Print 46 comment(s) - last by macthemechanic.. on Apr 25 at 9:58 AM

VW's Beetle gets its first major update in over a decade

When you think of Volkswagen's current Beetle, chick car is often the first thing that comes to mind. Volkswagen didn't do much to dispel that status when it gave a sneak peek at its third generation Beetle on Oprah Winfrey's talk show late last year (Volkswagen also at the time announced that it would be donating 275 2012 Beetles to the Oprah audience). 

Since November, we've only seen a silhouette shot of the 2012 Beetle along with a pretty interesting Super Bowl commercial that teased the vehicle. Now, Motor Trend has broken the 8AM embargo on the '12 Beetle announcement and posted pictures and information on the vehicle.

The '12 Beetle is clearly an evolution of the current model that burst onto the scene the United States in 1998. The roofline is less circular and carries on a more "chopped top" look first seen on the New Beetle Ragster concept in 2005 (the roof is lower by half an inch). The front of the '12 Beetle carries on with the familiar large "eyes", while the lower grille is more in keeping with more conservative models in the Volkswagen lineup like the '11 Jetta and the '12 Passat.

Overall width is up 3 inches on the new model while the overall length has been stretched by six inches. Cargo capacity has also been boosted, and now sits at 10.9 cubic feet. 

The engine lineup for the '12 Beetle should be instantly familiar to anyone that keeps up with the automotive world. The standard engine will be the 2.5-liter inline-5 that generates 170 hp and EPA ratings of 22/31. Two optional engines are available: the 2.0T which generates 200 hp and returns 30 mpg on the highway and the 2.0-liter TDI which delivers 140 hp, 236 lb-ft of torque, and EPA ratings of 29/40.

Pricing is not yet available for Volkswagen's latest chick car Beetle, but we'll be sure to keep you updated as information becomes available.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Poor Engine Choices
By goku on 4/19/2011 9:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
Keeir , if a car is getting better fuel economy with a higher displacement engine over its lower displacement brother, it's likely because the lower displacement engine is of an inferior (older) design. Assuming two engines are of the same age and design (save for displacement) the lower displacement model should nearly always get better fuel economy than the higher displacement model. The only reason you have a situation where a lower displacement model gets worse fuel economy than a higher displacement model is usually can be for one of three or all three reasons..

1.The smaller motor is a performance tuned model and the bigger motor is just a vanilla model
2.The smaller motor is of an older and more inferior design compared to the newer motor
3.The smaller motor is paired with an inferior or at least less fuel economy friendly transmission than the bigger motor.

I'll give you an example of this.. For the '93-'97 Toyota Camry, mid cycle it received an engine update to its V6 model. The 2.2L and 3L engines (I4, V6 respectively) were of an engine design dating back to the early 1980s with fuel injection probably slapped on late in its lifecycle. So in 1994, Toyota finished development on its newer V6 engine now to debut in its Camrys. The Camrys with the old 3L V6 engine design are rated at 19mpg combined and the Camrys with the 2.2L I4 engine are rated at 21mpg combined starting in the '93 model year. But, by 1996, with new 3L V6 engines and some very slight engine management changes were made to the existing 2.2L I4 engines, the 2.2L I4 Camrys were rated at 22mpg and the 3L V6 Camrys also being rated at 22mpg.
One example of this is with the 1996 Toyota Camry 2.2L getting 1mpg less on the highway but overall nearly the same as the 3L v6. So, to someone who isn't aware of the engine history and so the age of the engines in question, it would appear engine displacement is irrelevant when it comes to fuel economy.

Lower displacement engines tend to be in cheaper cars and so they usually receive refreshes that lag behind their higher displacement and henceforth more expensive bretheren. When you have bigger engines being the first to be refreshed is where you have a situation where the bigger engine ends up getting the same or slightly better fuel economy as the smaller, but older engine. This happens all the time, at least three times with the Camry. The 93-97 Camry mid cycle refresh, the 01-06 mid cycle refresh and at the release of the 2007 Camry where the V6 Camry got a new engine that included dual VVTI while the 2.4L I4 Camry only had VVTI on the intake valves until 2010 when the I4 Camry got upgraded to that of a newer engine design which not only bumped up the displacement to 2.5L but added on dual vvti (variable valve timing on the intake AND exhaust valves). What I only briefly covered in all of this is that in 2007, the V6 and I4 Camrys had similar fuel economy because the V6 had the latest engine design while the I4 Camry had a decade old engine design.. The V6 Camry in '07 is rated at 23 and the I4 Camry at 24mpg.. But by 2010, the I4 Camry got a refresh with the newer engine that included dual VVTI and an increase in displacement which not only improved peak HP to 180 from 160 but also gave the Camry a fuel economy boost from 24 to 26mpg. One thing I left out which IS a factor is that the '07 I4 Camry has a 5spd transmission and the '10 I4 Camry along with the engine refresh got a 6spd transmission. The potential fuel economy improvement by going with a 6spd is undeniable, however more gears is usually for the benefit of improving city economy and the newer I4 Camry also saw an improvement of 2mpg on the highway. There are so many variables we could speculate and argue over but I'm going to instead try to wrap this up.

For two engines of the exact same design, the larger displacement motor is always going to use more fuel than the lower displacement one. The only reason one would see instances of a lower displacement motor getting worse fuel economy than a higher displacement motor is because the engine could be of a high performance design, the engine is of an older and inferior design and finally because of the transmission. As for the question on WHY we don't see more small displacement motors in cars running around in the United States.. That's because the auto manufacturers still aren't convinced that Americans (yes that means from Chile to Canada) are interested in a car that does 0-60 in more than 10 seconds. Frankly, I don't blame them since people in the U.S are constantly trying to have their cake and eat it too, with the deficit and national debt as a perfect example.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki