I’ve always been a petrolhead and, until my early 30s, really didn’t like VW – I saw their products as style over substance.
For the last few years, however, I’ve been driving my first VW: a 2008 Golf R32. It’s at the point now where it’s running a supercharger conversion (370hp on repeated dyno runs), new suspension and various other subtle changes.
This is our only family car. The boot is a little small, but it’s taken the four of us all over the place, bikes on the roof, slipped into tight parking spaces and been a general entertainer and practical car all at the same time. All without ever breaking down, causing me grief, attracting anything other than positive attention and having nothing fail in service. Service experience for a common VW is easy to find, parts are reasonably priced and their quality is more robust than anything this side of a Volvo.
Would I buy another? Definitely.
We now need a slightly larger car and so – just before “dieselgate” – I placed an order for a brand new (petrol) VW. The replacement won’t be nearly as entertaining or soulful as the R32, but I’m confident that it’ll be a very practical and easy ownership experience.
Not read all of this, but strikes me that the OP just wanted to start a thread that would get a lot of response, whether he believes what he spouts or not, just because it gives him some self worth because he has no real friends…;-)
Perhaps you should have.
Does this mean that all the tattoo haters are saddos too?
I suppose individuals experience is not that relevant to whether VW cars are reliable or not (though I’ve had 3 Passats and have been disappointed by the mk4 + mk5). What is telling are the figures from the companies that insure cars against parts failing; they show that VW are similar to Peugot/Citron. It certainly took me 20+ years to realise that solid doesn’t have to mean reliable.