpm at a true 100km/h (108km/h indicated on speedo). The engine feels like it could handle (and SHOULD have) a nice tall top gear for motorway cruising at about 2500RPM.

3/
Doesn't go around corners as well as you'd expect from a small hatchback. The tall, upright, top-heavy looks seem to translate directly into how it drives. There is ample grip for normal driving, but you can feel the front end dig in when cornering fast, and it doesn't really have what you would call "handling".

Generally it felt like a well-made, good quality thing apart from warping a front brake disk at fairly low kms. And it started drinking engine oil at about 100,000km. Plenty of power as long as you use the gears.

(We just traded it in for a new 2014 Corolla, and everything about that car seems cheaper and made down to a lower price than the Auris. But at least the 2014 has gear ratios that make sense, and it handles like a small, lightweight, low-slung car that WANTS to go around corners!)

Yes, the 1400 will last perfectly fine doing open road running. The "extra stress" argument is totally not applicable, they are a very long life engine and designed as VW's replacement for their 2.0 motor. They are very relaxed and low revving on the open road. Like pretty much all cars they will last longer/better with open road running.

Which brings up the next point. The 2.0 FSI is the old motor, so not applicable to your budget unless you wanted the high performance GTI version which retains the 2.0 in turbo charged form.

In regards to Kaz's suggestion that you would have less stress on the engine, better over taking or similar economy. Absolutely not. The Blade and Axella 2.3 are still going to be using a good 50% more fuel on the open road. The Golf has loads of power for overtaking (especially the high output version) it's going to be a bit quicker than the Mazda and slightly slower than the Blade so right in the mix there. Compared to the Auris and smaller engined Axella you were asking about originally, the Golf 1.4 is going to blow them both out of the water in terms of power AND economy.

What you are doing here is comparing a modern efficient vehicle with an old fashioned inefficient design, nothing more nothing less. The CC rating means nothing, other than the VW will use significantly less fuel.

The VW is NOT some little city car, it's the vehicle they use in Germany for the 200km/h plus part of student driver training (they test high speed driving on the autobahn). They are designed to do 200km/h + all day every day.

With regard to getting confused about models. Yes, the 7 speed DSG model is the one I would recommend for you. It's lower maintenance and even more efficient than some of the other options.

What I would suggest is a MK6 car (look for the more sleek headlights to tell that it is a MK6, they start around 2009/2010). The MK6 1.4's are generally going to be the "turbo only" version that you are looking for.

Lastly, just to recap, the CC rating means nothing. The Golf is actually the nicer driving, better equipped, more comfortable car. The smaller CC rating simply means it's more efficient, it's what modern car designers do. VW is just about 10 years ahead of the game because of the last 20 years they invested a LOT more than many other car companies did in research and development.

Go and drive some and compare. If you really need more power than the 1.4 (which means you will also need more power than the 2.3 Axella) then there are higher power options. Realistically though, I don't see it, the Golf has loads of power for your purpose and is the far more pleasant drive in the really steep hilly stuff etc as having the extra gears and the far more efficient transmission it doesn't need to rev and roar to get the job done. Quite the opposite of what you might expect of a small engine vs large engine.

There are also some excellent Diesel Golf's, but the Petrol 1.4 is so incredibly efficient, it's still probably the best choice for your situation. If you were towing or we had a different taxation setup on diesels then the diesel would likely be the better option. If you see one and you really like it though, certainly consider it, it's not going to be a worse choice, it's just you are unlikely to save any extra over the petrol in terms of running costs.

Best of luck with it all, I hope that explains everything for you.

Jazz, re the twin turbo 1.4 golf GT you mention NOT so good idea for OP at least. I love the idea of these but it does seem scary have two turbos, are they problematic? Is it better to lump up for the Gti version if, like me, performance is important?

And, there are jap market variants with GTi engines? are they Really? I accept just because VW say never made GTi variants it is possible they did for Japan, are they proper Gti spec stuff? Sounds good if they are, wagon good, GTi good.

If you buy a good one (Ideally with service history) and be really particular about running the correct fuel, reliability is generally fine.

