The best thing about this car (and any VW) is the interior. Other than that its forgettable. The name is silly and the styling is dated. You can barely tell that this is the current generation since it looks so much like the Golf.
 
Seeing as though the Jetta GLI is in the 7 second range in 0-60 with the 2.0T and manual tranny I doubt the Rabbit can do the same thing with 170hp. With an auto 0-60 is likely aroung 8 secs.

"However, with Germanic steering feel, 170 horsepower from its base engine, and a zero-to-60 time in the 7-second range, it's also rather fun to drive."
 
I drove a 2004 VW Golf for 4 years, and absolutely love it. It handles well, feels solid, and never lacks for power.
 
When the Rabbit came out, I was in the market for a new car. I test drove a manual one, and was not impressed at all. Sure, the interior was typical wonderful VW, but I really thought the engine felt anemic. So, I am surprised to read your comments. Has the engine been upgraded since the 2008 model?
 
Speaking of a manual one, it was also one of the most difficult manual shifters I've ever experienced. I felt like a learner again - maybe the clutch needed to wear in or something?
 
I like the Rabbit's look and feel, but I was not sold on the engine/power. The utility is unmatched. Its larger then a Golf, and I have fit a full size dishwasher IN BOX in that hatch. I also moved my entire bedroom from University in it (minus the bed).
 
edit: Since 1487 mentioned it, I don't think the name 'Rabbit' is any more silly the Accent, Aura, Aveo, Golf, etc, etc. But then again I'm perhaps too young to really remember the old Rabbits and their reputation/images they may invoke.

Great little car. The handling and component feel is leagues beyond the likes of the Mazda3 and Civic. Yes, both the Civic and Mazda will deliver better mileage and in the case of the Mazda or Civic SI you'll get more performance too. But you'll always feel like you're in a low rent economy car. The Golf/Rabbit simply doesn't feel like a cheap little piece of tin...from the nicely weighted doors, to the equally heavy steering, to every bit you touch, the car reeks of a quality not seen at this end of the price spectrum. Essentially, it's a mini-passat.
 
There's a reason the golf/rabbit is the bestselling car in the world...it feels like so much more than any of the japanese or american competition.

I think it is an outstanding car. The worst part is the way VW of America packages it with that 5-cylinder. I hope they change that soon and offer at least their tried and true 2.0l 8V. Better yet, let's see the 1.6l direct injection engine in there. Not that I don't like the 2.5l. Yes, it is a bit coarse. But it has very flexible and smooth power delivery, with lots of torque available for normal driving. I test drove the 150 hp version and was very impressed. I expected much worse.
 
Otherwise, there is a reason why the Golf has been by far the most popular family car in Europe. It is very roomy, comfortable and practical. It is unstoppable in snow and has outstanding handling slippery roads. Its electric power steering is the best in the world, possibly with the exception of Mini Cooper. It is very safe and has a full size spare tire. It is also very short and is very easy to park.

"Civic and Mazda will deliver better mileage.... But you'll always feel like you're in a low rent economy car."
 
If you try to drive the Rabbit for over 100k, you'll have spent plenty of time in rented economy cars! I kid. Ok, half kid. Ok, it's likely to need significant service but not absolute.
 
"There's a reason the golf/rabbit is the bestselling car in the world... " Uh...... it's not the best selling car in the world. The corolla is. Every year. It is sad, I know. It's even sold more than the original beetle.
 
But I agree, that many people looking at a Civic/Corolla/Mazda3 would be willing to drop another 500 for an extra 30hp. And the utility of the hatchback is worth something as well. And if you're leasing, who cares about spotty reliability. But, a 4cyl Accord/Altima and probably Mazda6 isn't much more, and probably give you better mileage/resale/utility.

Now this is a car that has jumped the shark. ;-)
If I were to get one, I'd be looking at the 80's.

