I saw this one outside where I work. The design in a definite improvement over last the version.
I'd probably never drive one, but I think they're certainly marketing the car towards males this time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New VW Beetle
- Thread starter obeygiant
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I saw this one outside where I work. The design in a definite improvement over last the version.
I'd probably never drive one, but I think they're certainly marketing the car towards males this time.
not bad, but US News gave it 5.5 out of 10 in it's interior though
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Volkswagen_Beetle/
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Volkswagen_Beetle/
Once upon a time...
Forty years ago, you could buy a brand new Beetle for >$2000. It had few amenities or safety devices, but it got 30+ MPH and provided. Since gas then averaged about 40 cents a gallon, you could drive 300+ miles for about $4.00.
Then, the Beetles were appealing because they provided basic transportation at a cheap-as-hell price. Today, I'm not sure what will set the new models apart from all the rest... other than the "retro" angle.
Forty years ago, you could buy a brand new Beetle for >$2000. It had few amenities or safety devices, but it got 30+ MPH and provided. Since gas then averaged about 40 cents a gallon, you could drive 300+ miles for about $4.00.
Then, the Beetles were appealing because they provided basic transportation at a cheap-as-hell price. Today, I'm not sure what will set the new models apart from all the rest... other than the "retro" angle.
It's a much more mature design than the original "New Beetle", which itself was far removed from the original model and its modestly basic motoring appeal.
They are still far removed these days from the original idea of honest, basic motoring for the masses.
They are still far removed these days from the original idea of honest, basic motoring for the masses.
It looks like a 911 that had some intensive reconstructive surgery after an accident, by a doctor who was trashed...
That said, it's still a pretty nice looking car, a vast improvement over the last generation.
That said, it's still a pretty nice looking car, a vast improvement over the last generation.
thats a bit unfair , i actually like the new New Beetle , and that brings me to Porsche ..the Beetle was originally designed by Ferdinand Porsche . so its only natural that they share some design elements 
but i still think it should have the engine where it belongs in a Volkswagen Beetle and not in the front of the car
even Porsche would not place the engine in the front of the next 911
There are things a company should leave unchanged..and that includes the price the Beetle is priced above the Golf but it actually should be priced below .
After all its sold by a company who makes around 3-4 million loss on every single car they sell of a brand that belongs to the Volkswagen Group which one might that be , obvious the ...Bugatti Veyron,it is in comparison sold for peanuts if look at the loss and still new models get pushed out of the factory and still sold for about 25% of the actual production costs ,
and New Beetle buyers have to cough up the difference
but i still think it should have the engine where it belongs in a Volkswagen Beetle and not in the front of the car
even Porsche would not place the engine in the front of the next 911
There are things a company should leave unchanged..and that includes the price the Beetle is priced above the Golf but it actually should be priced below .
After all its sold by a company who makes around 3-4 million loss on every single car they sell of a brand that belongs to the Volkswagen Group which one might that be , obvious the ...Bugatti Veyron,it is in comparison sold for peanuts if look at the loss and still new models get pushed out of the factory and still sold for about 25% of the actual production costs ,
and New Beetle buyers have to cough up the difference
Last edited:
Haha, I looked at the VW USA website. The smallest engine you can get this car with is 2.5L
In Germany you can get it with a 1.2L engine.
That's because most US consumers want a bigger engine
As for the design, it looks pretty decent, less oval. I wonder if its enough to reverse the sales erosion that has been occurring on model.
But do the buyers of a car like this really want 2.5L? I know this car appeals to my mother, and she always tells me that the last thing she wants is massive displacement (although not in those words).
Yes, in a sense. They want an engine that will allow them to get on the highway and merge with on coming traffic easily and quickly. I had a small compact car a few years back with a small engine. It was nearly suicidal trying to get on the highway and merge. I literally had the gas pedal floored trying to get up to speed in time.
