Officially Official: VW releases details on 2010 Golf, TDI up to 42 mpg hwy!
2010 Volkswagen Golf - click above for high res image gallery
Several weeks ago someone stumbled across the web site for the 2010 Golf buried in the VW consumer site and we got a preview of the some of the details of the U.S.-spec MK VI model. VW has now made that information official including pricing, options and EPA mileage numbers.
For 2010, U.S. Golf buyers (not including GTIs) will be able to choose from two engine options, the old 2.5-liter inline five carried over from the MK V and the 2.0-liter TDI that debuted last year in the Jetta. Gas-engined Golfs have a starting tab of $17,490 with the better-equipped TDI kicking off at $21,990. The TDI gets the new up-level touch-screen audio system with Sirius satellite radio and mobile device interface as standard. Diesels also get a special lowered sport suspension standard. Unlike the 2009 Jetta TDI, DSG-equipped Golfs also get steering wheel mounted paddle shifters.
The EPA numbers have also been improved with the manual gas Golf getting a 22/30 mpg rating. The manual diesel gets 30/41 mpg while the DSG diesel gets 31/42 mpg, up two mpg from the 2009 Jetta.
Gallery: 2010 Volkswagen Golf
[Source: Volkswagen]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
phil easler 9:05AM (10/02/2009)
Ok, that's wonderfully VW, but I was getting that type of mpg in my 1980 rabbit diesel, many years ago. VW, get off your butt and make/sell us a hybrid diesel or electric vehicles. Why is it that all car companies of the world give us the same old bull s...., and think we will be happy with it. I feel we are all living in the "Matrix" movie when it comes to car technology.
Phil
Reply
Neil41487 9:18AM (10/02/2009)
I'm gonna take your post point by point:
Safety and emissions standards, as well as materials costs have all gone up since 1980.
The added weight and complexity would give hybrid diesels marginal gain for a non-marginal price increase.
The infrastructure cannot support electric vehicles, yet.
It's not exactly an economy that supports research and cutting edge technology, therefore new tech will not come out for a few years when company economies scale back up to full fledge production rather than survival mode.
mapoftazifosho 9:32AM (10/02/2009)
Phil, you're an idiot. Stop posting.
I was able to eek out 52 highway mpg in my 2009 Jetta TDi with 3k miles on it. I wasn't doing any of that hypermiling crap either. Just going 62 mph on the interstate.
Duodenum 10:05AM (10/02/2009)
What's the win for going hybrid? Let's take the Camry for example, as it's a car that you can get in both gasoline & hybrid versions with the same 2.4l 4 cyl engine.
A 2008 Camry 4cyl 2.4l with automatic gets 21/3, started at $15,561
A 2008 Camry hybrid 4cyl 2.4l with automatic gets 33/34, started at $21,634
According to fueleconomy.gov's estimates the non-hybrid will cost about $1548 per year for gas, while the hybrid will cost about $1138 per year. You got some extras with the hybrid that you didn't get with the non-hybrid version, but if we ignore that you're talking about a $6k price difference. So it'd take you over 14 years to recoup the cost. Even if we jump up to a better-equipped 2008 non-hybrid Camry SE with the same engine at $17,196, it'd still take more than 10 years to make up the price difference in the cost of gas alone.
At least in the case of the Camry, it doesn't make much sense to opt for the Hybrid because the fuel savings won't make up for the price differential.
Dave R 2:58PM (10/02/2009)
@Duodenum
I've got a better comparison for you. Let's take two gasoline cars which seat 5 and see how the payback does:
2009 Nissan Versa 1.6 gets 26/34, starts at $9,990
2009 Nissan Versa 1.8 gets 26/31, starts at $13,100
Holy crap, why would anyone pay another $3k for basically the same car that will never "break even"? If fact, the 1.8l Versa will cost you MORE!!! OMG!
jim 9:21AM (10/02/2009)
Phil, the your 1980 Rabbit probably weighs 60% of the 2010 model and had all of about 50HP. While you point is accepted it is an apples to oranges comparison. Also your mileage is based on your experience with the Rabbit, while the 2010 is EPA data and many owners have reported that they do better than EPA mileage in the real world.
Reply
Duodenum 9:39AM (10/02/2009)
...not to mention the fact that the way EPA mileage estimates were made changed a couple years ago, resulting in lower ratings across the board. For example, my 2001 Beetle TDI was EPA rated 42/49 under the old system, whereas under the new system it would be rated 35/44 (you can compare old & new ratings as far back as 1985 at www.fueleconomy.gov).