Doug, I'm surprised that you found the 04 Golf "never lacks for power" but thought the Rabbit was anemic. I have an 05 Golf and loathe the engine from the depths of my soul, but found my sister's Jetta with the 2.5 to be pretty decent merging on the freeway and other places where I pray white-knuckled. I rather like the Rabbit, but my fiance says we can't buy one since it's too similar to the Golf I hate. i try to explain that I like the Golf apart from the engine and the worst automatic I've ever encountered, but she thinks they're too similar and I'll have buyer's remorse on the Rabbit. <shrug>

"Doug, I'm surprised that you found the 04 Golf "never lacks for power" but thought the Rabbit was anemic. "
 
Yah, I can see how that's surprising, especially given the numbers Karl posted. Obviously I don't have track numbers, so maybe its just a "feel" thing. All I can say is that during the test drive(s), I felt like the HP in the Rabbit was better on paper then in real life. The Rabbit is larger/heavier then the Golf, so maybe coming directly from the Golf, it just felt a little boat-y.
 
Regarding the automatic transmission, I've never had a problem with it finding gear, downshifting, etc. Maybe I'm just biased because I love the Golf so much.

Don't forget that for 2009 all VW models get free maintenance for 3 years or 36,000 miles. That's something else to consider when taking into account the price differential between competitors like the Civic and Mazda3.

" Don't forget that for 2009 all VW models get free maintenance for 3 years or 36,000 miles. "
 
Drop from 4 to 3 years of warranty though, which is concerning.

I have to agree 100% with Karl on this one. I test drove one recently and found it was a great balance of build quality and power for the price. I didn't find the 2.5 liter engine underpowered in comparison to the competition and the interior was first rate. My only complaint with the engine is it is thrashy sounding at high RPMs, nowhere near as smooth as a Honda engine. In terms of cost, you can get a 3 year lease with no money down on it for about $220 in this area, so it's not particularly expensive in this segment. The 3 year maintenance plan makes the lease interesting. Recent surveys found that the reliability of Volkswagen models is much improved, so there is hope that that problem is not as bad on newer models. I am holding out for the Jetta Sportswagen with the new 2 liter diesel. If they put that engine in the Rabbit I would be tempted to go that way.

"There's a reason the golf/rabbit is the bestselling car in the world...it feels like so much more than any of the japanese or american competition"
 
Doesnt the Astra outselld the Golf/Rabbit in Europe? I know it has in the past so I question your notion that VW is delivering something that no one else does in this segment globally.
 
The Rabbit has a better interior than US only compacts (no surprise there) but its no better than the Astra from a materials perspective. Now that I know how the Opel Astra interior feels I can see why its seen as a legit Golf competitor in Europe. It just goes to show that what we consider "luxurious" in a US economy car is just standard in Europe. As usual, people here are far more enamored with European vehicles than the people in the home market.

Can someone tell me if this 2.5 in the Rabbit is one of VWs FSI (direct injection) engines? I tried to google this yesterday but I never had time to dig into it at work.
 
Also, can someone confirm that this engine has no form of variable valve timing?
 
I guess VW doesn't want to invest that extra cost and complexity into the engine/drive train when this car is already a bit more expensive than the competition, but if they did this engine would be even more responsive.
 
I've always liked VW styling myself, and I like this car, but the VW dealership in my area, the only one around for a considerable distance, is terrible. They are rude, and pompous. I looked a Rabbit on their lot last week just for grins, and I noticed the $867 "Dealer Prep" factored into the sticker price. What a joke. I hope no one pays that.

"My only complaint with the engine is it is thrashy sounding at high RPMs, nowhere near as smooth as a Honda engine. "
 
An I-5 isnt inherently balanced and VWs I-5 sounds terrible inside and out of the car. The Jetta has been knocked for this since it came out. While an I-4 isn't naturally balanced there are plenty of refined I-4s on the market that sound better than this engine. At least they bumped the power to 170hp. This engine is also a low revver as well although the press barely mentions this fact.

On mine, there are days when it's great. But other days, you can floor it and it just sits there in high gear, never downshifts, and if it does it's terribly clunky, like a kid driving his first manual. Not every shift, but sometimes, and always when I'm really pushing her, which is the time you want it to perform.
 
I find the Golf is great for level land or downhill, and at speeds from about 20-50. Going up hills, especialy from a standing start or low speed, and the highway are awful. Which considering the on my commute home I merge onto the interstate going uphill is a bad thing. We joke about making the gerbils cry when we're on the interstate. If I could drop in one of VWs turbo 4s and a decent transmission I'd be tickled, as it is I check the payout on my loan every month against the TMV on Edmunds. I've owned five cars and I rank this fifth. Apart from the engine and tranmission she'd be second.

