legacycentral bbs

How's about reading the whole thread (my post specifically) first??

I was talking specifically about my mother's beetle. If you had not been so quick to get upset about people stating their opinions on primarily the NEWER volkswagens, then perhaps you would have read the posts talking about how cool the rabbits are, among other vw's.

you cannot take one person's post (clearly a joke) and take it literally. we all enjoy poking fun at cars, and new vw's are an easy target. that is all.


relax.

You guys do realize the original beetle wasnt even a VW design. Everyone gives VW the credit for such a great car yet they stole it and wher supposed to pay tons of money for doing it! Look up the Tatra and how even way back when they where to pay millions for patent violation. Then the fuck hitler invaded czekoslovakia (spelling?) and took over the Tatra factory and stopped any sort of payout and stopped production of the TATRA. Now the entire world is stupid to the fact that VW never really designed the car.

It would be like someone in the future looking at a SAAB 9-2 and commenting how sgreat SAAB design its engine and drivetrain

Look familiar

Found this page so all of you could read the condensed version of the story http://www.tatra.demon.nl/cars-T97.htm
VW=The Suck

Nearly bought a round-light Scirocco ( I think an '80), had a friend with an '86, and driven several '80's Golfs and Jettas. Never driven a Rabbit and rot has killed any around here long ago. The problem even with engine swapping is I like cars that can take a beating for years without having to constantly be worked on and having major parts replaced - you're still using VW's junk parts. I also drove an Audi A4 quattro with the 1.8t and found it to be utterly gutless and characterless. I much preferred the rattling Mustang Cobra I drove that same day (even though I was disappointed with it's acceleration that car had essential character). I've smoked several late '80's-early '90's Golf GTIs and a Scirocco on a curvy road with my '84 wagon and I could write a book about the abuse that car shrugged off on top of it all...

Steve

HAHAHAHA. . . . omg. Yeah, the intent of Laurel's post was to say that her mother's Beetle sucks more than a $10 hooker. . .

Hell, most older cars were built better than the newer ones. . . they were simpler, and that's the beauty of them.

I'd sooner take back my 71 Ranchero with a 302 over ANY newer Mustang. I inherited the car when it was 20 years old, and it still had fewer problems per year than any new Ford I can think of. Almost no aftermarket for car chassis that old. . . but who cares? 302ci displacement means you can tune with some factory replacement parts, and TONS of aftermarket engine components and you've got over 300HP before you can sneeze!

The Tatra was also highly popular with Nazi SS in Czechoslovakia, but they kept spinning off the road and killing themselves so Hitler made them stop driving them. Ironically, the first Beetles (the car of Hippie peace) were delivered to high ranking SS. I'm not sure if the Tatra was a coincidental design to Ferdinand Porsche's KdF wagon or if he copied it outright, but I know he was impressed by it. Early designs for the Beetle go back as Porshce had been looking to design a cheap car a la Model T for some time. Then Hitler came along with the idea of a car for the populace to show off Germany's superiority to the world and also because he understood that happy citizens (because luxury goods are what brings happiness) don't revolt and are obedient so he financed Porsche's and his mutual dream. It's pretty well understood though that Porsche did not like Hitler, although his association probably cost him a longer life.

Steve

Thought some of you haters might like this

While I was down in Silver Springs Maryland this past week they got about 5" of snow and a 1/4" of ice. I was parked in front of my friends house on the road and his wifes 96 Jetta was too. After they plowed there was a pretty good snow bank and his wife kept getting stuck. To make more room I went and pulled my 92 SS straight out with zero wheel spin. You should have seen the look on her face! She couldn't believe it. Her Jetta was so worthless in the snow that I offered to take her on her errands. She could not believe how well my car did in the snow and by the time we got back she was telling my friend she wanted an awd car. The beauty of all wheel drive baby!

I'm amazed she could even get the car started. I can't tell you how many VWs (and it seemed to almost all be VWs) I saw broken down as well as stuck in our recent cold spells and snow up here.

