Talk:Volkswagen Jetta

Possible copyright infringement

See: http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/8783/jettahistory.html Bill 15:29, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That page doesn't exist, so I don't think it'll be an issue. The article could still use a generous dose of encylopedic-voice, though. -- Crag 15:14, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

The new Jetta is pugly... but they have some clever ads. Not the first ones, where VW didn't even have the courage to show the car. --Madchester 20:33, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Needs a dose of sense of perspective

Could do with looking at the subject from a more VW like (European) point of view.

Should we include the critical/public response for the A5 Jetta, cause it hasn't been well receieved, for its exterior appearance at least. --LeoTheLion 1 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Criticism of new vehicle models is often strong initially, especially among owner enthisiasts, but it usually dies out with time. I think it's too early in the model cycle of the A5 to discuss aesthetic criticism. Give it a year and there might be more objective commentary on the matter. (Consider, for instance, Chris Bangle's designs at BMW. The new 7-series was broadly criticized, but the new 5- and 3-series models, which take their design inspiration from the flagship 7-series, have been better received. Even the 7-series got a recent design makeover. Time and refinement tend to mitigate strong initial reactions.) --Maande10 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

All of the pictures are of sedans except the A4 picture, which is a station wagon ("avant"). For comparison purposes, they should all be sedans. If the wagon version of the Jetta, which hasn't existed for all the models (A4-only?), needs to be shown, it should be in addition to the sedan, not instead of it. --Maande10 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bora Picture

Agreed, here in the UK the estate version of the Bora is extremely rare, in fact i have never seen one. Being a Bora owner myself the picture here really does not do this car justice. It would be good if someone could update this, I could add a picture of mine (no copyright issues) once I have got my head around uploading pictures! Infomonkey 13:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, why is there a Mk5 picture in the Mk2 article? Daimler Ben (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

At the bottom

What's this? "One famous individual privligaged enough to drive the Volkswagen Jetta is the world revered Number Six. With his Volkswagen jetta, birkenstocks, and headband, he strikes fear in everyone's heart"

Anyone want to integrate this into the article?

This section was on the Borat page:

The name Borat was also given to a silver Volkswagen Jetta, or Bora, that visited many VW Festivals around the UK. After an early festival, the letter "T" was added to the Bora on the rear of the car, and Borat was born in the automobile world.

The car featured a VW Votex kit (OEM parts available through the dealership or resellers), which was, and still is, quite a rare kit to be seen in the UK, although it features more prominently in the USA – where the Bora has always been called the Jetta (in 2005, the Jetta name was readopted worldwide).

It doesn't have any place on the Borat article, and from what I can see it doesn't merit an article of its own, so could someone merge this into this article? I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to do it myself, so if this information is relevant, then I would be grateful if someone could write it into the main Jetta article. Thank you! --Doug (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Advertising campaign

Be gentle with me, as this is my first time on the talk page of an automobile. But I think the Jetta's current shock-and-awe advertising campaign warrants a mention here.

If you haven't seen 'em, in each ad there are a few friends talking in the car, just about random stuff, when suddenly, SKREE WHAM!!!, they're involved in a rather devastating-looking car accident. The commercials then skip ahead to just after the accident, as the friends are viewing the devastation, and one of them starts, "Holy..."

I don't know if I'm in the minority of people who've taken "whoa, holy crap!" notice out of that ad campaign, but if it's as successful as I imagine it probably should be, would information about that campaign be appropriate for inclusion here? ekedolphin 03:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for deleting parts A4 and A5

My pc is stuffing up it won't let wikipedia change hence some of Jetta stuff is lost it can be repaired I tried but PC won't let me sorry for inconvenience.--202.6.138.33 07:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

     Fixed--202.6.138.34 07:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A little unprecise on the A4/Fox

There seems to be a lack of precision in this part:

In some European markets, the station wagon version was marketed as a Golf ("Estate" in the UK and Ireland, "Break" in France, "Variant" in some areas) and had a Golf grille, headlights, bumper, and fenders.

I can only speak for the German market ("Variant", as all VW station wagons are called over here), but the Golf Variant wasnt sold instead of the Bora Variant, but in addition to it. And, as the cars were built on the same platform, I couldnt state which replaced which, especially as there were at least two more differences: The (more expensive) Bora featured a higher quality cockpit and, AFAIR, each model had also its tail-lights fitted to the base version.