Karl's overall assessment of the Rabbit is exactly how I would rate the last Golf (other than the Golf with the 2.0 engine is weak on power). I drove an '03 Golf from the east coast to CO a few years back. I was dreading 2,000 miles in a Golf but came away pleasantly surprised. The seats were comfortable and the car drove great. It had a solid, high quality feel to it for an economy car. Fuel mileage was a bit disappointing, especially when going over 70 mph. I bought the car used for my son, against my better judgment due to reliability concerns, but it was the car he really wanted. He still loves it after 4+ years.

The I-5 has lots of low end torque and good HP (unlike the first version with a paltry 150hp) but it sounds terrible at best. Everytime I hear my neighbor pull off in her Jetta, my ear drums ache. At least the Rabbit doesn't have the stupid chrome grille like the Jetta so that is a plus but the overall exterior package is beyond boring. Like many others, I like the interior but hate the exterior. For basic transportation though, I'd probably drive it as it seems like a pretty good little car.

1487, your question regarding the Golf vs Astra sales...
 
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/06/best-selling-cars-in-europe-for-first.html
 
Interestingly, the Astra sales are down for the year so far whereas the Golf is up 25ish%

thanks doug. The Astra must have been doing better when it was newer. Its going into its final model year and the Golf is more modern. The Corsa is actually outselling it at this stage. We all know that hatches never outsell compact sedans in the US is this is likely one reason why Rabbit sales will never approach sales of Civic or Corolla or even Focus in America.

I really like the Rabbit as well. Even at the slight price gap from the Civic & Mazda, it really is a nice package.
 
The Rabbit 3dr actually starts at $15,600. With 6spd Tiptronic, it's $16,670.
My impression of it in photos is that the front looks cheap. In real life, it looks like a high quality hatchback. The interior does blow away anything within it's price range (and some far above it).
 
Since I really love the GTI, I tend to look at the Rabbit as a stripped down GTI at $10,000 less.
Of course it's no GTI but you get almost the same great interior, very high quality and practical body that isn't as obvious as the Civic.
 
I was really impressed with the Mazda 3 interior and it's sporty, pseudo-germanic feel so that's a tougher call for me. Plus the sport wagon looks great.
 
The only downfall of the Rabbit is the relatively poor MPG's. If it could break 30mpg's and be a bit better in the city loop, it would make it a much more attractive proposition.
 
I want to love the Jetta but it's just way, way too ugly.
 
My heart goes to the GTI and I would gladly pay the premium for it... I'm rather disappointed in VW's current style choices otherwise.

You're right, 1487, about hatches failing to outsell compact sedans in the past. But I wonder how much that will change now that people are starting to warm up to smaller cars again. At least with a hatch you don't lose quite as much utility (part of which may just be perceived) when you're forced to downsize.

1487 "The Astra must have been doing better when it was newer. Its going into its final model year and the Golf is more modern"
 
the Astra was launched in 2004, the Golf in 2003.

A couple of comments:
 
1. Doug, when the current Rabbit was first released, it had 150 hp. That's why you thought it was underpowered. Its output was increased to 170 hp for the current MY.
 
2. Karl, is the Mazda 3 not a better handler and sportier overall than the Rabbit? Is it not comparable to the GTI sportiness-wise?
 
Cruiserhead1, you just mirrored my feelings about the Rabbit and VW's recent exterior styling. Their current sedans are ugly: the Jetta is ugly and the Passat is unlookable! The Rabbit is nice but doesn't blow me away. The Passat and Jetta wagons really look awesome.......if I wanted a VW today I would be after one of these wagons.....awesome looks + utility = priceless.
 
On the whole, I would choose a Mazda 3 GT over the Rabbit.

I tried one out and thought it was pretty good (except the clutch pedal - don't get the stick). I didn't like it as much as the Mazda3, but my sense of interior aesthetics and how I want a car to feel might not be mainstream. I don't see what's fun about cars that feel "solid" and "hunkered down." It's exactly what I don't want when I throw a car into a corner.
 
