Not sure why you're being a smart ass

And I'd venture a guess limiting the HP to 280 has more to do with it being a a FWD car than it does not being able to generate 300+ HP. Similar to how the FWD TL is at 280.

 

Here's the link

Okk I really think this guy is pulling stuff out of his ass

They were both V6 models and they observed 1mpg better in the passat...

 

Like it matters. Nobody believes whatever he has to say anyways.

Whenever someone brings in side mirror design into an intelligent conversation whatever credibility he has goes straight out of the window. Like I said, nobody is that stupid.... pure trolling at its finest.

In reality, SSFXTSX probably speaks perfect English and actually drives a Toyota. I suspect its just a ploy to make Honda fanboys look bad. Car forum satire?

 

It appears you are correct, and all the trolls here are bent out of shape because the worst Accord mileage was 19mpg vs. 17 for the Passat.

So, in summation, it appears SSFTSX is correct, and has even incited moderators to fling personal insults at other forum members.

 

You are correct Dom. There are a few reasons why VW limits the power on the VR6 here in NA, but its definately not because the engine cant provide better performance. The same engine in Europe produces 300Hp, so its false to assume otherwise.

Here is the link for the test that you where asking for earlier.

http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen...ison-test.html

One could also say its dissapointing for Honda considering their reputation is that of an engine company.

The VR6 was designed in the late 80's (much older than the J-series) and was designed to put 6cyl power into a much smaller body and chassis like the Golf without having to make many changes in order to reduce costs.

The VR6 is known to have an inefficent design due to its tight combustion chamber, port design etc due to its limited space. Whats surprising though is that an engine's basic design thats over a quarter of a century old, has a old inefficient design and thats 100 cc's smaller than the J37, produces only 5 less HP.......................One starts to wonder who is dissapointed with what company more.

 

I realized I didn't post the link...
http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen...ison-test.html

 

I didn't really read thoroughly, yea the worst mpg in the test the accord bested the passat.

Overall though the Passat had it, while having a slightly bigger and more powerful engine...

 

No wonder SSFTSX didn't link the article. The Accord lost in that comparo.

Another point for my hypothesis that SSFTSX is just a troll. Mentioning the Accord's "better" fuel economy in a comparison test in which it lost and omitting the ultimate results of that head-to-head.... and consider that some months ago, the media and even AZ members bashed Volkswagen for moving the Jetta and Passat downmarket. Ouch!


Honda does have another model year to go through before their FMC Accord is released. It remains to be seen if they will stay on their tried and true course of vanilla or stir it up for the next generation.

 

 

i used to own 1981blue - 1983 red passat

 

Not trying to be a smart ass....just trying to say that the VR6 comes with DI and stating an opinion of my own.....


Yup, the European Passat does make 300hp. However, I believe the torque figure is still 258lbft, which is the same as the model here.

I believe the J series was also designed with compactness/lightness in mind (one of the reasons it has SOHC instead of DOHC). It's still one of the lightest/smallest V6's in the world. Without DOHC, it just can't rev as high and thus it cannot produce as much hp. So it's not really surprising to me that the J series doesn't generate very high peak hp. The J37 (since you are talking about it), it makes noticeably more torque than the VR6.

I am not trying to say Honda is the best and Volkwagen is the worst. In fact, I will step away from mentioning anything related to Honda. Using Toyota as an example, its 2GR-FSE is making 306hp and 277lbft of torque with less displacement. The M272 in the C350 also makes 306hp and 272lbft of torque. CTS DI makes 304hp and 273lbft of torque. There are other examples, but from what I can see, in general, an engine with around 3.5L of displacement, along with DOHC and DI, generally make 300+hp and 270lbft+ torque. May be VR6 is just not as efficient, but that can be said with the J series with its SOHC, no DI, etc.

 

I don't think its that the VR6 is not efficient but more that for a 33k car that comes fully equipped with features doesn't deserve the full potential of the engine. Look at all the V6 engines in its class. And.if I recall correctly they all have similar displacement and/or power.

 

That is true.......300hp in the midsize class would be pretty nice wouldn't it.