There's still many cars/trucks/suvs being produced with 8 cylinders and of course 6 cylinders. Consumers don't want to spend a lot for a car and fail to get any "pep"
The smart car is a good example of this, the idea was to provide US consumers with a small efficient car. the problem is that they're not selling. the only time I see them, its for pizza delivery drivers.
A small turbo engine can provide as much, if not more, torque which is what gives you that push in the back. Even BMW realise this with future M cars loosing capacity and cylinders and gaining turbos.
That said my own car is a 3.2l flat six with no turbos
Edit to add: the above is wrong anyway. You can get the car with a 2.0l TSI (turbo charged) engine. It just costs more for the smaller capacity engine as it give more power and torque. There is a replacement for displacement: forced induction.
I have a Honda Ridgeline which has plenty of horsepower. I'm happy with that, except when I have to fill the gas tankThat said my own car is a 3.2l flat six with no turbos
Meh. You can get up to speed pretty quick with a much smaller engine. Drop a gear and red-line it. I have more problem controlling wheel-spins, and my car is a 1.2.
2.5 would be considered a very large engine here in the UK, especially on a car of that class. Are automatic transmissions really as power-sapping these days as they were in the past?
This is America - no one knows how to drive a manual, or even use the crappy manual mode on an automatic transmission
But it's tuned for the very low octane petrol and long service life expected in the US. It's only giving 170hp and and 177 lb-ft of torque.
If you look at a BMW 320 tuned for the UK it's 2.0l non-turbo engine is generating 180hp and 280 lb-ft of torque. But it will need premium petrol in the UK (98 RON/ 94 AKI in the US) and much more frequent servicing that most US spec cars. So they have to have relatively huge engines to compensate.
This is America - no one knows how to drive a manual, or even use the crappy manual mode on an automatic transmission
Of course we do. I love driving a car with a manual transmission. It's a pain in the city though.
My Golf GTI has the 2.0T engine and it needs servicing once every 10,000 miles thanks to synthetic oil. I just hit 40,00 miles and had to do a little bit more than an oil change for that service (cost a bit too....damn German cars) but I wouldn't say it requires more frequent servicing. It does need premium though which sucks - but if it keeps my car performing the way I expect it to, worth every cent.
A few of us do...people look at me like I have 2 heads when they see my car is a manual. But for the most part, very few people in this country know how to drive a manual, or if they do, they don't buy one.
It's not so bad in the city, you get used to it after awhile and it becomes second nature. After successfully driving my car through Washington DC's rush hour traffic while trying to follow my GPS's instructions (only in DC will they make 27 streets intersect at one roundabout.....) I figure I can drive a manual anywhere.
That's the one thing I miss the most with my Honda Ridgeline. I've always had a manual transmission and I loved it. With the Ridgeline I'm missing out - I love the truck but to be honest, without the stick Its not as fun. If I had "extra" money I'd consider trading it in and getting something with a stick
The issue is that at least in the US, the car got a reputation as a girl's car. So many guys avoided that in general. Making the car less "girly" may attract the male market again.
The first car I ever purchased, not handed down to me, was a 99 Civic EX manual. I learned how to drive in Greece, where manual was mandatory back around the early 90s, so I knew how to drive it just fine. I never really had issues with it, unless I was going to Dolphin or Hurricanes games at the old Orange Bowl in Miami. I remember going to a night game between FSU and Miami, and I left my house around 5pm so I can tailgate. I was stuck on the highway for two hours because of traffic, and that is when sticks really suck. Luckily though, I saw the FSU bus being escorted by the highway patrol, and I was lucky enough to get behind the bus, which got me there quickly. Also flipping the FSU players off was an added bonus to that
I'm right there with you. $70 last fill up.I have a Honda Ridgeline which has plenty of horsepower. I'm happy with that, except when I have to fill the gas tank
This is America - no one knows how to drive a manual, or even use the crappy manual mode on an automatic transmission
I know how to drive a manual. My Jeep was manual because it made sense for that car.
I like the new look, much better than the old one. The old one to me was very feminine and I rarely define a car as feminine. I'd drive one.