Ultimately I stayed away from VW because of the reputation that the previous Golf-platform cars had for being troublesome. 11 of the 12 Golf/Beetle/Jetta owners that I know were frustrated by the ownership experience and the official statistics suggest it wasn't just bad luck (the 12th has a GTI). If a car's going to be poorly built, it'd better be really beautiful and really fun. Like an Alfa Romeo. But the Rabbit is more of a logical purchase - a compromise between conflicting attributes - and those need to be more reliable. This new generation doesn't seem to be as problematic, so I'll give them another chance in a few years.

Karl, the VW Rabbit in simple words is just your basic transportation just liike the Astra and both have the Germanic taste and feeling with a whole lot of extras and room. I think the Rabbit won twice the best econo comparation with C & D or some other magazine. Sure, you have better 4 cyl. cars in the market but if your are looking for the German feeling for less than 20K, the Rabbit is the choice.

"if your are looking for the German feeling for less than 20K, the Rabbit is the choice" - VW has those 100 people nailed. Unfortunately for them, 99% of the people who are now flocking to compacts are looking for high MPG.

and I thought it was only domestic's that had poor gas milage.

I've often thought that VW made a mistake with the Rabbit, Offering only the 2.5L 5 Cylinder engine with it's dismal mileage figures was always going to deter potential buyers. If they had a 4 cylinder with competive power and mileage available for this, I reckon It'd be at the top of many peoples list.....well maybe even more people would bite if they dropped the dumb Rabbit name

The Rabbit is a bit heavier than the Lancer and 3, is it not? If it is, it's definitely not going to be a fuel miser even with a smaller I-4 inplace of the I-5. Small cars are getting heavy, fast. My Mazda3 weighs exactly the same as a relative's former Olds Alero with a big iron block V6 stuffed in it's nose.

In terms of pure sporty-ness the Mazda 3 beats the Rabbit -- but it's pretty close. In terms of interior quality and an overall feeling of "substantial-ness" the Rabbit beats the 3, probably by a little more than the Mazda beats the VW in sporty-ness.
 
But the base Rabbit is quicker than the base 3, while neither gets impressive (though also not terrible) mileage. Like so many segments, there's not really a clear winner here, just lots of subtle differences that every potential buyer should be aware of.
 
After that you simply figure out where your priorities reside and buy the appropriate model.

"the Astra was launched in 2004, the Golf in 2003."
 
I thought the Rabbit was a revised version of the Golf. I didnt realize it was just a name change. I really thought this car had been redesigned since 2003. Both cars are old then.
 
"VW has those 100 people nailed. Unfortunately for them, 99% of the people who are now flocking to compacts are looking for high MPG."
 
Exactly, the Rabbit is good at a lot of things but not efficiency when that is one of the most important factors in this class. "germanic feel' is fine but its apparent most buyers arent interested in that if the top sellers are Focus, Corolla and Civic. None of those cars offers hatch either so that shows Americans still arent interested in hatches. Meanwhile Saturn cant give Astras away in spite of a high quality interior and great handling.

"I thought the Rabbit was a revised version of the Golf. I didnt realize it was just a name change. I really thought this car had been redesigned since 2003. Both cars are old then."
 
The Rabbit and the Golf are different cars, are they not?
 
BTW in Europe, they don't use Rabbit - its still Golf, even though its a new car.

They timed the Rabbit renaming to coincide with the release of the 5th generation Golf. Golf just wasn't a cool name, even if referred to some wind somewhere rather than the game. A lot of people I know have warm and fuzzy nostalgic feelings about the old Rabbit, so I think the name change works.
 
With the release of the 5th generation Golf/Jetta, they also changed the name of the Jetta in Europe, from Bora to Jetta. So, just like before, 3 names for two vehicles, but in a different combination.
 
VW's previous 4-cylinder engine was pretty bad, but I still think they should have a 4cyl base model with less power and more mileage.

Thanks for the info, Karl.
 
What is called the Rabbit here is actually the 5th generation (and still current generation) Golf. Outside of North America the name Rabbit has never been used.
The 5th generation Golf was launched worldwide in 2003, but got to the US as the Rabbit in 2005. Between 2003 and 2005 (before the Rabbit), we still had the 4th generation Golf.
 