Further, due to my knowledge, the Fox is not based on the Jetta. I believe it is based on the Polo model.

Organization

I think the Jetta moved up to the "compact executive car" class as of MK5, just as the Passat moved up to the "executive car" class. Confirm/deny?

This page is in a Complete mess. Can someone try to re-arrange everything.

Please sign your posts with 4 tildas ~~~~

I very much agree, the article needs major work. Perhaps you could offer some suggestions, mysterious user? Analoguekid 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK well I decided to do a little housecleaning on the page. I've moved the generation infoboxes so they line up with the text about their respective generations. I removed the excessive number of external links and put just the one to the worldwide VW site. From that site is it possible to go to a specific country website on the Jetta. As the car is sold in over 100 countries around the world, it is silly to post a link to each individual site. More cleanup to come.--Analogue Kid 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the headings for the various generations get changed around quite a bit. This is likely due to the fact that various generations sold at different times in different countries. I'm going to remove the years and just have Mark I, Mark II, etc. In the article text, it can be noted that a particular car was sold for these years in this country and so on. That way we keep our worldwide readers satisfied.--Analogue Kid 15:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

12.168.67.36 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC) - Just to mention I did this, but there was a formatting 'bug' that may have only been visible on firefox (I didn't check other browsers), I just fixed it by breaking up the Infoboxes from one big list at the start of the article and putting them in the section for the various generations of car. The [edit] links were stacking up over some of the text in the mk4 section. This way the [edit] links are showing up right.

Good call, I noticed that too. Wasn't sure if it was just a fluke.--Analogue Kid 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

It has been suggested that MKIV Wolfsburg Edition be merged into this article.

I am opposed to such a merge. The reason is, people don't realize this but trim lines such as "GL" "Wolfsburg Edition" and others are very region specific. The only place you'll find them is in North America. I feel that it is nearly impossible to catalog every trim line in every market around the world so as to give fair weight. The Jetta page already has a globalize tag on it because it focuses way too much on the USA. I'm in the process of cleaning up the page and removing this region specific info, and a merge would just make things that much worse.

As for what to do with the MKIV page...I propose two options. One, it gets deleted because it's basically trivia and not very encyclopedic, so in a nutshell No indiscriminate information. Two, if people decide the page is worth keeping, it needs to be dramatically expanded in scope. Something like Volkswagen Special Editions or similar. The Wolfsburg Edition was certainly not limited to only the MkIV, in fact, every A platform car in the USA had such a trim at one point in its life cycle. Plus I'm quite sure there are special edition models in Europe and perhaps in other markets that may be worth mentioning on such a page.--Analogue Kid 17:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the merge after running across that page. I agree it should probably be deleted but I thought a merge suggestion might prompt someone to improve the article because it really doesn't stand alone very well right now. Stardust8212 20:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged, its extremely relivant information to the Jetta article, and doesnt really work as a stand-alone.Tory 22:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you extrapolate on why it is relevant? A single trim line on a single generation in a single country seems way too specific for an encyclopedia that must appeal to a global audience, not just the USA. I'm thinking information such as that is more suited for VWVortex or some such enthusiast site.--Analogue Kid 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So seeing as Tory has neglected to respond to the inquiry in over a week and no further objections have come up I think I'll just redirect the page here. If there's anything useful in it to make a Volkswagon Special Editions page or whatever it can be recovered from the history. Stardust8212 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

The article has undergone a huge improvement. It's well on it's way to becoming a good article. Some suggestions:

• Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions the units should be SI in the text and Imperial in brackets and consistent throughout the article
• Per WP:UNITS the units in text should be written out and the abbreviation used in brackets. e.g. "Luggage compartment volume is up to 453 Litres (16 ft³)."
• It would help to make subsections (with 3 equals-signs) to reduce the long blocks of text. For example for the Mark IV the could be a subsection "Safety"

This article is coming along really well and I don't think it will take too much work until it's a GA. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some good suggestions, thanks!--Analogue Kid 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe add some details about the wolfsburg editions? came here for it, leaving disappointed. KTHXBAI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.15.133 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Safe Happens.jpg

Image:Safe Happens.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

+++

I wish all auto-related articles were this good! Thanks to all who have contributed. --328cia (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it still needs some work here and there, but I appreciate the praise.--Analogue Kid (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mark" vs "Mk", and Jetta "names"

"Mark" is a pro-noun, whereas "Mk" is the well established abbreviation used for generations of motor cars.

