What exactly makes modern Volkswagens unreliable?

I dunno, I had a 2010 GTI for the first 43k miles of its life, and I thought it was a great daily driver. Great fuel economy, fun motor, good handling and a nice ride. I cross shopped Mazdaspeed3's and WRX's and much preferred the VW.

It had one repair under warranty - some flapper actuator in the intake manifold went bad at like 38k miles. CEL but no other noticeable effect.

Clearly, it could have been a much different story in the next 43k miles, but I was a satisfied customer. Got rid of the car b/c wife needed a car, and that was our best option (I got to keep her Miata in the deal), not b/c the GTI wronged me in any way.

Knurled wrote:

bigdaddylee82 wrote:

Knurled wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: The turbo engines have a lot of sludge issues.

Only if you follow the factory recommended oil-neglect intervals.

My experience is with CR TDIs, but I too was leery of the 10K OCI, until I sent a sample off to Blackstone, 10K oil was still doing its job, and I could have stretched it to 12-15K.

That's just it. They're testing the oil, they aren't looking in the engine. The engine could be a sludged up POS with rattling timing chains because the guides are worn out, but the oil will test okay.

Except TDI's don't have chains (thankfully). They use belts.

I've changed the oil in my TDI religiously at 10K. When I bought my car I too was leery of going that long, but the oil-nerds on TDiClub convinced me otherwise. Those geeks have forgotten more about oil than I'll ever know. Some of them have access to free testing, so at 10K they'll test the oil and change just the filter, only adding oil as required due to the filter change. Many of these guys drive a ton (most live in TX) and have 500K miles on their cars. They'll still curse VW for other body and electrical related issues, but the older ALH engine is a tank.

Now I want to go home and work on my car.

In reply to Ian F:

I wonder if the climate is beneficial.

The WORST sludge engines I have ever dealt with were all low-stress all aluminum engines. My favorite was the Rover V8 with a quart of near-solid glop in the oil pan. I measured it as I scooped it out...

Knurled wrote:

bigdaddylee82 wrote:

Knurled wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: The turbo engines have a lot of sludge issues.

Only if you follow the factory recommended oil-neglect intervals.

My experience is with CR TDIs, but I too was leery of the 10K OCI, until I sent a sample off to Blackstone, 10K oil was still doing its job, and I could have stretched it to 12-15K.

That's just it. They're testing the oil, they aren't looking in the engine. The engine could be a sludged up POS with rattling timing chains because the guides are worn out, but the oil will test okay.

Then you know nothing of oil analysis. While black stone is not the most advanced lab out there (we do a bit of their specialty testing) oil analysis will detect the causes and presence of sludge. For an oil to degrade to the point of slugging up, it has degraded in multiple areas that will be instantly obvious to even the most untrained analyst.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: This thread makes me wanna buy a Saab.

I was thinking Jag.

HappyAndy wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: This thread makes me wanna buy a Saab.

I was thinking Jag.

Funny, I was leaning towards Land Rover.

Javelin wrote:

HappyAndy wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: This thread makes me wanna buy a Saab.

I was thinking Jag.

Funny, I was leaning towards Land Rover.

And here I am looking for Rolls Royces. How bad can they be?

I have owner vag cars from 67-15 and my 99-04 cars weren't bad. Well compared to my Disco

You guys have set my VW expectation bar so low I will be happy if it only costs me one arm and one leg (and doesn't leave me stranded too many times!)

In the meantime I'm enjoying the ride like no other Mazda/Honda/Subaru/Ford/GM I've owned... (although I kept a backup Honda)

I've never gotten the "they drive so much better than everything else" thing. My Forte runs rings around them. I will give you the VR6 sounds amazing. But I can't say they actually drive any better than anything else. Granted, I've only driven 3 or 4 in anger, and another half dozen on the streets but nothing to get my attention. Well, other than the sun-burn from the orange lamp on the dash. Gingers can't own a VW. We'd die of skin cancer too soon.

In reply to jv8:

I'll admit, my expectations were low when I bought my car. I said, "the 3rd time it goes in for warranty work, it'll make a one-way trip to the Acura dealer for a RSX-S."