1487, outside of the US, the Golf/Rabbit is a true econocar because there are choices of efficent engines starting from around 1.4L. Check out this link for the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk5
I reckon VW decided that the Rabbit wouldn't be a basic econocar in the US, and so the gave it a (relatively powerful) 2.5L engine that is actually quite efficient for its size. So arguing that "the Rabbit is good at a lot of things but not efficiency when that is one of the most important factors in this class" is not exactly a strong argument. Any car with a 2.5L engine isn't going to be competitive with a Corolla on the fuel economy front. Like Karl alluded to in his article, it's not meant for people seeking maximum fuel economy......like the Mazda 3 (at least, the 2.3L version), the Rabbit is NOT an econocar.

Carlisimo, I disagree. I think Golf is a cool name, far better than Rabbit.

Given the cost of petrol I think the high end sport/compact market will grow as not everybody wants to drive a economy car that feels...well... economy. One shouldnt have to give up luxuries and features to have a small car.
 
Ive always liked the idea of a smaller car (Civic/GTi size) with available premium features, like HID's, leather, heated seats, great sound systems, premium materials and fit/finish. The VW GTi is a prime example of what Im speaking of.

Carlisimo, I disagree. I think Golf is a cool name, far better than Rabbit.
 
I disagree too, Rabbit! Possibly my least favorite car name ever, well that and the Nissan Gloria. Golf is a much better name in my opinion.

I'm curious why it's even worth bringing up $20/month in fuel cost differences between compact cars.
 
Factors such as longevity, resale value, warranty, quality, etc are far more important.
 
The VW's poor dealer experience and reliability record may be more of a factor than fuel economy and handling vs a vehicle like the Mazda3.

myob, the answer to your question is simple: everyone has their priorities.
It's true that longevity, reliability, warranty, quality and maybe resale value are the most important. Those are the fundamentals.
 
But outside of that, there are other things.....what I call the pleasure or enjoyment aspects. For someone who does not care for more than 140 hp, the extra $20/month or so in fuel costs is worth saving....afterall, $240/year is a lot of money for a decent present or something! And if the person drives a lot, the differences might be a bit more than $20/month.
-There are some people who actually enjoy driving. For them, handling and/or power are important and they may be willing to forgo the $20/month savings in fuel costs.....and if they choose the VW, they may be willing to tolerate the poor dealer experience and so-so reliability.
-Others like styling, others like a luxury feel in the interior, etc. Some people prefer RWD because of the relative ease of doing burnouts (something I see as a complete waste).........
 
So different people have different prioirties.

blackadder,
I actually think the Passat sedan looks ok. It has a premium look & feel, even if the styling isn't the greatest.

"So arguing that "the Rabbit is good at a lot of things but not efficiency when that is one of the most important factors in this class" is not exactly a strong argument. Any car with a 2.5L engine isn't going to be competitive with a Corolla on the fuel economy front. Like Karl alluded to in his article, it's not meant for people seeking maximum fuel economy......like the Mazda 3 (at least, the 2.3L version), the Rabbit is NOT an econocar."
 
Obviously I was only talking about the US version of the car. Common sense tells us that any car sold in the US and Europe (including Astra) has more fuel efficient powertrains in Europe. My point was that in the US people tend to care about mileage in their compact cars and that is likely one reason (hatch is another) why the Rabbit's sales are relatively low compared to civic and corolla. Yes the Rabbit has a more premium interior but I don't think that's a major issue for most people looking for a sub $20k car. If VW is more concerned with maintaining its image for "premium" products in the US than sales then the Rabbit is doing its job. If they want to increase their sales in the US (as they have announced previously) I would suggest they put more emphasis on mileage and less on heated seats, auto wipers and other luxury touches.

I agree. As much as I love the premium feel of a VW, they need to leverage their ability to make fuel sipping vehicles based on their experience in the home market, rather than wasting money making crappy engines for NA.
 
Does everyone know that the freakin' GTI 2.0T (with wider stickier tires I might add) gets the same (or better with the DSG option) mileage as the Rabbit?! Ridiculous!

Of course 1487 I was referring to the US version of the car: my point is that it's absurd to complain about a car with a 2.5L engine being "good at a lot of things but not efficiency when that is one of the most important factors in this class". Obviously a car with a 2.5L engine is not going to be competitive with a Civic or Corolla's 1.8L engine on fuel economy!
 
