I suspect styling has a lot to do with it. With a few notable exceptions Volkswagen and Audi have an incredible knack of producing cars that appear to age gracefully and are gender neutral. This helps when a couple are debating which car to buy. A Golf doesn't offend anyone.

My M-i-L has a Golf - it has a private reg plate and so the car is 'ageless' - yes they've updated styles and rounded off edges since her purchase, but you really can't tell her car is 11 years old! It's red too and it looks as vibrant as when she got it.

As for 'Zafira' or 'Meriva'. Are these cars or colour shades from wilko's range of own brand emulsion?

But Opel/Vauxhall had no MPVs previously so both Zafira and Meriva have been continuous since introducing MPVs - a better example from Vauxhall would be the Victor, Cavalier, Vectra and Insignia

VW, like BMW, retains the same name for a floorplan size from one generation to the next.

Meanwhile, in the real world, a Golf is now as big as a Passat used to be and has gained two smaller cars beneath it in the model range, despite being orginally introduced as VW's small hatchback.

The current 3-series is as large as a 5-series I had in the nineties. I remember when "3-series" meant "the tiny one with no rear legroom", which now seems to be a 1-series.

Spot on, Coopshere!

I've owned many manufacturers cars and found all to be much the same for quality and reliability. But when it comes to problems and reliability I've found I've had less problems with Ford/Vauxhall cars than VW/Toyota/Mazda - or the problems have been far cheaper to resolve. The only car I've had which has a supposed 'premium' image to it is a BMW mini which has generally been reliable so far.

And my 2007 Passat had the 'wet' DSG box, which failed at 40,000 miles - which meant a repair bill of over £2000 - thank god for the warranty and I ditched it soon after.

Not sure what you mean by calling the C.V.T. a dogs dinner full trottle.The belt can be made of steel.Audi has been using the C.V.T from 2006 in the A6.

The D.S.G Gearbox is expensive in production two clutches and the electronics.Not a powerfull car I know, but the C.V.T box in the Honda Jazz was a pleasure to drive.

A contributor to the briskoda forum has sommat like 338,000 miles on a wet 6 speed diesel engined DSG.

Without incident.

Fair enough, Coopshere: what was behind my question was my impression thnat most of the well-documented problems have arisen in the last 18 months or so are are with the dry-clutch DSG. It may be that the reliability and longevity of the wet-clutch DSG is no worse than with other automatics.

I think that one of the main problems with cars today is that, in the quest to be "the first" to have some new-fangled technology, or to be the fastest/most efficient/best handling etc, etc, many manufacturers have reduced the amount of time spent on R&D, and I suspect specifically reducing the testing periods for new components and technology considerably, in order to get to market before the rest.

After all their quality problems (relative to the high quality before hand) over recent years, it appears Toyota have at least begun to learn their lesson...it appears to me that the European makes, and especially VAG, BMW and Merecedes (who continue to trade on their perceived "Geman build quality" have not. Superior fit and finish of exterior panels and interiors does in my view not equate to superior engineering quality (reliability and longevity).

I like many aspects of VAG cars (I am considering the VAG-SEAT Leon as a possible replacement for my Mazda3), but will not consider buying one unless and until this and other engineering-related reliability/longevity of parts issue is permanently resolved. A shame that thus far the German manufacurers in my view (as dieseldogg and others have said) continue to refuse to acknowledge or resolve these quality problems on a worldwide basis.

They will have to be very careful if they wish to avoid a much higher loss in reputation than suffered by Toyota, who by all accounts were much more open and forthcoming in admitting their problems and resolving them to customers' satidfaction - this is especially important, given that Toyota dealership have, even during the "crisis", still maintained their customers' high regard, which other manaufacturers do not.

The sad (and annoying) thing is that because the current EU testing regime for mpg and emissions doesn't give a reasonable picture of "real-world" driving, and allows for the use of rolling roads, semi-slick (non-road legal I believe) tyres and air-con, etc turned off, then as we read here in the "Real mpg" section, actual figures bear no resemblence to what mpg the average motorist achieves.

You see so many stories as well of newer diesel engines which purport to get amazing mpg that fare worse than the previous generation's, or the new small-trubo-petrol engines with mpg's no where near the EU figures, or reasonable sized cars with small diesel engines which only do high mpg if you crawl around at low speed and empty - touch the throttle or have a couple of passengers and/or stuff in the boot and the mpg drops like the proverbial stone.

Its more about "massaging the figures" in my view to pretend that cars that are mostly getting larger (and therefore heavier, especially with all the latest equipment and safety features) are more efficient and "green" than previous versions - they are, but not to the extent that both the manufacturers and governments like us to believe. The size of the average car has increased quite a bit over the years, so each new generation requires just that bit more fuel to run per owner than the previous one - someone who owned a VW Golf twenty years ago now owns one that's the size of the old Passat, etc etc.