Regarding the actual names - being as the VW Jetta is from a German manufacturer, then according to Wikipedia rules, the first name of the car, and its subsequent generations should always be listed as the original "home market", ie Germany. Any alternative names should be listed in the AKA part of the infobox, along with additions in the text of the article. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mk may be well established in the enthusiast community as a convenient shorthand, but Mark is still the way to go for a general interest article such as this one. See Lincoln Continental Mark VII for example.

Erm, actually, "Mk" is the established standard useage for professional motor vehicle engineers, etc. It is also the de-facto standard in the Oxford English Dictionary, along with the Collins English Dictionary. "Enthusiast communities" are not considered WP:RS - and so should not even be raised. The fact that you may have found another article with "Mark" doesn't mean it is correct! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find if you read each section that it notes the name changes over the years and says "oh by the way, it was still called the Jetta in the USA" rather than calling it the Jetta all along. You aren't even following your own standards when you title the third generation as "Jetta Mk3" because it was called the Vento in Germany at that time. Thus, it's best to keep just the generations in the subject headings and explain the various names in the running text and infobox.--Analogue Kid (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point about reading each section. However, a number issues arise - firstly, "Mark" is the name of a male human being, and is never used (written in full) in motor vehicle nomenclature, secondly, to use "Mark" would create major issues when searching, whereas "Mk" returns far tighter search results.

The issue of the Mk3 being called a Vento is also noteworthy, however WP conventions state that articles must be named after the "original" name. The text in the relevent sub-section should be edited to read something like: For the 3rd generation Jetta, the Jetta name was dropped, and it was officialy named the Volkswagen Vento in Germany, and all other European countries. In the US the name was...... There is method to my edits. Rgds 78.32.143.113 (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For the reference of any future editors, a discussion regarding this subject was undertaken at WP:AUTOS and the outcome can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 12#Problems with heading names--Analogue Kid (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Petrol version MPG

Does anyone know what mileage the petrol versions are supposed to get? Diesel is all that's on there now... TastyCakes (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there are so many different engines, it becomes extremely tedious to list the fuel economy of every single engine and transmission combination. Since Wikipedia isn't meant to be a buyers guide, that information isn't really important. The reason the diesel is listed is because the figures are notable for being very efficient. If you just want information for your personal use, check out VCA or Fuel Economy--Analogue Kid (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add this?

4th Gen Jettas after 2002 had a VR6 engine with 24 Valves, not just 12 like pre-2003s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.143.146 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All the engines that were available are listed in the infobox to the right. The article would become very tedious and bogged down if we listed small year to year changes. The VW engines page already has those details for the more technically inclined.--Analogue Kid (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

serious USA bias

This article has a very serious bias towards USA. Dispite the Jetta being a European car, there is incredibly little detail which covers the European markets. All but the section dealing with the Mk5 have NO European references, and ALL sections make no reference to the EuroNCAP crash tests. Nigh-on of the 'official' press releases are from the US-centric Volkwsagen of America (media.vw.com - which are now all dead links), rather than the 'global' Volkswagen AG media site (Volkswagen-media-services.com).

IMVHO, this is an article with a shockingly US-centric bias - and seems to completly fail to even acknowledge its' home markets with anything other than a passing lip service!! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I will have to strongly disagree with you in terms of the USA bias. When I re-wrote it a few years back, I made a significant effort to write it from a neutral POV. If you think it's US centric now, check out this version which lacks engine data from anywhere but the USA. I'd be happy to include some European references if I could get some, but being located in North America severely hampers my ability to find articles and such. Still, all the powertrain info is there. EuroNCAP has never tested the Jetta, only the Golf; whose results may or may not apply to the different body style of the Jetta. With regards to the media website, the MkV Jetta was introduced in the USA prior to Europe and that site had considerably more information than the VW AG site. Unfortunately, VW changed around the website earlier this year and its not easy to go in and try to re-find the articles. Between having information and not having it, I would rather include information on the article. As far as it's "home market", that would actually now be North America. The Jetta has always sold far better in the US than in Europe. The fact that its primary production now takes place in Mexico is a reflection of this.