 

Agreed, only having 9 more hp than the Accord is not impressive at all. Accord is SOHC, doesn't require premium fuel, is 100cc smaller, and the Accord doesn't have direct injection.

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...el_comparison/

Your name doesn't have to be Andretti or Unser for your nuclear family to have a ferocious appetite for speed and power. Nor does it have to be Getty or Vanderbilt to afford a fast 4-door that offers the requisite comforts and convenience of a modern sport/luxury sedan. In fact, for around $30,000, you can get into a powerful, speedy family-hauler that out-accelerates an early '90s 310-horsepower BMW M5 and 315-horse Mercedes-Benz 500E. Coincidentally enough, we have 3 of these bargain rockets right here with us: the 274-horsepower Hyundai Sonata 2.0T, the 268-horse Toyota Camry SE V-6, and the 280-horse Volkswagen Passat VR6. To the dragstrip!

3RD PLACE: HYUNDAI SONATA SE 2.0T

Unfortunately for the Sonata, it was the only 1 that wasn't quicker than the aforementioned M5 and 500E. In fact, at 7.0 seconds to 60 and 15.4 at 91.5 mph to the quarter mile, the 2.0T barely edged the 200-horse Camry Hybrid. When comparing high-performance variants, being last is never a positive, especially when it's last by a lot. And the subpar performance wasn't just in straight-line stats; in all objective handling tests, the Sonata rose to the top in none. Hyundai eschewed a V-6 in favor of a turbo I-4, citing comparable power, less weight, and improved fuel economy. Acceleration was the slowest, and observed fuel economy nearly tied for last. And the 2.0T was indeed the lightest car of the three, but only by 35 pounds compared with the Camry.

In real-world duties, the 2.0-liter turbo felt plenty powerful and torquey. The ride, while not as compliant as the Passat's, was quiet and comfortable, if a bit too busy for our tastes. The 4-wheel disc brakes offered up a firm pedal with ideal travel. And the interior was rated as attractive and high-quality, especially for a car with an as-tested price of only $25,505.

But you get what you pay for. In this case, a performance sedan high on promise but low on fulfillment.

2ND PLACE: TOYOTA CAMRY SE V-6

The last time we compared the Camry SE V-6, back in February 2008, it beat the likes of Chevy Malibu, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima. We called it the "finest all-around mix of power, handling, room, and bells and whistles." In this test, the redesigned 2012 SE V-6 will have to settle for "2nd-finest all-around mix." But given how great the winner is, that title is nothing to be ashamed of.

Against its 3504-pound predecessor, the new SE V-6 preserves the 268-hp 2GR-FE engine and 6-speed automatic; but thanks to a 134-pound weight loss, it is now considerably quicker. Zero to 60 takes a scant 5.8 seconds (yes, unlike the old 6.2-second car, the new Camry is officially a sub-6.0 sprinter) and the quarter mile just 14.2 at a heady 100.6 mph (versus 14.6 at 96.8). That '93 M5 and 500E? They needed 6.2 and 14.6 at 96.7, and 6.3 and 14.7 at 96.9, respectively.

This new SE is the 1st Camry to come with steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters--which provided quick action and pleasing throttle-blip downshifts--as well as standard "twist-spoke" 18-inch alloys. The suspension boasts 15% stiffer springs and shocks. But while the SE gripped for a respectable 0.81 g and lived up to its sporty badge, we do wish those springs and shocks were about 10% softer. As they are, the Camry's ride suffers, relaying just about every bump in the road. And speaking of bumps in the road, there was a big one the Camry just couldn't overcome.

1ST PLACE: VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT SEL VR6

We've established that the Camry SE V-6 was a speed demon, needing only 5.8 seconds to reach 60 mph. Well, the Passat, with its 280-horse narrow-angle V-6 and race-quick twin-clutch automatic, was even more demonic, requiring just 5.7 ticks. Through the quarter mile, the 2 stay tied at 14.2 seconds, but the Passat's 100.9-mph trap speed was a smidge higher.

Bragging rights? Just barely. But when that straight line begins to squiggle, the VW can brag to its VR6 heart's content. In both lateral acceleration (0.83 g) and the figure eight (26.9 seconds), the Passat handily outgunned the other two. Plus, in 60-to-0 braking, the Passat's brawny binders and meaty 235/45R18 Hankooks hooked up to halt the 3504-pound sedan in 119 feet, the shortest of the 3.