With my car, a 1st-gen Mazda3 1.6 petrol, essentially the latest version has had its engine "improved" twice, in mid 2006 and when the updated model came out in 2009, but it now is 1 second slower to 62mph, has slightly less power, but hey, its gone down from 172 to 162 to 147 gCO2/km saving £60p.a. for a slower, less responsive car that wasn't exactly quick (but fine) in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if Mazda dropped the 1.4 petrol probably because of this, and if I recall may have done something similar to the 2 litre petrol, which barely breaks 10 seconds for the 0-62mph test - I can remember when a mid-sized car like that with a 2 litre engine was actually QUICK - not any more. IMO many other makes are either doing the same or "pretending" to get much better mpg by going down the small-trubo-petrol engine route - at least Mazda aren't charging £1000s extra for this "amazing" new technology.

What a rip-off in my view.

I agree with you the figures are a level playing field how else could they do it I live where it is very flat my mother lives where it is very hilly some people live where it is hilly but little traffic and differing driving styles and so on.Out of interest my last three cars economy figures are very close to the official figures.I am all for the figures as they are people who are a long way of them should examine there driving style.

it's not a level playing field - if it was the % in the Real MPG database would all be similar.

While people do criticise the EU consumption regime, anyone who doesn't know that they don't represent real-world driving is probably not going to know what an 'mp-whatsit' is anyway. It has been widely publicised and I remember in the 1980s, the alternative was that makers just made them up and put them in the brochure.

It was earlier than the '80s. To get rid of wildly exaggerated manufacturers claims, the UK introduced test for Urban, 56 and 75mph constant speeds - the Urban test gave figures better than most people achieved but the 75mph constant figure gave a good indication of motorway consumption - no-one ever figured out the value of the 56mph constant!

Then we joined the Common Market and had to adopt their fuel testing regime, then based on the California test which required a "cold" start from 25 degrees C - very helpful in the UK.

In many decades the only test figures I've found useful is the later EC Urban figure which is what I get around town and the original UK figure for 75mph constant as that's what I got on motorway runs.

Only three things put me off buying anything from the VAG group. Uninspiring and bland styling, too common and not worth the premium over the mainstream offerings. Apart from that, I am sure they are excellent cars. (I would also add the reported attitude of some dealers but this isn't going to concern me).

So your happy with VAG products we can assume.

Bought my first VW early in 1986 and had at least one VW on the drive until late 2002. Did over 250,000 in total and had very few problems. Had a soft spot for them after 2002 but the local dealers did not appear interested plus when we looked round there were better cars to be had for less money from friendlier dealers.

Just collected a new Seat Leon last Friday (to replace 1 Series BMW) and have to say that so far I am more than happy. Before we finally decided on the Seat we looked at the Mk 7 Golf but for the extra cash it gave us nothing extra. Overall the Seat dealers were either as good or way better than the VW ones plus they had demonstrators and were willing to take the time to allow their products to be properly experienced on the road.

As far as price goes I think that the new Leon is probably the bargain in its category. Its less than the recognised "value" cars in its class (Kia Ceed and Hyundai i30) spec for spec.

Let us know how you get on with the Leon (5 or 3 door [SC], which variant?), as I'm looking at getting one as well - they're much better looking (on the outside at least) than their predessor and the Golf or Audi A3 (both quite bland).

My attitude to cars would be much the same as wife selection.

I.e not overly fussed on looks but but rather pick on merits such as, dependability, economical and capable of wearing high miles without obvious deterioration.

Also probably a slight fondness for comfort over outright speed.

Regardless of marque.

Those who pick on looks generally have cause for regrets all to soon.

That's not something I do often enough to rationalise like that !

A bit off topic. Probably best not to let your other half have an Audi! motoring.ninemsn.com.au/cars/news/8674687/audi-dri...s

Edited by Trilogy on 17/06/2013 at 23:09

The Achilles heel of buying any new VAG car are the dealerships, where style over substance is the rule of the day.

I dont think they are any more reliable than say a Ford, but compared to the 3 year old Ford we also own, the driving experience is sublime.

So what is the difference?

About 20% in the base price.

As this thread is about VAG cars, I feel I should post, given my last car was MK1 Octavia TDI and my present one is a MK1 Focus TDi. The Skoda was far more substantial and better built than the Focus. The Focus is a joy to drive, the Skoda wasn't. That isn't to say the Skoda wasn't a decent car, but it felt it was made to do a job efficiently.....................but not in a fun way like the Focus, which is focussed on driver pleasure..

Alas are a great example of heart over head. I need a reliable economical comfortable car to commute 100 miles a day in. I keep looking at the guilletta. I know that this isn't sensible but I do like the look of them.

Yes me too - I sat in a Brera, I ran all of the insurance quotes for one, looked up the tax, saved a load of ads on Autotrader, had a little drive in one etc but didn't do it!

I hired a Guilletta on holiday in Sardinia. It was a horrible car, underpowered (diesel) and made my accelerator foot go numb after 45 minutes. It is terrible to see out of at junctions, you need to drive it like a van.

However it was economical and looked cool. But I would NOT buy one.

Give me a Golf any day.

Edited by quizman on 23/06/2013 at 18:16