It just never happened. It never even went in for recall work and there were only three recalls; two I did myself to avoid the hassle of the dealer and one I ignored because I know what the "fix" is and I didn't want it.

The car actually proved to be much more reliable than the Acura Integra it replaced by quite a bit. By 229K miles, I had replaced a lot more parts in the Integra than I did in the Jetta over the same mileage (or even 329K). By the time I got rid of the Integra it was 11 years old and essentially falling apart (although it ran great) body-wise. At 11 years old, my Jetta was in much better condition, despite having considerably more miles on it.

In reply to Bobzilla:

Neither of the MILs Jettas drove noticibly different than my Malibu which had far more miles on her and is probably the second most hated car on the interweb.

Bobzilla wrote: I've never gotten the "they drive so much better than everything else" thing. My Forte runs rings around them.

I didn't say they drive better or faster... I said I'm enjoying the ride more. It's because I'm coming from an STi that shipped with no radio, had no sound insulation, had an uncomfortable seat that didn't adjust, cloth/plastic everywhere, back seat that didn't fold or pass-through... I could go on and on.

For about the same price (adjusted for inflation) I have an Audi S3 entry-lux interior in a sleeper AWD hot VW hatch. The performance of the STi with much better ride quality and NVH. For me it's the intersection of comfort, sport, and practicality. Maybe not reliability/economy but we'll see.

When Honda builds an entry-lux AWD hatch I will buy one. And yes, I've owned a Mazda3, Mazda5, and a couple of Foci... I still think (for me) the R/GTi is a better DD ride. But I'm not going to argue they win on value or reliability. I'll let you know in a few years.

So we're comparing it to a stripped down boy-racer Japanese car? Damn, just about anything will win that one. STi's have great performance but a grown-up car they are not.

jv8 wrote: I still think (for me) the R/GTi is a better DD ride. But I'm not going to argue they win on value or reliability. I'll let you know in a few years.

Good for you, I hope the car works out great.

I listened to the same stuff about Audi before buying two of them 5 years ago. They have been fine and both are quality cars. With over 100K on my A3, I'd do it again in a flash if Audi still made a manual/sport/hatch vs the sedan. So I'm looking right at the GTI & R for the next daily.

Any worries about VW are more dealer, warranty and service related on my part. The low margin mass market dealers are far less likely to have "one & done" service and a nice loaner fleet than the upscale version. Most VW dealer reviews in my area (on line & anecdotal) are not good. New cars are expensive. Everybody wants a good warranty and service experience for their money.

Saw a S4 Avant yesterday. The 4.2L V8 version. Those cars scare the crap out of me between the timing chain maintenance and dismal fuel mileage (seriously - look it up - it's crazy), but when he lightly got on it accelerating from a light; damn do they sound good. And this one even had the OE exhaust. I've heard some with aftermarket exhausts and they sound as good or better than any muscle car V8.

But it would be kinda like getting an old Ferrari: I can afford to buy one. I can't afford to own one.

Bobzilla wrote: So we're comparing it to a stripped down boy-racer Japanese car? Damn, just about anything will win that one. STi's have great performance but a grown-up car they are not.

I compared 4 seat manual trans hot hatch/wagons that can handle. Budget ~$35K or less. Rear headroom is a must.

If Acura or Lexus entered that market maybe I could have "grown up" and "reliable"... but for now the R/GTi are the only grown up options in the segment.

BMW 328i wagon is $10K+ more expensive. The 1 and 2 series lack rear headroom and hatch. The CTS-V wagon was twice as much new, is now a unicorn, and gets half the mpg.

Am I missing something?

jv8 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: So we're comparing it to a stripped down boy-racer Japanese car? Damn, just about anything will win that one. STi's have great performance but a grown-up car they are not.

I compared 4 seat manual trans hot hatch/wagons that can handle. Budget ~$35K or less. Rear headroom is a must. If Acura or Lexus entered that market maybe I could have "grown up" _and_ "reliable"... but for now the R/GTi are the only grown up options in the segment. BMW 328i wagon is $10K+ more expensive. The 1 and 2 series lack rear headroom and hatch. The CTS-V wagon was twice as much new, is now a unicorn, and gets half the mpg. Am I missing something?

