Another in a series of my reviews that appeared in the online version of African Americans On Wheels, a now defunct automotive magazine that was included as an insert in the Sunday newspapers of major cities.
This car was probably the biggest disappointment of all of the cars I drove. In 1998, the low end of the market was full of drab, dull sedans, a few crossovers and trucks. Even though I knew the New Beetle was nothing more than a Golf in Beetle clothing, I looked forward to its introduction as much as anyone else. When I reserved the car from the company that handles VWs press fleet, I requested a yellow one with a manual, to pay homage to my father’s ’74 Super Beetle. Of course, when I came home from work that Monday, there was a red one with an automatic. At least the color was similar to their ’61 convertible.
Back in 1998, The New Beetle really stood out in an otherwise drab crowd.
I was still game, though, until I sat behind the wheel. Like I describe below, it was not unlike sitting in one of GM’s Dustbuster vans. I didn’t get, and couldn’t imagine anyone else getting, driving enjoyment out of one of these. This is unless your enjoyment solely consists of being seen in something “cool.”
The below review ran on June 29, 1998.
Thanks to the New Beetle, I’ve had my 15 minutes of fame. Everywhere I went, people smiled, waved, pointed, and asked me questions. It’s extremely rare to get this kind of attention for less than $20,000.
The New Beetle packs the unmistakable ladybug shape of its ancestor into a thoroughly modern package. Based on the platform of the next-generation Golf, it’s a water-cooled, front-engine, front-wheel drive hatchback. At first glance, the interior looks stark with a lot of painted metal. Don’t be fooled – it’s actually body-colored plastic paying reminiscent the original Bug’s interior. It also includes un-Bug-like features: power windows, locks and mirrors, sound system with optional six -CD changer, four-speed automatic transmission, air conditioning, and tilt-adjustable steering wheel. All of the gauges are in a single pod before the driver set against a HUGE dashboard. To get a sleeker shape, the designers stretched the windshield over the front wheels, putting its base a good yard out. Combined with the tall roof and overhead clock, it feels like driving a minivan.
You’ll be impressed by the new Beetle’s acceleration. Although not jet-like due to its nearly 2,800 pounds, the 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engine is sufficient for everyday driving (coming soon: a turbo and possibly a six-cylinder). Thanks to 16-inch low profile tires, handling is above-average for a subcompact, but they contribute to a relatively harsh ride. Being taller than most cars on the road, there’s plenty of headroom for front and rear passengers, and all get full-size head restraints. The trunk is small, and the opening is narrow, but the rear seats fold nearly flat to expand trunk room. Safety wise, it has anti-lock brakes as well as front and side airbags. The Beetle is the safest subcompact available, achieving high scores in a recent crash test.
But people will buy the Beetle for one reason: it’s a nostalgic breath of fresh air in a world of drab, look-a-likes.
For more information contact 1-800-444-8987
SPECIFICATIONS
Type: 2-Door Hatchback
Engine: 115-horsepower, 2.0 liter inline 4
Transmission: 4-Speed Automatic
EPA Mileage: 22 city/27 highway
Tested Price: $17,755
Initially, there was talk of slipping the VR6 under the hood, as it already had a home in the Golf. However, VW decided that the TDI and the Turbo would be sufficient. Later in the run, the 2.5 liter, 5-cylinder replaced the 2.Slow as the base engine.
A girl in my high school had one of these, same color. Let’s just say she looked and acted the type. Makeup compact snapped open as soon as class began and seemed to consume most of her attention. I’m guessing she married well and has moved on to more expensive vehicular trinkets.
Your lack of enthusiasm in the Beetle is very evident in the review, it made me chuckle.
Lots of 1980s and 1990s goodness in that parking lot.
The new beetle is very reliable and safe! I know someone who bought a new beetle brand new in 1998 it was a GLS and they still drive it everyday to this day. It has 307,000 miles on it.
I owned my ’00 NB TDI for over twelve years and ~212K miles (I still see it in town occasionally some 6-7 years after selling it locally), and would rank it on my short list cars I’ve liked the most out of those I’ve owned over the years. I did a CC on the NB back when it turned 20 years old:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-capsule-in-ordnung-the-new-beetle-turns-20/
And also a comparison of the three Beetle Epochs:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/curbside-comparison-1964-beetle-2000-new-beetle-2013-beetle-convertible/
As I noted in the anniversary article, I still see NBs in greater abundance on the road than one would think given the quality issues they had back in the day.
I do have to agree that the tennis court-sized dash took some getting used to.
I’m glad that you enjoyed yours, Ed. Given the choice, I’d always lean toward the Golf. Same car with much better space utilization and a normal driving position/layout.