Away from the test track, the Passat VR6 didn't lose any luster. Over our 30-mile drive loop, we scored it the highest in ride, road feel, refinement, and roominess. Add that to its being the quickest and most fun to drive, and you have is a sedan unmatched in its class.

We wish the Round 2 contestants the best of luck. They'll need it.

 

Damn, Passat and Camry are pretty fast. OTOH, Sonata is slow as hell. It does have a sticker price that is $4k less than the other two, but still that's pretty disappointing.

 

They are almost as fast as 4G TL 6MT.

 

Early on, I though that VW did a better job w/ the new Passat than they did w/ the new Jetta.

The Passat is going to be a big sales success for VW.

 

I just wish the Passat's styling wasn't so ho-hum.

 

^ It's may be ho-hum, but at least it's a clean ho-hum w/ some aggressiveness to it; not like the Jetta or the new Camry which are just plain ol' ho-hum.

 

Co worker just bought a 12 Camry SE. It's not too bad. Worlds better than the previous gen.

 

Really? I think the new Camry is a lot worse than the last gen

the last gen looked muscular and sporty, this doesn't at all.

 

the new camry's rear end looks

 

Autocar

A facelifted version of the Volkswagen Passat CC will be unveiled at the Los Angeles Auto Show later this month.

Volkswagen wants the revised Passat CC to take a significant step upmarket. The car features new front and rear styling and an extended range of standard equipment.

A choice of three direct-injection petrol engines will be offered, producing 158bhp, 208bhp and 295bhp. The first two will have an option of a dual clutch gearbox and the most powerful variant will have the dual clutch ‘box as standard, and all-wheel drive. All petrol engines have battery regeneration functionality.

Diesel options include 138bhp and 168bhp units, both of which are equipped with stop-start and battery regeneration. The 138bhp variant will return 60.1mpg and 125 g/km when mated to a manual six-speed gearbox, with the DSG-equipped car will offer 53.3mpg.

The Passat CC gets a new three-finned radiator grille, bi-xenon headlight and engine hood designs inspired by VW’s ‘design DNA’ styling. Optional LED daytime running lights are integrated into the headlight housings. The car also has an extra air intake beneath its body-coloured bumper.

The frameless door design of the outgoing Passat CC remains and the car’s side-profile boasts more distinctively sculpted side sills between the wheel housings. The rear bumper and tail lights designs are also new and put more emphasis on horizontal lines.

Standard exterior equipment on the Passat CC includes dual tailpipes, 17-inch alloys, bi-xenon headlights, static cornering lights, LED tail lights and headlight washing system.

On the inside, the car comes with a fatigue detection system, stainless steel door sill plates, front head restraints and chrome surrounds on switches and air vents. Other kit offered as standard includes ESP electronic stabilization, sport chassis and hill start assist. Most variants also feature dynamic chassis control and a XDS transverse differential lock.

Key technical features on the options list include a lane assist system, fatigue detection, a dynamic light assist (which automatically selects dipped or main bean headlamps according to driving speed but has a filter so oncoming cars aren’t dazzled), park assist and a boot that can be operated via a motion sensor.

Customers can also spec the Passat CC with a range of comfort-oriented options include a transparent panoramic sunroof, a range of alloy wheel sizes, hands-free kit, adaptive cruise control and active climate seats.

The car will go on sale in Germany in January 2012, with other European markets following a few months later. UK pricing hasn’t been announced, but the current range starts at £23,630.

 

 

I dunno about anyone else but I really like VW's current styling direction. Even the plain jane Jetta. This new CC looks understated, but still pops out at you. I like how they use a manual transmission car for the interior shot too....


They're moving the Jetta downmarket and the CC upmarket.... interesting. Interesting. Is the CC going to be considered a mild hybrid now that it has stop-start and regenerative braking?

 

^ Start-stop has been around a while and no one considered it any kind of hybrid. You need to have an electric motor somewhere in the mix for it to be a hybrid. The more difficult issue is the definition of an EV, where the Volt has muddied the water.