The Rabbit might start at around $17k, but that doesn't make it an econocar......it's not meant for maximum fuel economy. And I haven't seen any marketing suggesting that it is. VW is not going after Civic and Corolla buyers with this Rabbit.
You seem to be arguing that just because it is affordable and a compact, it must have Corolla-like fuel economy! Not a sound argument, is it? LOL!....funny!
 
Bbechtel, the 2.0T engine would be more expensive, needs premium for maximum performance, and is probably more expensive to maintain, and maybe a little less reliable.
Apart from not sounding great at high rpm, I see nothing about the 2.5L that can be described as crappy. I haven't driven it yet, but from what I've heard it has a lot of power, torque and is reasonably economical.
But I agree with you that the Rabbit needs to have another engine in addition to the 2.5L, a more economical engine choice......maybe the 2.0 FSI engine.

Hmmm, 1487, thinking about your question some more, I think if fuel economy were the primary issue, the Jetta wouldn't sell well....it has the same 2.5L engine. But it is (isn't it?) so maybe the reason the Rabbit isn't selling well is the hatch.
Mazda had a similar problem selling the Mazda 6 hatchback, despite the fact that it was a lot more stylish than the sedan and offered far more trunk room (22 cu-ft as opposed to 15 cu-ft by the sedan).
 
In VW's case, I don't think they're necessarily going for "premium" with the Rabbit (or the Jetta for that matter), but more likely going for the compact buyer who wants some power/performance/sportiness/semblance of luxury and is willing to give up some fuel economy for it......the people who wouldn't want a Civic or Corolla. Those buyers are relatively few.
 
I think they must somehow reduce the weight of the Rabbit and provide a more economical engine choice in addition to the 2.5L, like Mazda and Mitsubishi have done with the Mazda 3 and Lancer.

blackadder,
 
Americans associate the size of a car with its cost and fuel economy. When a car is as small as the Rabbit and starts at $16k I would tend to think it is an econo car. The 3 is available with many of the same features found on the Rabbit and its still considered and econo car. A few years back VW dropped the price on the Jetta so it would be under $17k like the Rabbit to make sure both cars were competitive on price with other small cars. Other than the civc no other compact can match the corolla in terms of mileage but I would think the Rabbit would be more successful with a standard engine that got 10% better mileage. If standard hp was that critical to small car buyers vehicles like the Lancer and Cobalt would be selling a lot better.

Well 1487, that explains several things! In the econocar comparison on Edmunds' a few weeks ago, most of those who preferred the Civic complained about the 3's economy...........my reaction was "what do they expect? It has a larger engine and is faster, why are they not acknowledging that?" It was so obvious to me that the 3 is meant to have good and not great economy....but the crowd expected it to have great economy.
In the comments following Karl's discussion on that comparison, one guy (McManus, I think) kept insisting that the 3 is an econocar, despite its larger engines and higher equipment levels obviously suggesting otherwise. Interestingly, he considered the Rabbit as something above an econocar but not the 3.......
I also questioned why Edmunds' pitched the Civic EX aginst the Mazda 3 GT in a comparison test about two years ago, given the large differences in engine size, performance and economy.
 
Interestingly, I think the demand for compact with relatively high performance and equipment levels will increase if fuel prices keep getting higher.

"I also questioned why Edmunds' pitched the Civic EX aginst the Mazda 3 GT in a comparison test about two years ago, given the large differences in engine size, performance and economy."
 
This was a price issue, wasn't it? They were trying to select trims within a couple hundred bucks of each other - hence the Lancer GTS not making it in.

Dougtheeng, that comment of mine refers to this road test from two years ago: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=108601/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/108601/article.html
 
Sure, the cars fall within the same price range, but they're meant for different compact car buyers. One (Mazda 3 GT) emphasizes performance and trades of fuel economy for it.....the other (Civic EX) has decent/adequate performance and maximum fuel economy. You can argue that they cost about the same, but the only question a comparison test can answer here is "given the same amount of money.....which of these would you choose?" The answer to that question depends too much on the buye'r's priorities in this case because there are large differences in performance and fuel economy between the cars.
 