I personally have never liked these cars (which I touch upon below), but I do have to wonder, Ed, if a big element in your liking for yours was that famous Tdi motor, not to mention the accompanying manual box? Being that it’ a combo that pulls outrageously well, uses bugger-all fuel and wears out about as badly as granite, surely those charms have an outsized influence? Genuinely curious as to your thoughts.
From a left-brain standpoint, the 45 MPG economy of the TDI was a strong draw, and whatever I got would have to be a manual. Being an industrial designer by education, and having driven VWs for 15+ years prior, the NB’s Bauhaus-influenced design was the right-brain part of the decision. I wouldn’t say “nostalgia” drove my decision – I was in knee pants in the ’60s so there was nothing to be nostalgic about.
FWIW, I would not have considered a Golf at all, as it didn’t tick the right-brain side of the equation for me.
Guess I’m kind of opposite…though my Father had a ’59 Beetle, I’ve only owned watercooled VWs (for 39 years so far…my only make other than the ’74 Datsun 710 I had in College). Never owned aircooled nor any of the watercooled New Beetles, and have only owned 3 cars in 39 years, starting with my ’78 Scirocco, then an ’86 GTi, and my current ’00 Golf. Aircooled VWs were common during my pre-adult life, but I never really had any nostalgia about them, and preferred the space efficient packaging of the Golf…in fact I never considered buying a Jetta though it is more space efficient than the New Beetle.
I never considered getting the New Beetle when I bought my ’00 Golf (my only new purchase so far)..though the Beetle was the first of the A4 VW models. Actually I kind of screwed up as in ’98 my ’86 GTi was totalled (didn’t take much for then 12 year old car) in a parking lot accident; a few friends helped me straighten it out (had to get the bolt holes to line up on the fender and radiator core support) and got salvage yard hood and fender of different color, didn’t paint it so I kind of had 3 of the colors of the harlequin A3 Golf..drove it for a couple of years that way until I bought my current A4 Golf. Screwed up in that I prefer the “pre-sell out” A2 and A3 VWs without the center stack radio and climate controls and more “upright ” driving position…starting with A4 the seats were mounted lower and the sight lines deteriorated (as with most modern cars..probably due to increased focus on crash protection). I’m kind of a “form follows function” person and although the New Beetle isn’t exactly small inside, the packaging to me isn’t like the original Beetle (besides the front wheel drive/engine). Guess as soon as VW went watercooled in the mid 70’s I liked the new packaging of the Dasher, and more so the Golf and the Scirocco (albeit as a sporty coupe the packaging isn’t quite as efficient as on the Golf). Could have bought an A3 Golf or a New Beetle in ’98, but waited a couple years until the A4 Golf came out.
I liked my Dad’s ’59 Beetle, but by the time I bought my ’86 GTi, I really preferred the packaging of the Golf. Thus far I’ve owned 2 in a row, and thinking about the replacement will likely buy pretty much the same thing (though considering non-VW too). I think part of it was the original Beetle was very basic compared to even my ’86 GTi (my ’00 Golf seems like luxury car compared even to the ’86, as it has power steering, power sunroof, power windows/locks)…and more so even had electric pump for windshield washer instead of using tire pressure of spare. Not to mention it has a gas gauge, and no reserve tank. Even has rear window wiper (which it needs due to more vertical orientation due to crud accumulation from low air pressure).
For me, if I could buy a newer A2 VW, that would be ideal, though I also liked the A1 and A3.
Like Ed, we owned one for many years, though not as many miles, and 1.8T, not TDI, and then passed it on to our daughter who still owns it, with well over 100K miles and a handful of CEL occurrences. I would argue against the claim of plenty of rear headroom, though. Due to the shape of the roof, it decreases rapidly and the rear hatch header is VERY hard plastic. Just a little head movement from a bump or acceleration, and my head, or our son’s after the age of 12 or so, would make painful contact with the header. On the few occasions the whole family rode in it, the guys would be up front.
With the turbo and stick shift, it’s fun to drive and I think the “chick car” stereotype is inappropriate and also incorrect. I prefer to think of it as an Audi TT with more room and better visibility, for a lower price.
I’ve experienced one of these precisely once. A late model belonging to my step mum, it seemed fairly surefooted in mid winter Alberta snow but with two loud kids in the back that’s about all I could tell of it.
Hmm…nah… I dunno.
Methinks the only retro design that did really work was MINI.
Let’s face it, these were much more of a novelty than a mass market car. I think your review was spot on.
I never realized they had gained so much weight from the original beetle. Wikipedia says the 1962 bug was a bit shy of 1600 pounds. And this was packed to 2800! Wow, that’s a lot of CD changer, AC, power window motors, etc. Your review didn’t mention if it had ABS or not, just curious if it did. I thought by the late ’90s ABS was becoming more widespread, if not standard.