:If you have some SPECIFIC changes you'd like to see made, by all means make them or suggest them in detail here. One of the most frustrating things on Wikipedia is when somebody comes in and proclaims "this article is crap!" and tags it with a bunch of banners while not offering to help fix the real or perceived issues. I really hope you can step up and make some significant contributions (not just formatting) since you clearly think the article is no good.--Analogue Kid (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Analogue Kid, you seem to have a serious case of WP:OWN - because you seem to have constant 'arguments' or 'differences of opinion' to virtually every other editor of this article. Whilst anyone who makes a concerted effort to improve articles should be commended, Wikipedia has very clear rules regarding any potential 'ownership' of articles.

Secondly, I, nor I doubt anyone else cares a damn about 'historical revisions' - most people will just read the article in its current state, so therefore this article is NOT a neutral point of view - so that comment is a bit weak.

Next, your comment on not being able to find 'European' references because you are 'located in North America' beggars belief!!!! This is the worldwide web, and worldwide information is just a search engine away. I am from the UK, and can easily access American, Asian, Australasian web sites!

Regarding the EuroNCAP comment, I can't comment on weather they have, or have not tested the Jetta - but the Golf tests would be extremely valid, because a Jetta is fundamentally just a Golf with a boot (trunk) - and one of the primary EuroNCAP crash tests is the frontal impact - which would be identical from the Golf to the Jetta. OK, include some explanitory text in the prose, so that readers are made aware there may be slight differences between the crash test results.

On to the 'media' citations. I certainly don't wish to 'blame' anyone because VWoA have redesigned their website. However, my comment that the VAST MAJORITY of official VW media citations are the VWoA ones - when the 'global VW' media site would not be US-centric (like the VWoA citations are), and would represent a global point of view, and whilst I respect the fact that the Mk5 was first launched in the US, any article which appears on the VWoA media cite also appears on the global site too. But I do agree that keeping the citations is important (and it is actually the Wikipedia formal guidance) - which is why I merely tagged them with the {{dead link}} tag!

Regarding the 'home market' - then your comment is exceedingly arrogant! The Jetta is a German car, made by a German company - and according to the in-depth discussions on the WikiProject Automobiles page, it categorically states that the 'home market' is where the headquarters of the parent company. Just because the Jetta was 'launched' in the USA, that does NOT make its home market the USA! Or do you think that the Audi B7 RS4s home market was Italy! And just because the Jetta is produced in Mexico, that also does NOT infer any 'home market' - the Audi TT is built in Hungary, but its largest market is the UK. And if you are sure that the vast majority of Jetta sales are in the US, then you can of course back that up with appropriate citations - however, I strongly doubt that the Jetta sold far more than the whole of Europe!

Finally, I do not think this article is 'crap' - but the banners serve a both a vital 'warning', AND an 'invitation' to other editors to help rectify the articles shortcommings - or do you think that Wikipedia is fundamentally wrong for creating such warning banners. I'll gladly 'step up' and help improve this article - when I have time, and when I find appropriate citations - but I'm also more than willing to 'allow' other editors to improve this article - something which you seem to have a problem with. Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am quite aware that I don't own this or any article on WP. Look at the recent history, I haven't touched it for 3 months until earlier in August while dozens of other editors have gone in and made changes. To prove my point, I went ahead and posted a request for assistance and opinions on WP:CARS discussion. Anyway, I spent hours and hours working on this and I strongly believe that it is at least on par with if not considerably better than the average car article on WP. How many other car articles have 120 citations? Seriously, if you've looked around here, you'll see that there are literally hundreds of articles with either a complete lack of citations or US only ones. Look at the Lexus RX, Hyundai Tucson, or Mercedes-Benz M-Class for examples of articles that are in FAR greater need of additional references and a global perspective than this one. That doesn't make this article perfect mind you, but we rate articles on WP in comparison to each other. If you came in here saying "hey I think we could make some changes to improve things", I would totally be supportive of that. But instead you come in here and talk about how awful things are, put up all the banners, mark the article rating down to a C, and STILL have not offered any constructive criticism other than recommending mention of EuroNCAP crash tests and using the VW AG media site. I want to assume good faith on your part, but if those are the only things wrong with the article, then that is really frustrating to me that you make it out to be so awful.