Steve

I love VW's

I also like my soobie, but I think german cars handle the best.

comparing a jetta, to and AWD car, on snow, is apples and oranges
and ofcorse a bug is really slow, its just a big lawnmower, but its also been in production for 50 years. Besides, Ive driven a few Subarus that couldnt accellerate their way out of a wet paper bag.
The rabbit is still in production too, so VW's deffinately done something right.

and as far as reliability goes, ya the new ones suck, but Ferraris are peices of crap too, talk about a motor that cant hold its fluids, and funky wiring. Ive owned many Vw's, mostly A1's and A2's, and Im not aware of these reliability, and interchangability issues. The only reliability issues Ive had, happend because I drove the piss out of em, everytime I got behind the wheel.

Exceptions to prove the rule.

I always found Jettas and Golfs to handle like school buses, but people keep telling me they handle well...

Steve

can we say torsion beam rear axle? Schoolbusses have them too.

As for German handling, the nimble Mercedes is a new thing, the old ones are too big, heavy, and soft. VW has this funny obsession with torsion beam rears, heavy noses, and FWD. And much as i love bmws, they dont all handle well either. A lot of the older ones have semitrailing arms, which are great until the thing is released quickly from load and starts bouncing sideways like crazy.

Their reputation is 1 part handling, 1 part bmw, and 1 part marketing.

My '84 GLs had torsion bars, but still destroyed VWs much newer than themselves. And not to turn into a BMW bash, but I've surprised many of them as well. Rather unimpressive, although it could just be the punk idiot drivers to play devil's advocate with myself.

Steve

MrBean85 wrote:One of the local Subaru dealerships is also a VW dealership. At any given time that you go into the shop, 80% of the cars on the lifts are a VW. My cousin who is the service manager says that when a VW comes into the shop especially the new Bettle none of the tecnicians want to work on them.

That's why I chose to become a Volkswagen technician. Volkswagens are good for me, bad for everyone else! I'd never own one.

Volkswagon tech eh? Why the hell do you have to compress and turn the calipers to get them to go in? That has to be the most retarded setup Ive seen, requiring an 85$ dealer tool or ingenious mechanic.

rallitektech wrote:ofcorse a bug is really slow, its just a big lawnmower

Stock for stock, a turbo beetle will out run a turbo legacy, and hang with more than its fair share of similarly powered coupe's.

The Turbo S is even faster.

The W8 passat blows the doors off of most sports sedans in the price range. The VR6 GTI will again school up some people. The R32, well, we will leave the R32 out of this.

But I do digress, the torsion beam rear end, and somewhat unimpressive road feel makes me dislike almost every non-AWD VW. The only VW I genuinely was impressed with, was the W8 Passat with the 6MT. The thing felt GREAT, and was a rocket to boot. Plus, it sounds bitchin, and that's cool.

BMW is a LOT of hype. They are really nice, I'll give them that. But unless you see an M on the rear end, they aren't anything to gawk at. At least they handle better than Buttstangs though.

I find nearly everything German to be disgustingly overpriced and overrated. The only German car I'd ever actually own would be a fake 2.7 Carrera RS with a 3.0 so its more reliable and cheaper. Even the original 300SLs were nice (I used to play in a '57 roadster as a kid), but I still think there are elements of overstyling - give me a contemporary Jag (like a Lynx XKSS), Aston Martin, Maserati, or Ferrari instead. What's advanced today is outdated tomorrow, so give me character and reliability instead (Subaru) - those traits are timeless.

And I wouldn't worry about any Beetle over 100 with those inexcuseable aerodynamics from a company in the land of the autobahn.

Steve

BAC5.2 wrote: The VR6 GTI will again school up some people. The R32, well, we will leave the R32 out of this.

The VR6 GTI is only 200 chp so they aren't that fast.

The R32 has 241 chp and IIRC 236 ft. lbs. of torque coupled with the 4-motion AWD system and a 6MT. It weighs 3200 lbs and cost around $28-31k.

Personally I'd probably pick up a STI first because 1. It's a Subaru 2. dollar for dollar it's much more car and 3. It will probably be much more reliable (not to mention faster).