 

I meant the combined inclusion of start-stop and the regenerative braking on all the gasoline powerplants. Merely speculating, but that's what it sounds like to me.

Unless there's a KERS-like system on it that I'm not aware of.... doubtful. Or maybe they wanted to add it in there so as to maintain the 12V battery's charge at an optimum level or something.

Does the regenerative braking somehow aid in the start-stop process? Actually, now that I think of it...

 

IMO, this one looks far better than the previous gen...Still boring as fawk..but better.

Now that CC...is not boring. Love it.

 

Holy smoke, I realize this is a Passat thread, but damn, the Sonata did poorly yet again.

3RD PLACE: HYUNDAI SONATA SE 2.0T

Unfortunately for the Sonata, it was the only 1 that wasn't quicker than the aforementioned M5 and 500E. In fact, at 7.0 seconds to 60 and 15.4 at 91.5 mph to the quarter mile, the 2.0T barely edged the 200-horse Camry Hybrid. When comparing high-performance variants, being last is never a positive, especially when it's last by a lot. And the subpar performance wasn't just in straight-line stats; in all objective handling tests, the Sonata rose to the top in none. Hyundai eschewed a V-6 in favor of a turbo I-4, citing comparable power, less weight, and improved fuel economy. Acceleration was the slowest, and observed fuel economy nearly tied for last. And the 2.0T was indeed the lightest car of the three, but only by 35 pounds compared with the Camry.

In real-world duties, the 2.0-liter turbo felt plenty powerful and torquey. The ride, while not as compliant as the Passat's, was quiet and comfortable, if a bit too busy for our tastes. The 4-wheel disc brakes offered up a firm pedal with ideal travel. And the interior was rated as attractive and high-quality, especially for a car with an as-tested price of only $25,505.

But you get what you pay for. In this case, a performancesedan high on promise but low on fulfillment.

OUCH!

 

Thanks for posting that again. In case we didn't read when it was posted on this page.

Once again a H/A fanboy hating on Hyundai.

 

One has to really wonder if Hyundia is inflating their HP and torque ratings just like they do their EPA estimates.

The Sonata has more hp, more torque at lower RPM, weighs less than the Camry, yet the Camry stomps all over the Sonata. Just like other comparison test where the Sonata fails miserably.

 

I hope that by releasing a new model of CC, the onld ones drop down in value. I love the CC, and a VR6 (OH YEA BABY THAT SOUND) and AWD with DSG would make it a pleasure to drive. Damn there is so many cars on the "Possible next car for me", it's gonna be a tough one.

 

Indeed, 0-60mph in 7s and 1/4 mile in 15.4s@91.5mph is pretty disappointing. Those are TSX I4 numbers. But then again, there have been tests where the Sonata did better, as in 0-60mph in mid 6's and 1/4 mile in the high 14's. Nonetheless, it is still slower than the Camry and Passat by a significant margin despite having similar output and weight. It's probably mainly the gearbox...seems to be the main issue with these new Hyundai's these days (ie. Genesis).

 

Guess people who buy these family sedans don't really care about the straightline performance these days. Because obviously, Hyundai and Kia are selling fking well.

 

It's time the CC has it's own thread since it hasn't been called the Passat CC for quite some time.

...and they finally fixed the ugly rear tail-lights.

 

That CC's taillight looks like Golf R's. So awesome.

 

Yeah, I've heard people blame the horrifically Sonata performance on the transmission before.

This crap for transmission really get worst past the 60mph. Dropping an additional second to the Camry from 60 to 70, and five seconds at the 0-100.

 

I still dont think Sonata has passed the Accord either, while the Accords styling is bad, I'd take one over the Sonata

My guess is transmission. They're money goes into standard features more than anything, but the Kia is a different animal I hear. I really wanna see the Optima in more comparisons! I've only seen it face the Sonata and it kinda destroyed it. I think the Optima is korea's best competition against the accord/passat/camry. Yet the Sonata sells so much better.

 

@ mentioning Sonata comparo results in a Passat thread. Yeah, not trolling at all.

Please continue to post irrelevant info in topics. We really want to know, Invisible. It will only bolster your great reputation here on Acurazine