I made as much of an effort as possible to go out and find some European references where available. Your comment about international sources online is not really valid because when it comes to finding reliable sources, nobody that would generally be considered reputable puts out much more than extremely basic information on older models online. Additionally, given that this is the English Wikipedia and the VW is from Germany, it's much harder to find English language sources. We can certainly use German sources, although they are not preferred. Thus, almost all the citations that I have included for older models are from books and magazines that I went to my local library to read. I think you'll agree those aren't as easy to get across oceans at the speed of light.

The home market issue is used primarily for naming the article, so that we can be consistent. What would you consider the home market of the Volkswagen Routan or how about the Ford Aspire? In this age of the global automotive market, it's not an easy thing to define. VW changed the name of this car in Europe from Jetta to Vento to Bora and back to Jetta. That signals a lack of strong popularity, whereas it has always been known as the Jetta in North America.

I look forward to seeing the specific changes you think need to be made. I also hope that you will register so I'm not just having a conversation with an IP address.--Analogue Kid (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Analogue Kid, plenty of UK-based and Australian references are available. You can go to google.co.uk and google.com.au and click "pages from the UK only"/"pages from Australia only". For example, here are some Australian sources:

• [1] (+ see links at bottom of article)
• [2] (+ see links at bottom of article)
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

Regarding EuroNCAP, because the Jetta has not been tested, Golf information can be mentioned so long as it is stated that the tests reflect the Golf and not the Jetta. The 2009 Used Car Safety Ratings in Australia include some data as recorded in "real world" crashes.

Overall 78.32.143.113's comments are fair: the article is not reflective of a globalised car and the downgrade from B- to C-class was a fair one. The article lacks too many citations to be a B-class. It is irrelevant that the article has 120 sources; there are still huge amounts of unsourced material. However, I would not go as to call the article "unbalanced" or "POV". OSX (talk • contributions) 13:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions OSX. The problem with your links is that the unregistered user was complaining that there were no international citations on the earlier generations, but there are plenty on the newer model. It remains a fact that I as a person in North America cannot practically include citations for non-US sources that aren't online somewhere. If somebody who lives elsewhere can go in and add them, then great, and I think the unregistered user lives in Europe. But to expect somebody from Zambia to come in and add their local sources may be wishful thinking. I think it's wrong to assume that just because a source comes from the US that it's automatically US-centric.

I'm also still somewhat miffed that people think it is full of unsourced material. As of today there is one single "citation needed" tag on the whole article. I realize that some of the links have been broken over the years but I made a huge effort when contributing to make sure that I wasn't including any original research and to watch out for other contributors adding opinions and such. I would like it if you could point out some specific examples of unsourced material, OSX. Thanks.--Analogue Kid (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because there are no/very few "citation needed" templates, does not mean that there are no/very few examples of unsourced material. I am not even going to bother pointing out any specifics because there are so many sentences with no sources. In most cases, each sentence should have a citation, unless there are several sentences in a row which are all cited by a single reference. Additionally, a paragraph with one reference at the end will often be interspersed with information not in the actual citation. My point: while there are 120 sources already, for an article of this size, 250 is probably more realistic for good article status. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"[T]here are plenty [of international sources] on the newer model": I don't know what your definition of "plenty" is, but two UK sources, one Czech source ([10]; which is unreliable and mentions nothing about the Jetta), one South African source, and a couple of other sources which merely mentions, "Exceptions to this include "Bora" in Mexico and Colombia, "Vento" in Argentina and Chile, and "Sagitar" in China" because no American source is going to say that. Basically, non-North American sources are used sparingly in the later sections. There are a couple of European books used for the 1st two generations, but that's about it. And why are forums (and in several occasions) being used as citations? OSX (talk • contributions) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Karmann does not list the Vento as a product they have produced. See here. ETKA, while a generally reliable reference, may have erroneous information. Further verification is needed.--Analogue Kid (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Assembled in China

" Like initial production of the second generation in China, the Asian and African plants build the car from a complete knock down (CKD) kit shipped from the factory in Puebla. "

The original source from Autoweek read like this: " The Puebla plant began producing the new Jetta in 2005. "This is our volume car for the United States and the volume car for Puebla," Lindner said. "We are producing 1,000 Jettas per day for all markets except for China and South Africa.
"In China and South Africa, we deliver the parts, and they assemble the cars themselves."