Like the PT Cruiser that was about to be introduced, a niche market car. I suspect not many ever made it to the rental car aisles.
I don’t personally remember, but according to cars.com, ABS was optional. In 1998, they were becoming more common, but not universally standard. My 2003 Pontiac Vibe didn’t have them, either.
We give gm alot of crap for their 90s products but one thing they do deserve credit for is making ABS standard or very cheap on most of the n and j cars back then.
Yes, they made them standard, then made them optional again and put the money toward higher-end audio equipment and the like. That’s why they were optional on my Vibe.
Your Vibe was a Toyota.
My ’96 Cavalier had ABS as standard equipment, didn’t even have to ask for it. I found out one icy night when I floored the brakes and she coasted right through a red light, as if the wheels were locked up. Sounded like a machine gun. I think I could have done better myself, but ABS was pretty new then, and it was pretty slippery that night.
My 95 Achieva had ABS that saved me from a crash once. You sure felt that brake pedal push back and clunk clunk clunk but you knew it was working at least.
Meanwhile my 01 Grand marquis did not have ABS and was always super careful to remind myself of that when driving in snowy or wet conditions.
Before the Achieva I ahd an 88 Prelude that was junked after I hit the breaks in the rain (didn’t even hit them hard) and it locked the wheels, skidding to a crash in a curb at 20mph.
Nope. Just that great GM quality.
Spot on review. I was in 12th grade when these came out and said the same thing. Why spend more on a golf that has less space and cargo capacity? I said they were a stupid sign of vws obsessions with 60s nostalga that was holding them back in north america. Here we are 22 years later im at a vw dealer looking at the atlas and its all nostalga photos of 60s beetles and vans everywhere. Why no photos of GTIs, jetta vr6s, phaetos and other hit prodicts they had in the 80s and 90s? Stupid nostalga just holds them in the past and keeps them from building a future.
VWoA, like most companies that aren’t recent startups, is run by older people, and they don’t realize that to their younger customers ’60s Bugs and Buses don’t mean much to them, and that a Rabbit GTI or Scirocco or VR6 anything would have more pull. Also those signs, at least in my local showroom, have been there for like 20 years.
So VW shouldn’t use nostalgia for 60 year old cars they don’t make anymore to sell current models, but should use nostalgia for 40 year old cars they don’t make anymore to sell new models?
That parking lot picture should be its own feature. Two Volvos, one Saab, a Cadillac, someone who bought a Capri instead of a Miata for some reason and a whole bunch of commuter cars, mainly smaller ones. And NO pickups but three Jeep Wranglers.
I assume the lot was for a specific business like your newspaper or was it something else? And where?
That was the parking lot of our apartment complex – the Riverhouse. It was across the street from the Pentagon City Mall and not far from the Pentagon itself. In many movies that use a moving overhead shot that ends at the Pentagon, you can usually see the complex’s three huge buildings.
Our ’94 Sentra is either two cars to the left of the NB or diagonally behind it.
The same parking lot today, via Google Maps. Similar lack of pickups (not really a vehicle of choice for high-rise apartment dwellers), but also a surprisingly small proportion of CUVs too:
Wow, it’s the exact same demographic! It could be the same people, just trading in one lease for another of the same every three to four years… 🙂
My eyes went straight to the two Volvo bricks, then the Saab, then the New Beetle. (That says more about me than the parking lot.)
I remember some pro writer giving the New Beetle a favorable writeup, and that he exchanged words with another in the press junket.
The pro writer expressed the relief that the New Beetle was a neat (not overwhelming, sell-a-million) piece, and the design succeeded at doing what they figured VW intended, because if it were not, “we’d be looking at a dozen more years of Oldmobile Achievas”.
No less of a product designer than Steve Jobs once remarked that VW “really got it right” when they invoked the Beetle in the NB. Of course, he was referring to the design elements and not the mechanicals. I agree with your assessment – a novelty car more than anything else.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the infamous bud vase yet.
Overall I’ll be the contrarian and believe that the New Beetle was a huge success for VW. On the west coast at least you’d see or at least notice many more NB’s than Golfs. Still more Jettas but the Beetle had old and young people clamoring for it for different reasons and pulled a lot of people into showrooms.
As a MkIV chassis vehicle it developed some foibles like the others but this generation was everywhere, then VW released some high-performance versions and then another couple of generations by which time the bloom was off the rose and there’s only so much you can do to update this design. I still see more of this first generation Beetle on the road than I do equivalent Golfs and Jettas and they tend to outnumber them in the junkyards as well now, but mainly since the G and J have already cycled through years ago for the most part.
Sure it’s hugely less practical than the Golf it’s based on but since when has practicality ruled the roost in car buying circles in America? Plenty of two door PLC’s got sold, Mustang and Camaro aren’t as practical as other cars in the stable either, but often it’s all about “the look” and the New Beetle had it too.