There are lot's of little reasons I am suggesting the single turbo for the OP as opposed to just a big reliability fear. Those reasons are:

1. The 7 speed transmission does not require regular servicing unlike the 6 speed.

2. You get a little more economy with the single turbo 1.4

3. The engine choice is more applicable to their budget/age range.

4. The 1.4 single turbo (even the low output version) is going to be more than quick enough for their purpose given what else they are looking at. It will blow the doors of the 1.8 Toyota they are considering for example.

Everyone has different needs though. For your purposes, the twin charger may be fine. It certainly gives you a lot of power and economy at a fairly low price point. It will give you almost GTI performance with better economy (especially around town). However, bare in mind that the GTI is also very economical. Given the choice I would probably still go GTI myself, but again everyone's needs are different. Bare in mind too that a GTI can also be had for a very low price point with a sharp eye, so shouldn't necessarily be a case of stumping up more cash. Remember to watch the A3 Turbo's as well, they are the same car wearing a different party dress and can often be better value (which is funny given they can be the dearer car new!).

Just to clarify something to be fair to Kaz because I don't think I explained what I was saying very well.

He may have a point in terms of open road economy of the larger engined Toyota/Mazda's vs the smaller engined Toyota'Mazda's.

What I am saying above though is that those options vs the VW are still going to be using a good 50% more fuel on the open road and even more around town.

You sort of have this great divide in terms of fuel economy between those old fashioned and very inefficient engine/transmission designs and what VW are using. Even the little 1.8 Toyota's are not going to come remotely close to the VW for economy despite having no where near the power of the Golf.

So, yes, sorry Kaz, didn't mean to bag you out of context there, it wasn't supposed to sound like it did when I read my post back to myself.

Thanks, what adid between the FSI turbo and the TSI which also claims to be a two litre turbo. Is later new engine?
Agreed that A3 might work best, like the Sportback, and I guess sound deadening is increased on audi, and that's important to me.
Do you import these yourself?
Future thinking here, depending on what next job is might want to upgrade.

Only thing you are not considering Jazz, is whether the OP has access to 98 octane fuel or not? Much of the country still does not have it, particularly rural areas.
I know it is about the only reason I don't have a Golf GTI.

There are heaps off GTi's, A3 with same motor, and other performance cars around here and non get 98 or care. My understanding from mechanic is that all but very very fussiest ones adapt to the 95 fine, and indeed sometimes I had 91 in my bmw and it didn't pink or mind though I THINK lost a bit of performance which I was told was the car adjusting its injection etc to suit.

Get yourself a GTi and don't worry I say. Be interesting to hear jazz comment.

Christchurch has about 9 stations with BP Ultimate. While not ideal the 1.4 single turbo will be OK on regular high octane. It's even supposedly biofuel compatible but I still wouldn't run E10 in one, just like I wouldn't in any car.

The vast majority of NZ's population has pretty good access to 98. You can run a GTI on 95 too if that's all you have, plenty of people do. It's just that at some point in it's lifetime it may need to have the intake cleaned out. This is not end of the world, it's just you would be pretty silly to not run 98 if it's available, especially given the economy advantage.

Also, in your situation. There are plenty of options to get around the high octane issue. You can fit one of the many bolt on water/meth injection kits that are available aftermarket. You could also re-map the car not to use the egr and put a catch can on the pcv, which again is available as a cheap bolt on kit. There is no need to do without a GTI just because you don't have 98 available.

I have imported them in past but don't really do it nowadays.

Sound deadening is no better in the A3, they are alright though if you have them on appropriate tyres and the correct standard wheels. A bit of dynamat (I just use the cheap imitation builders stuff) under each wheel arch and in the spare wheel well etc will make a considerable difference too. Very easy and cheap to do. It's not so much the fault of the car but our course volcanic chip roads which are fairly unique to us in the civilised world.

Unlike the other engines in the range which were updated to all turbo direct injected designs (as opposed to the earlier non turbo direct injection). The 2.0 was turbo charged and direct injection all along. There are some minor improvements but to my knowledge at least the 2.0 T FSI has stayed fundamentally the same right through. The TFSI is in my opinion mostly a branding thing.