Just to illustrate my point further, would a comparison between a $50k 335i and a $50k Tahoe Hybrid make sense just because the cars cost the same? They are too different for a comparison test to be meaningful. The Civic EX and the 3 GT are not that different, but different enough.

blackadder5639,
Valid point, and one that some missed when discussing the Ralliart - economy is not always the top priority.

"Just to illustrate my point further, would a comparison between a $50k 335i and a $50k Tahoe Hybrid make sense just because the cars cost the same? They are too different for a comparison test to be meaningful. The Civic EX and the 3 GT are not that different, but different enough."
 
I misunderstood which test you were talking about. I was referring to Edmund's recent test, where it was for compact cars within a certain price range.
 
Obviously I am not suggesting you should test a Tahoe against a 535.

Go check the price per mile number on the Rabbit, or a Civic, then on a passat or Accord, and tell me this isn't an economy car. I think they call them economy cars because they cost less to operate than other (usually but not always bigger) cars. A loaded Mini cooper S is economical in terms of fuel economy, but costs a good bit more. Some american cars don't cost any more to buy, but poor resale makes them cost more to operate.

There are better ways to save a buck on a vehicle than just fuel economy. Resale value, interest cost, insurance, etc usually matter more than 10% differences in fuel economy.

So relax and buy the Rabbit if you prefer it. If $240/yr on fuel swings your decision, perhaps a 1-2 y/o used model would be a better choice for you.

If you are easily bored by a "no frills" interior and exterior, then this car is not for you.

If you are looking for something hyped-up with flashy styled fiberglass, growling exaust, and a coffee can for a muffler, then this car is not for you.

If you want the latest design trends, and the flavor of the year styling inside and out, then this car is not for you.

If you are male, under 25 years old, and love to be surrounded by cheap plastic controls, gadgets, and surfaces, then this car is not for you.

If, however, you love great quality, the thoughfulness, solidness, and precision of German engineering and design, and superb performance and handling... and you need to keep it under $20,000... then this is your ride.

Don't get me wrong. I love and have owned cars that do not fit the Rabbit's description. However, this might be the best car I have ever owned. Since 1991, I have purchased all my cars, brand new, off the dealer's lot. I've owned a 1991 Toyota Corolla SR5, a 2001 Nissan Sentra SE, and now a 2009 Volkswagen Rabbit. I'm proud to say that the Rabbit is still in step with my need for performance. Initally, I wanted to be in a larger car, with a V6 engine, that was slightly below $30,000. However, in today's economy, I felt that being a bit irresponsible with my finances, so I compromised and found the VW Rabbit.

I does not feel like a sub-$20,000 car. The interior, while somewhat spartan, is of high quality, and above all, functional. Controls, displays, and gauges are all ergonomically placed, and quite intuitive. It is very comforable and all around visibility is good.

The vehicle does not feel like a "back road burner" but 0-60 mph will catch you by surprise (especially with the 5 spd manual), because you don't hear the engine laboring to get there, and the ride is smooth and refined.

I recommend the manual transmission to make the most of the 170 hp and 177 lbs./ft. of torque that the 2.5L engine offers. It is smooth, crisp, precise, and a joy to work. It brought back the fun of "heel /toeing" that I remember in my younger days. I must admit, launching fairly hard on a green light, then looking down at the speedometer passing 60 mph in roughly 8 seconds.

If you must have the 6 speed, Tiptronic roboshifter, then you won't be disappointed. It is smooth, and seems to be able to make shifts in the sweet spot, most of the time, with very little hunting. In 2009, it is the only option for the 4 door Rabbit. (Shame on VW.)

This car is pretty quick, but the real joy is in the way it handles the twisty roads. While not a GTI, the Rabbit's handling is composed, predictable, and responsive.

The Honda Civic Si and Nissan Sentra SE-R & Spec V are faster. The Subaru Impreza has full-time all wheel drive. The Mazda 3, might have better fuel economy, and might feel "sportier". All of them are good cars. But none of them have the safety rating that the Rabbit has, or the same German quality feel.

I think I think I could have settled for the Mazda 3 or the Subaru Impreza and still be happy... but I would have missed out on the Rabbit. Driving is fun again. I think that's the best way I can describe it.