This is why I'm building my is300 sportx, I wanted a sporty comfy hatch that wasn't an unreliable e36m3box. The only solution that I could find was to roll my own. My thought process was... if I wanted a fast luxury hatch, I'd have to spend easily 25-30k and at that price point there was nothing that turned me on. So my thought was spend 5-10k less and have a more compact cts-v wagon type deal that was entirely unique and was basically built as cost no object.

It's also pretty rewarding to know that, I built it and it's tailored exactly to my taste and needs.

I'll be into my Celica about three grand when done. 250hp, 2200lbs. I agree, you CAN have performance and reliability, and cheaply. If you do that work yourself.

sevenracer wrote: Clearly, it could have been a much different story in the next 43k miles, but I was a satisfied customer. Got rid of the car b/c wife needed a car, and that was our best option (I got to keep her Miata in the deal), not b/c the GTI wronged me in any way.

I think it would definitely have been different. Between timing tensioner failures, carbon buildup, ABS pump failures, water pump failures, etc., the 2.0T has a LOT of weak spots.

I agree with those that suggest NAs - if you are going to do a modern VW then non-turbo is the way to go. I had two different 2.5L MKVs that were about as trouble-free as VW gets. Even my higher mileage VR6 MKIV wasn't terribly unreliable.

The 2.0T I recently sold was a mess despite being the newer line of 2.0T (the TSI). Enough so the I abandoned the brand after a streak of six VWs. It's just not worth the headache, even though I loved the GTI otherwise.

I sort of get what people say about how nice they drive, but I think it's skewed. My '98 Jetta drove pretty nice, but I only have similar aged GM products to compare. A 90's/00's Impala drives like crap IMO, so the Jetta felt great. Not as great as my 10 year older Mazda, but still not bad at all

My parents still have their phaeton and it still is one of the nicest cars to drive I can think of. For now, I mean, until it breaks down.

Ian F wrote: Saw a S4 Avant yesterday. The 4.2L V8 version. Those cars scare the crap out of me between the timing chain maintenance and dismal fuel mileage (seriously - look it up - it's crazy), but when he lightly got on it accelerating from a light; damn do they sound good. And this one even had the OE exhaust. I've heard some with aftermarket exhausts and they sound as good or better than any muscle car V8. But it would be kinda like getting an old Ferrari: I can afford to buy one. I can't afford to own one.

I owned one for 9 years. While the Internet is accurate about the cost of doing the timing chains, the frequency with which it needs to be done is overstated. Prices on the B6/B7 S4s have dropped accordingly, so the way to approach that car is to simply budget for it. Don't think of it as a $10K car, think of it as a $14K car where you pay $10K now and $4K later.

The degree of terribleness in fuel economy depends heavily on how you drive it. The exhaust sounds and the cam profile beg to be revved, and if you listen to that siren song it'll get 12-14. Resist and it can get high teens.

BTW, old Ferraris aren't cheap any more. The 328 they listed on BAT recently went for over $80K, 5-6 years ago that would have been a $20K car.

codrus wrote: BTW, old Ferraris aren't cheap any more. The 328 they listed on BAT recently went for over $80K, 5-6 years ago that would have been a $20K car.

Ehh old Ferraris can still be found cheap if you know where to look. Mondial verts ,308 gt4s and other unloved quirky ones for mid 20s.

I owned the exact same S4 avant as pictured above. I got about 16mpg in it. To put that in perspective, I get the same gas mileage in my 521hp Cayenne Turbo S, that has a twin turbo V8.

It's not just the timing chains you have to worry about in that motor, they have a tendency to drink oil, alot of oil and with higher mileages score cylinder walls.

I sold mine with 125k miles on it as it didn't make sense to keep it and pay for the timing chain/clutch job (at the time $8-9k on a car that was worth $17k). A friend bought it, he's been dealing with excessive oil usage now for some time, although I think he has 170k miles on it.

You can no longer buy this motor from Audi. That means sourcing one used, which won't be low mileage. I wouldn't drop in a used motor without opening it up unless your car was dead and all you planned to do was flip it immediately after install...

Note to self: cheap B6 S4 avant + VR6 swap.