Just be aware the early ones need regular high pressure fuel pump cam follower changes. Cheap and easy to do, just adds 10 minutes to a service every couple of years or so.

The 2.0 T FSI or TFSI is a really really good engine. Exceptionally tunable, efficient, plenty of power, very reliable.

Just be aware with the A3's that the spec varies much more than with the Golf. The GTI tended to be sold in "packages" where as the Audi was more of a pick your options setup. So you actually get quite a number of very "poverty pack" Audi's although there are some well specc'd ones around too. Just a matter of being aware and asking the right questions.

The timing is not the issue, it's not like an old multi point injection car, although as you say the car will quickly adapt it's timing to make the best of the fuel.

There are two key issues at play. One is in early cars especially you lose some of the mega economy they are capable of as that economy is achieved through an ultra ultra lean burn at cruise. We are talking up around 45:1 which is only possible by utilising the fuel stratification mode, where it sets up a rich mix around the spark plug to achieve ignition but a crazy lean mix in the rest of the chamber. This is near enough impossible to do with 91 and barely possible with 95 (so it rarely get's in to the mode). The reasoning being you are trying to achieve ultra precise multiple injection cycles, while under compression without it pre igniting before it's supposed to.

The other issue is, as with all direct injection cars. There is no fuel going through the intake to clean it. With the greenies insisting on cars running egr's (so pumping exhaust back in to the intake) and PCV valves venting crank case gases directly in to the intake, this can mean serious carbon build up. The only effective way of cleaning it is to remove the intake and clean up your intake valves with walnut shell and a media blaster. Not end of the world but it costs a bit so you want to avoid it if you can.

Obviously with the 98 Octane the car was designed for (even if the marketing man's brochure says otherwise) you get an exhaust that is super clean so this greatly reduces carbon buidup. Likewise running the correct VW accredited oil helps a lot, especially if you also change it at 10K as opposed to the standard 15K.

Just as a side note. E10 is also not compatible with early FSI's and I also don't personally like it even in supposedly compatible vehicles. The tolerances on injectors etc are just so fine and the hygroscopic and solvent type nature of E10 is not a good idea in such a system IMO.

Lastly. you need to be especially careful of low octane in the twin charger models. 91 WILL melt pistons in those cars, this is not an if, but a given if it's run regularly in my opinion. They are just not designed for it so you get excess carbon build up to the point that it starts igniting/glowing on top of the pistons and melting them. It's a fairly regular occurrence here in NZ with our strange attitudes towards motor vehicles.

Since this is a massive post anyway I may as well through a bit of extra trivia in for you. The whole move to TFSI and smaller capacity engines is why I was talking about the early cars especially losing some economy on low octane fuel. Somewhat ironically with the greenies getting ever tougher on emissions VW had to put an end to the ultra lean burn technology as it produces too much nitrous oxide (NOx) to meet the newer emissions standards. So later GTI's have this turned off.

The main reason lean burn gives you better economy is because it reduces pumping losses (the key reason why larger CC engines tend to use more fuel). So, VW got around the issue instead by using smaller capacity engines with Turbo or Supercharger + Turbo arrangements. As is pretty much standard practice with efficient cars nowadays from most manufacturers. VW also have a few other tricks up their sleeve like shutting down some cylinders when the power isn't needed in the Mk7 Golfs. Which also demonstrates how unfounded any worries are that the Golf 1.4 might be "working too hard" on the open road.

Thanks jazz, as always the fountain floweth over. Guess we just use 95 as we ain't no option add seems to be okay, get point on not going as low as 91 though.
I've still got a bottle of morays upper cylinder lubricant in the gagage.

You are welcome, that's it in a nutshell, if you had it available you would be an idiot not to use it. But if 95 is all you have then that's fine. Remember too, you could consider a catch can and water injection or an egr remap in your case too. I think I would err more towards the GTi over the twincharger given 95 is all you have available as well, it's much more forgiving.

Oh and don't use the morey's in a Golf that will only add to your carbon issues and may not even be so great for your wide band 02 sensors. I really like some morey's products but it's a case of horses for courses.

Oh and added a bit more trivia at the end of the mammoth post you may have missed reading!