I do like the R32 though, I'm just not sure I would want to spend the money for one.

I really don't like VW's but I do kinda have a thing for Porsches. I love to see a very nice 944 Turbo, they're bad-ass cars, but VERY expensive in every way. Then there's a 996 Turbo... As Automobile Magazine said in their annual All-Stars article: You can buy a more expensive supercar, but you can't buy a better one!

Bimmers look nice, I think E30 M3's are beautiful and fast, but again, too expensive.

Steve is ultimately correct though. I'd rather have character and reliability, which Subarus are awash in. Any car can go fast, but it takes a special car to make you enjoy doing it...

BAC5.2 wrote:The VR6 GTI will again school up some people.

Bah... my B16A powered '94 Civic walked away from one of those new $20,000+ VR6 GTI Golfs from 50mph-100mph on the highway over and over and over. It's hard to comprehend how slow they are when taking into account how much they cost.

ciper wrote:Volkswagon tech eh? Why the hell do you have to compress and turn the calipers to get them to go in? That has to be the most retarded setup Ive seen, requiring an 85$ dealer tool or ingenious mechanic.

Yeah, you have to have the special tool to do it. Generic tools will not work. All dealerships automatically get all the special tools to do things like that. (It actually costs them over $100,000) Volkswagen purposely designs things like that so that normal people can't fix them.

The electronics/electrical systems are ten times worse.

legacy92ej22t wrote: The R32 has 241 chp and IIRC 236 ft. lbs. of torque coupled with the 4-motion AWD system and a 6MT. It weighs 3200 lbs and cost around $28-31k.

From what I have heard so far, they used the crappy Haldex AWD system that is NOT quattro/4Motion. The TT uses the Haldex system... I'm not sure of how it specifically works, but from what I've heard it's like full-time front wheel drive with conditional rear assist (think Honda's RealTime 4WD).

Waste of money... But from what I've heard, all the R32's that will be coming to America are already reserved/paid for.

Silly Volkswagen fanatics.

zelifcam wrote:

BAC5.2 wrote:The VR6 GTI will again school up some people.

Bah... my B16A powered '94 Civic walked away from one of those new $20,000+ VR6 GTI Golfs from 50mph-100mph on the highway over and over and over. It's hard to comprehend how slow they are when taking into account how much they cost.

Don't play the cost game. It's makes for SUCH a weak argument. Like quoting the bible in politics.

Lots of cars are slow, but cost lots of money. Bently, Rolls Royce, Maybach. For the money, they SHOULD be running with supercars. Yet they don't.

An STI and M5 are close in performance. The M5 costs quite a bit more.
Id still take the M5 if I had the choice, performance data alone does not make the vehicle.

Id never drive a torqueless Honda, dont care what peak number you qoute me. It makes me sick when I hear honda fans gush over how the engine swap they had done gave them 140 foot pounds of torque

ciper wrote:An STI and M5 are close in performance. The M5 costs quite a bit more.
Id still take the M5 if I had the choice, performance data alone does not make the vehicle.

Id never drive a torqueless Honda, dont care what peak number you qoute me. It makes me sick when I hear honda fans gush over how the engine swap they had done gave them 140 foot pounds of torque

Exactly.

BAC5.2 wrote:Don't play the cost game. It's makes for SUCH a weak argument. Like quoting the bible in politics.

Lots of cars are slow, but cost lots of money. Bently, Rolls Royce, Maybach. For the money, they SHOULD be running with supercars. Yet they don't.

I will stop playing the cost game just as soon as I win the lottery. Until then, things cost actual money, so I am going to have to take that into account. Live with it.

By the way, since money is no argument, the Maybach goes 0-60 in 5.1 seconds (keep in mind that it weighs over 7,000 pounds), and there are some fast Rolls Royces also...

Also, I didn't know that money=speed. I thought the reclining leather seats, cordless phones, and wine chiller in the Maybach was free, and all the money goes to making the car fast. What other point would there be to a car if it weren't as fast as possible?