These are not safety features.  They're distractions.  You may crash whilst
noticing you're returning 34.6 to the gallon.

Reliability comes as standard.

I agree to a point, but that point, well it depends.  We bought an older '99
machine because it had the three specification things I absolutely required
(cruise control, ABS, air conditioning) and the one thing it couldn't do
without (reliability).  Everything else is nice to have.

The most accurate fuel computer still shows "--.-" when you're broken down
because of a missing coil back.  Or the reverse light switch.

<shrugs>  Thousands buy VWs year after year.  Thousands don't need to
replace their Ford / Honda / Nissan / Toyota year after year...

i guess hyundai must be the best, since they offer a 10yr/100k mile
warranty!

If they had the same warentee, what would you go for?

You have to love marketing, they can take a major drawback with their
vehicle, and turn it into what many people consider a major plus
point.

Its not that 'the longer warentee is best', its simply 'our car is
unreliable, so we'll extend the warentees so that people will ignore
eliability, because the manufacturer will pay for some of it

THAT is why there are ones of differing length. An unreliable car is
still an unreliable car, no matter who pays for the repairs, its still
broken down in the first placeI don't know about you, but I'd rather
have a car that breaks down 3x less, than one where they'll pay the
repairs 3x longer.
I mentioned previously about my fathers golf, that melted an
alternator - when we found out, it was 2am, we were in the middle of
nowhere, it was the end of november, and the battery was flat. at that
point, I couldn't care less WHO paid for the repairs, I was more
concerned with not freezing, whilst I tried to attract attention, so I
couldget help to get me and my passengers back in time to get to our
jobs.

think about things properly, and not how marketing want you to think.

Because most buyers do not consider the warranty an issue with Honda
(or Toyota).

VWs sure look good on paper. That's why kids buy them.

The very LAST place you want to go for a sense of how much fun a car is
to drive is Consumer Reports.

Of course the most important safety feature in any car has to do with
the driver.

Brake assist, traction control, stability control: unless these
features can be turned off, they do not lend themselves to spirited
driving. How often have you felt deprived of these features in your
Accord since you put those Pirelli tires on?

DRLs: turn on your headlights.

ABS w/4-wheel disk: I like this setup too, so I spent the extra $$ for
an EX (vs. your less expensive LX).

Alloys: also standard on the EX.

A six speed does not equate with fun to drive. Everything else being
equal, I'd take a 5-speed with LSD over a 6-speed with open
differential, any day.

Ever notice how Consumer Reports never publishes lap times?

So last year's BMWs weren't driver oriented because they lack this
year's 6-speed?

Oh, a truck engine.
Sorry, cheap shot.
Audi/VW philosophy was summed up by an Audi executive years ago who
said something like "people buy horsepower but they drive torque." I
don't disagree but it kinda negates the requirement for a 6-speed other
than for fuel economy.

All the safety features you seek will probably make it into the next
Accord as standard equipment. Yeah, VW has them now but VW has to add
stuff to make their unreliable, expensive-to-fix cars more attractive.

Re. VW's engine/tranny, see the AutoWeek GTI vs Si article;
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060501/FREE/60419006&Search
ID=73243433541060

No, the VW power train does not suck but it is very different than the
Honda. [Note: the new GTI does not include a LSD.]

Ever consider you might be happier buying a car designed to entertain
rather than buying a grocery getter that has been modified to provide
more fun than its boring brother-in-arms?

Yeah, I know. They don't sell those fun cars for $20K. Well, guess
what? Time to forget the past and pay up! Trade in that Accord for a
2007 G35 next spring. OK, just kidding. I'd never suggest anything but
a Honda here in ramh.

Because they don't need to provide a longer warranty?

Because there's a higher chance of them rusting... do you think?

[snip cost stuff because VAGs are unreliable and expensive>

Perhaps in the North American market their handling is consider more in tune
to the market.  The Passat is far more A4 than A6 though.

But in the UK they are snatchy understeery things with the finness of a
hippo in a bathing costume.  Indeed, VAG have managed to give the A4 and
Passat a firm ride and lacklustre handling.  Amazing.

Ford gave the Ka a supple ride and great handling.

Yes.  That's a major down side as I'll go on to discuss.

Compared to the following:

Ford Mondeo
Vauxhall Vectra
Peugeot 406
Citroen Xantia / C5
Renault Laguna
Toyota Avensis
Honda Accord
BMW 3-series
Volvo S40

In fact, almost everything else in the same class.

