protokultur

I drove a new Rabbit 2.5 this weekend, from San Fran to Marin and then back to Silicon Valley. It had a 5sp and the optional ($1000 I think) body kit which is actually just a one or two inch front lip applique and strips on the rocker panels. The car had been purchased for ~$16.5k. Fit and finish are OK, shifter was smooth, and it is quiet at speed.

Now it wasn't bad to drive or anything, but trip MPG was only 27-29 for the tank. I thought the main selling point for a sub compact, and especially for VWs, is high fuel efficiency. Apparently due to flunking new emissions standards, you can not buy the TDI version of the Rabbit until 2009. If I compare to Versa, Yaris, or Civic LX (a MUCH nicer car for similar money BTW), they are all at 40 MPG when the Rabbit can't crack 30. Around town the Rabbit is in the low 20's, worse than a WRX. Fuel economy is worse than a Civic Si but without the performance.

I realize the Rabbit comes with a 2.5L but driving it, you don't get any more real speed over the competitive models I just listed. So what gives, VW? I don't see the appeal of the Rabbit actually.

Anyone else shocked that the 5sp Rabbit is only 22/30 MPG, besides me?

aggie

What's funny is that VW's excellent 2.0T is available on the GTI and Jetta, gets a few mpg more, and is substantially quicker.

pbm317

in looking at possible daily drivers, i was also disappointed in seeing those MPG numbers. Leaning towards a Civic Si sedan now. MPG might not be terribly better than the VW's, but I liked the drive of it a lot more.

yellow2001

the 2.5 liter is a 5 cylinder.

AbusiveWombat

Stroll by the Fit and Versa forums and you'll see that the average driver is not getting 40mpg. Fit is 32-36mpg and the Versa is low 30s. Neither is anywhere near 40.

TrackStar

^^ I think the Corrolla does better than all of those^^

protokultur

My MPG in the Rabbit was 27 (250 highway miles + a few in SF), but I estimated another 2 mpg for slower/saner drivers. I'm just shocked considering that there were Civic hatchbacks sold not too long ago that did high 40's w/ gas.

Is the difference in stated mileage because of the new standards:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

I like how the Rabbit looks and drives, but think they should do better in fuel economy for a DD. The 2.5 L has nice low end but not that much better than other hatches I've compared...

Edit: EPA entry for MY07 Rabbit

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorC...lumn=1&id=23219

pbm317

The new ratings are only on the 2008 Model Year cars right now I believe.

vvtli78k

i say bring back the CRX HF

Slamnasty

Ya, that is too bad that it isn't more efficient. You should be seeing 22/30 on a Passat, not a Rabbit going for $16,500. I will say my 2002 1.8T 5-speed mileage is lower than I initially expected it to be, but it is surpassing my old Maxima by a fair amount, while still being faster, but only a touch lighter. I don't push it much at all, and the point at which the turbo starts hitting its sweet spot is right where you need to shift. So, basically, the turbo tries to intrude on every upshift. If you drive it to save gas, the spool up can be a touch annoying, but if you drive it in a spirited fashion, then the turbo is pretty much always on.

Regardless of the flaws, I still love it. I do want to try a 2.0T though.