Portland baby boomers speed dating
In this iteration, there are struts up front and a torsion-beam axle at the rear; the suspension setup may seem minimalistic, but it delivers surprisingly decisive responses and, with the exception of its ride quality, compares very well with the more sophisticated multilink rear system in the Beetle Turbo.
This is not to say that the ride is unpleasant—it’s just not quite as supple as the Turbo’s.
After all, the original Beetle also lacked this instrument.
But then, it would have been a strange item in the original, which didn’t require coolant.
Very ho-hum, and the transmission’s manumatic function, accessed by wiggling the stick back and forth, improves neither giddyap nor joie de drive. Although the 2.5 with an automatic isn’t a combination likely to activate adrenal glands, the Beetle’s dynamics score as commendable.
For contrast, a 2.5-liter Golf three-door manual contending in our April 2010 comparison test hit 60 mph in 7.3 seconds and sprinted through the quarter-mile in 15.6 at 90. Like its compact relatives, the Golf and the Jetta, the Beetle’s body shell is structurally solid, with subframes supporting suspension elements at both ends of the car.
With the exception of height, those are some pretty big changes.
The target is younger buyers for whom the 1950s and ’60s are as relevant as the Crimean War.
Thus, we have a sexier, more-contemporary-looking Beetle that should appeal to guys as well as girls.
Those words were a Detroit marketing mantra in the 1950s, when the original Volkswagen Beetle began its march to immortality here in the U. But of course the thing that made the Bug so lovable, and such a counterculture icon, was that it possessed none of those traits.
Fast-forward to now: Here’s a Beetle that is, in fact, longer, lower, and wider than its predecessor.As we roll over the 2012 starting line, VW dealers have essentially two versions of the Beetle in their inventories—those using the 2.5-liter five and those propelled by the 200-hp, 2.0-liter turbo four.