From what I can read from it is: it doesn't specifically say whether it ships CKD to China and S. Africa or not. Is there any other source? North wiki (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not CKD produced in China. Locally produced with very high local content. The Jetta was VW's second car in China, after the Santana. Used to be the top selling car in China for many years - now it's fading. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Article bloat

Folks, as much as we appreciate detail, this article (and some others in the series) are getting seriously obese. The Volkswagen catalogs I was in charge of ages ago had less detail. Interesting information drowns in a mass of senseless trivia.

• Do we really need the "Testing and review" sections?
• Do we really need every detail of a GLI trim level (that sounds like it was cribbed straight from a catalog)?
• Do we really need to re-hash every gripe from VW-Vortex? WP:RS
• Do we really need to repeat tired prose about styling that escaped from a press release?

Here is a personal anecdote, unsourced, but possibly worth looking into: At its introduction, the car was thoroughly hated in Wolfsburg. They derided it as "Rucksack-Golf" (backpacker Golf). Its success (especially in the U.S.A., but also elsewhere) spared it from certain death. The many names the car had are testament to its identity crisis. For decades, it was considered as heresy, deviance from the true Golf belief. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Article bloat and VW-fandom seem to go hand in hand in the English-speaking world. I agree with your points and would love to go at this article with some hedgecutters, but I think it may prove a long battle. Nonetheless, you have my support for trimming. Starting with eliminating just about everything about the "2004.5 GLI" and compressing the (useful but large) data tables would work. As another example, listing all 27 engine options for the A2 Jetta in its infobox makes it essentially illegible, these would be better if replaced by a span (eg: 1.3-1.8 litre petrol fours, 1.6 litre diesels and turbodiesels) since they are already represented in a table in the text.
 ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. As I have barely taught myself how to create tables, could I enlist your help with the spans? Very good idea. These lists remind me of the trim level and option sheets even trained sales people could not decipher. Editors: Comments, please, before the hedgecutters come out. -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Name of the Golf

>> The Jetta nameplate is a reference to the Atlantic 'jet stream', reflecting the period in Volkswagen's history when it named its vehicles after prominent winds. These also included the Volkswagen Passat (after the German word for trade wind), Volkswagen Bora (after bora), and Volkswagen Scirocco (after sirocco). <<

It's not a wind - but the name 'Golf' originaly does not come from the sport, but the gulf-stream (german: Golf-Strom). But I think Volkswagen (the marketing) played with both variants - as you can see with the names 'golf' and 'caddy' (pick-up based on the golf) - at least a nice marketing-idea 217.92.61.80 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ( Sorry - I'm the IP: TomGaribaldi (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) )

6th generation (NCS)

The six generation is said to be assembled in Jakarta, Indonesia by Garuda Matraman Motor. Checked VW Indonesia and VW Malaysia web site (in English) and can't find VW Jetta in the lineup, so, is there any reliable source that supports such car is assembled locally? --North wiki (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Anytime heard about the vehicle Identification Number? This is a thing which has every car and where can be identified every manufacturer and/or location of assembly. Not every car which is sold in a specific country is manufactured or assembled there. Show the Pontiac G8 and Pontiac Grand Prix (7th Gen). This were built in Australia for the US market. Some manufacturer are assembling the cars in different specifications, the most of them are especially for the export markets. In this way it can be that it is also applicable to separate car models because the plant capacitiy or the demand in their own country is too low. Garuda Matraman Motor is using the letter J on eleventh position of the VIN. 3VWZZZVWRLJ000398 --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of fuel economy table

There is no "caption" or "legend" or whatever it is called for the table with fuel economy, comparing with other cars. It does not even cite the unit of measurement (mpg, km/l, l/100km). I guess it is explained in the text, but at least not in close to the table. The caption should also cite source.

99.0 versus 99.5 model year

The Jetta Mark III in the US was sold up until 1999 model year (actually mid-1998). (I own one which is in fact a '99 model year Jetta Wolfsburg Edition, bought in Aug. '98. and manufactered a bit earlier in '98.) VW sold the Mark III (Vento in Europe) as their "99.0" offering. Then when the Mark IV (Bora) came out, it replaced the earlier model as the "99.5" offering because it was sold later in the year. In fact, this change occured just following August 1998 in US. This paragraph is from direct experience buying the 99.0 model, and then seeing the new 99.5 come out shortly after. But my Mark III is in fact a 1999 model year offering, despite being manufactured then sold in 1998. This does cause confusion when buying car parts, as nobody has the Wolfburg 1999 Jetta (Mark III) in their computer store databases.)