Something you'd use every day?

Something you'd use every day?

There is no such thing as centrifugal force.  It's centripetal.  And, yes,
very familiar heh.

http://www.dervman.com/kd53.htm

That's probably my biggest Ka Diary entry about unsprung mass.

You have to get the right wheels, though.  The majority of aftermarket rims
are materially heavier than their steel counterparts.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the braking difference is minimal when
compared to picking the right quality of tyres.  Nowhere do you mention good
quality tyres let alone those useful in both wet and dry conditions, given
the loading.

Well now hold on.  If you are looking at the whole market you need to
consider the whole market.  If you're not looking at the whole market you
may miss something.

Consumer reports.  Hardly unbiased, though.  Some people would feel pretty
stupid claiming that their expensive car is not good in some respects, so
they inflate the report.  Other people like one part of a car so much that
it shines through all other aspects.

There's no substitute for you trying it.  What I find insulting handling may
be fine for somebody else...

Erk!  European Golfs are sure as hell not well finished.  They look pretty
and solid and even the plastic is that wretched "we can't stop it rattling
so we'll make it soft" stuff, but it's nowhere near as solid as I'd like.
The mark one and mark two Golfs had it.  The mark three, four and five
don't.  VW have cheapened the interior.

It can be.  Not as spacious really.  If you need room in the back then it'll
be too small.  If you don't need rear seat space it's too big.

Key here is "relatively" of course.  On some surfaces it'll feel fine.  On
others, it feels typically German hot hatch, i.e. knobbly and rough.

It's also wrong wheel drive for that much power.  Torque steer?

*cough*  Uh-huh.  Six seconds.  There are *remarkably* few front wheel drive
machines that can hit 62 in under 6.5 seconds.  Those that get close to 6.0
seconds have over 240 bhp.  It's more like 7.0 seconds.

Having trialled a whole bunch of powerful front wheel drive stuff, once the
figures start getting below 8 seconds, you need a good, near perfect or
perfect launch so as to get close to the quoted time.  Front wheel drive
machines wheelspin relatively easily.  Once they spin, they keep spinning.
Traction control systems without a launch control facility typically cannot
cope with this much power and it's worse with a turbocharged engine.  You
either get rampant wheelspin and don't move off or you get the power
reduced, lose boost pressure and the engine gets bogged down...

It's an unhappy compromise.  It won't take six seconds either.

Yes.  After the first few months you'll notice the off creak, squeak and
rattle from the interior.  You may return it to the dealer.  They may be
able to find it.  Or they may not.  Either way it's a trip to the dealer
that you so don't need.

Then there's component longevity.  Oh and breakdowns.  Thing with something
like a Golf is that many people love them despite their faults and how they
have a nasty habit of breaking down.  One single breakdown is enough to
cause major aggravation.

Lets suppose the coil pack stops working, something that happened to a whole
bunch of VAGs in Europe.  The car is off the road because of a relatively
cheap component.  In some cases, for two months.  Anyway, it stops working
(typically late at night when it's raining, perhaps the coil packs were
linked into the automatic wipers?).  You call breakdown.  You are recovered.
Car goes to dealership.  Courtesy vehicle arrives.  You collect your car as
and when it's done.  Unless the courtesy car also breaks down on you too.

My folks' Passat was off the road for a weeks because of a broken brake
pedal switch, which stuck on.  Off the week for a week because of a cheap
microswitch.

Cheap components break.  That's the case on all machines, including Honda
and Toyota, but has happened a lot more frequently to VAGs than they'd have
you believe.

That's the reason to have the longer warranty.  You need it.

Right.  Got'ya.

You're taking one example.  Don't get me wrong, having bags of torque at low
engine speeds is handy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the power band
is broad.  We need torque and revs.  The VAG 2.0T engine has much more go at
4,000 rpm despite having less torque... indeed whilst it doesn't feel
gutless at 1,800 rpm, compared to 4,000 rpm, it certainly does.

Actually we need power, but that's something else.

*cough*

*cough*

*cough hack splutter*

Here's where my knowledge of the North American market is far too limiting.
European wise, I could certainly help...

The Golf GTI is a good enough car but it's not a good hot hatch.  If you
like it, it'll depend on your perspective.  Personally, it's not for me.
It's powerful and quick but it's too powerful for front wheel drive and the
chassis finesse just isn't as good as it should.  The Ford Focus shows us
how...