The 1985 Golf diesel was rated 37/46 under the old system, 31/41 under the new system.
fusion01 9:57AM (10/02/2009)
Why can the US not put up with lower emission-based engines such as those found in nearly every single OTHER country in the world? In the UK, Europe, South Africa and many other parts of the world, a standard Golf has a 1.6 litre engine. But the US still prevails with a huge 2.5 litre. I find it totally and utterly irresponsible from an environmental point of view. I'm not insisting on a 1.2 litre or the likes, a 1.6 litre does the job effectively (and with better fuel consumption). If you're in the US, why not ask VW to display more corporate responsibility? It's all based on demand, and in this day and age I'd like to see bigger engines (especially those naturally aspirated - turbos really should be de facto) get the shaft, in run-arounds such as these.
Reply
Aaron 10:12AM (10/02/2009)
I agree with you that Americans should have the option of smaller, more fuel-efficient engines. Unfortunately our insurance companies charge MUCH more for turbocharged vehicles because they're "sports cars". What's worse, cars that have an option for a turbocharger (e.g., VW Golf), whether they have one or not, are charged the "sports car" rate. We need to fix this BS before we can get smaller turbocharged engines in our vehicles here in the States.
KK 11:08AM (10/02/2009)
Aaron, I believe the standard Golf outside the US has a non-turbocharged 1.6-liter engine.
Anyway, insurance rate can't be the major reason for the US lineup. Look at the Volvo C30, which is another small hatchback - in the US, it's ONLY available WITH the turbocharger.
Throwback 11:18AM (10/02/2009)
"Why can the US not put up with lower emission-based engines such as those found in nearly every single OTHER country in the world?"
Because most US buyers prefer larger engines. VW and others can try to sell smaller engines here, but I suspect they actually want to sell cars. Ford may have the right approach their small ecoboost engines. They will have 1.2L and 1.6L engines shortly and per a post from last week are looking at 2 & 3 cyl engines for the US as well.
Dave R 2:47PM (10/02/2009)
@Aaron
I don't buy the insurance/turbo argument.
I have two cars in my household - a Prius and a turbocharged WRX. The WRX is a well-known hot-rod - yet my insurance premiums for the two cars are basically the same.
PaloAltoWorldView 3:00PM (10/02/2009)
Has nothing to do with insurance. That's a silly rouse. The real answer is that gasoline prices in the US are around $3/gallon, or perhaps half that of most European countries. So the tradeoff between a better product and cost is just different. US consumers, given the price, is rationally more interested in more powerful engines than in Europe. This may be changing over time, although such change is gradual and will take years. In a free market, competition will ensure that the consumer gets what he wants! (unless your niche is so small and unprofitable)
Boyprodigy1 4:37PM (10/03/2009)
@ Dave
I like your taste in cars.
Hank 10:08AM (10/02/2009)
Why as there an exclamation point? It appears to be a positive reaction, but that's confounding. After all, a 2003 VW Golf with a manual and diesel combo is EPA rated at 35
city/44 hwy.
Ah, the shorter the memory the better the car industry looks.
Reply
Aaron 10:13AM (10/02/2009)
(see the posts above about increased crash safety standards [added weight], then compare)
KK 10:28AM (10/02/2009)
Has there been that much change in safety standards between 2003 and 2010?
Besides, the 2009 Jetta TDI was rated for 41 mpg hwy, so 42 mpg hwy for a smaller hatchback seems rather disappointing.
mapoftazifosho 11:09AM (10/04/2009)
KK, what changed between 2003 and 2010 is the EPA testing methodology. It adjusted in 2007 to a method that resulted in lower, but more consumer realistic numbers. Now, they never tested the 2003 under the new standards, they simply created a formula in which to determine the fuel economy figures based on the new testing methodology...which could possibly yield odd results. I can say that in the city alone I am averaging 36 mpg on a seven mile commute each way. 2009 VW Jetta TDi with autotragic.
Throwback 11:18AM (10/02/2009)
"Why can the US not put up with lower emission-based engines such as those found in nearly every single OTHER country in the world?"
Because most buyers prefer larger engines. VW and others can try to sell smaller engines here, but I suspect they actually want to sell cars. Ford may have the right approach their small ecoboost engines. They will have 1.2L and 1.6L engines shortly and per a post from last week are looking at 2 & 3 cyl engines for the US as well.
Reply
KK 11:40AM (10/02/2009)
> Because most buyers prefer larger engines.
But why is that? Cheap gas is one reason, but that can't be the only reason. I think it's because the US automotive industry has been very successful in convincing the American public that "good car = powerful engine." There's even a notion that a more powerful car is safer, because it allows you to pass slower vehicles quickly.