Clásico or Clasico

While the Spanish for "classic" is indeed "clásico", the article gives the name of the 4th generation still sold in Mexico both with and without the accent on the "a". I checked, and apparently, the model name is "Clasico" without the accent, according to VW Mexico's website for the car. --81.164.160.148 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alt. Fuel Page Too Prophetic of Biodeisel/WVO Use & Off Topic

Section on use of alternative fuels includes a paragraph about success using WVO, "misconceptions about WVO" and references that only one car has had failure. I suggest that this paragraph is removed altogether and replaced with a short "Some owners have converted their diesel Volkswagens to run Vegetable Fuel Oil (link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil_fuel)." Running WVO in diesel models is dangerous if not done properly & has caused many engine failures - this discussion is best left for the WVO page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.178.234 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Saloon = UK / Sedan = US-Canada

The sections have been modified where referencing the term 'saloon' have the additional term 'sedan' added to them, as over 350 Million US and CA speakers of "The Queens' English" have been educated to the term of a sedan for a vehicle(4 door)or coupe (2 door) and a saloon is where you go to have an alcoholic beverage. The idea for a hatchback threw the count of 'doors'into the uneven numbers as 3 door or 5 door.

Richard416282 (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Better Layout/Organization Idea

    The organization of this page is quite scattered, but if the layout was improved it would be more user friendly. If you go to the Volkswagen Passat, Golf, and Polo pages each generation has a heading, a picture, and a brief description of that generation. It also contains a link to a page where that particular generation has its own page. When implemented, this will be highly beneficial in the organization of the page. 
    Also, in reference to the talk on article bloat, some of the sections are length but deleting valid information is not the answer. This would greatly help the A4 and A5 sections as they are "bloated". If the main article is streamlined as listed above then not only will it be more user friendly, each individual generation article will be free to be more descriptive or "bloat-y". This method has worked for the Passat, Polo, and Golf nicely and when implemented will work well in this article.

50.49.125.125 (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)imf1216

Splitting

With the different generations of Volkswagen Golf and Volkswagen Passat having been split off, I see no reason why we can't do the same here. I'd like a show of hands saying whether they support or oppose the split and for each editor to explain.--Kevjgav (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this needs to be done, with seven generations now the article length is getting out of hand. --Vossanova ^o< 14:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The only question at this point would be, how should the split articles be named - "Mk #" like the Golf, "(A#)" like the Passat (B#), or "#th generation" like most other cars? Consistency is good but I would lean toward the last one because most of the generation sections start that way. --Vossanova ^o< 15:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vossanova I agree about "#the generation" - like you said, most of the generation sections start out that way, so I'd kinda go with that.--Kevjgav (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes on the split, full support. I think the titles should be Volkswagen Jetta (A#) (feels more Teutonic...) but I also do not want to hold things up; it's not that important. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A split seems like a reasonable thing to do. I agree with User:Mr.choppers, the titles should be VW Jetta A#. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible suggestion, especially with the confusion over the Chinese versions (and Marque) Warren (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering that "Golf Mk#" and "Passat (B#)", I'd say that "Jetta (A#)" would be the best title for the articles--Kevjgav (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

What is this table about?

In the engines section of the Jetta V I found the following table. I would not consider the given information useful, since there are just random numbers. What exactly does this table express? It seems like it compares fuel consumption, however, I can't tell how. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

In the U.S., Edmunds pitted a Jetta TDI automatic against hybrids like Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Ford Fusion hybrid and a MINI Cooper with manual transmission over two days of mixed city and highway driving.

	2009 VW Jetta TDI A6	2010 Toyota Prius	2010 Honda Insight	2010 Ford Fusion hybrid	2009 MINI Cooper M6
Back roads	41.2	47.2	44.1	39.6	38.5
City loop	31.6	48.7	43.4	35.1	30.1
Highway	40.6	47.4	38.6	36.0	33.3
Overall	38.1	47.6	42.3	37.3	34.5
EPA City/Hwy	29/40	51/48	40/43	41/36	28/37

References

Year changes in seventh generation MK.7

Hello, I just have noticed that the year of end production for the seventh generation is changing from 2017, 2018, and present. What information is true and we need and a citation to confirm if the Volkswagen Jetta is still in production or discontinuing. To prevent from vandalism, we should let this article by semi-protected.

MTSRider18 (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)MTSRider18 (talk • contribs)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)