That’s pretty much what I was saying. Most PLCs were NOT a joy to drive and far less efficient than the sedans they were based on. But people who bought PLCs wanted to be seen driving them, just like most NB owners.
Yet PLCs sold in huge numbers at the height of their popularity. Few new car buyers seek peak efficiency (in various measures of it) and are always willing to sacrifice a degree of it for a fad. Crossovers aren’t a joy to drive either, yet look out the window.
I’d also dispute that statement, at worst PLCs were indistinguishable in the driving experience on the ones based on intermediate sedans, as most sedans could be optioned way up to their decor level if so desired. They usually came with the same selections of engine options and curb weight differences between them was negligible unless you’re unfairly comparing a big block optioned PLC to a 6 cylinder sedan nobody but skinflints bought in the 70s.
Much of the same could be said, comparing CUVs to the sedans which with they share their platforms, today.
Thanks Jim, I too think these were (perhaps briefly) more popular than Golfs in Silicon Valley. And there are still many on the roads today. I’ll be honest, I never would have bought it if my wife didn’t want one, and now she drives a Gold in the same color combo, and I far prefer its practicality. But our 20-something daughter still drives it (and is very attached to it) and she is not from the air-cooled Beetle demographic; she’s only a few years older than the NB. And it’s arguably more practical than any PLC.
Jim, you’re absolutely right – these were on fire for 2-3 years. Like my first sighting of a PT Cruiser ‘in the Wild’, I remember exactly where I saw my first NB.
Of course the design was both daring and nostalgic, but overall it didn’t do much for me. The next generation I thought was much more cohesive. Almost Porsche-like if you will.
Leased a 98 for 5 yrs. Fun to drive, 5 spd ABS, good brakes, car did ride a little low, but didn’t find the ride rough at all. Drove it year round in eastern Canada and never had a problem. I fit in it which I did not in any other compact and sub-compact cars of the late 90’s. It was reasonably reliable excluding a few untracable electrical gremlins, with good fuel economy. For a single guy it was fine. Considered a 98 Corvette but I could not fit. Dealer experience was awful. That in itself soured me on VW. The dealer experience combined with my earlier glowing experiences with BMW and Mercedes eliminated all German marques from future ownership consideration. GM, Ford and Chrysler had eliminated themselves in previous decades.
i think it was the first of the euro-trash revival cars. the PT cruiser another revival car of the era. even today we are still into revival cars. the fiata for example… called a 124 – which to me is all wrong. 124 denotes the chassis traditionally. to me revival cars are fakes. i never liked them. it’s a cheap marketing strategy instead of designing something equally compelling for todays times.
I had several customers with these. The mechanicals were kind of ok. But after a 100k miles these things were a tragic money pit. The interior, especially the door panels and shifter knobs were terrible. The 2nd generation new beetle seems to be a much improved car from what I’ve read.
Count me in as one who thought they were a cute dead end within a few years. How wrong I was. Dad goes to buy a new car in 2012, a reasonably nice sedan. He brings home a new generation after this Beetle, in Launch Edition turbo form. I was dumbfounded and aghast. Do not underestimate the power of nostalgia. I drove it. It’s an all-incognito GTI. Wickedly fast, cute, and thoroughly modern. My parents love to relive a bit of their past in is what is otherwise a competent rocket appliance. Their modern throwback to another time? I get the appeal, regardless If they just canned it.
VW found a goodly market for these, so the HL Mencken quote applies accurately this time.
I just assumed the designers acted at the behest of the market researchers, and (rightly) feeling imposed upon, took every principle of rationality in the original and maliciously flipped it. Futuristic aero, lightweight magnesium engine, roomy-for-the-times, low price, low weight, then-cutting-edge suspendings thus transmogrified into fatty, un-aero (at bigger speeds), cramped, boringly underpinned, a bit thirsty and retro-styled in a dribbly-kid’s crayon manner.
It was a fundamentally idiotic car.
At least the PT Cruiser took a dull old platform and made great utility from the retro. This childish bulb had a dashboard the size of a dining table, no back seat, and no boot. It was slower than a Golf, used more petrol and in this country, was pricier and had the lowest form of Golf suspension tune, (meaning saggy-assed-waft-screech). Even the styling itself was poorly done (the 2nd gen getting it much better, if still pointlessly).
When the fritzy reliability record of the thing is factored in many years later, I feel awfully smug, I do.
Your disappointment in the car, Mr D, is entirely understandable. And might I add, your politely impolite review was really rather well done!
“No boot?”
That’s where the motor goes, silly!
Oh, I’m not even referring to the New Revival Special, which was a failure in part because the froot on it was even smaller. (Also because it was a trifle slow. And noisy. And rear vision was really poor).