How fast is a regular CC???

[piotrek21]

Ok so a little introduction

I took my 2012 Golf 4 door 2.5 in for service this week and the dealer hooked me up with a 2009 CC 2.0T for the night.

I was super excited because I always loved the way the CC looked, but never got a chance to drive it. Like I said this was a 09 TSI with a 6SP Auto (non-DSG)

As soon as I got off the parking lot I sped away and was sort of disappointed by the performance of the drive-train. It was good, but compared to my Golf I had bigger expectation (maybe unreasonably so). From standstill the acceleration was good but it did not feel as visceral as in the Golf, as if the CC was slower off the line. I was expecting some good noise and turbo whine, but instead it just sounded like a four-banger (which it is).

Don't get me wrong I loved the car, the handling was awesome. But this experience left me wondering. How fast is a stock 2.0T? I understand that my Golf is lighter and that certainly helps, but this was my first time driving the TSI and I was expecting it to be much better than my 2.5, but to me the difference wasn't that great.

I just want to hear your opinions about this.

Thanks!!!

[kyle1]

I owned an '11 CC Sport, but traded it in on my MkV GLI. IMO, the 2.0t is inadequate for the CC...simply because it's bigger and weighs more than a GLI or GTI. Of course, a tune would change that, but I didn't want to go that route because I leased the car.

In a nutshell, I enjoyed the CC for a while, but I got bored with it. Now that I'm back in a Stage 1 MkV, I'm happy again.

[Ribz80]

Ok so a little introduction

I took my 2012 Golf 4 door 2.5 in for service this week and the dealer hooked me up with a 2009 CC 2.0T for the night.

I was super excited because I always loved the way the CC looked, but never got a chance to drive it. Like I said this was a 09 TSI with a 6SP Auto (non-DSG)

As soon as I got off the parking lot I sped away and was sort of disappointed by the performance of the drive-train. It was good, but compared to my Golf I had bigger expectation (maybe unreasonably so). From standstill the acceleration was good but it did not feel as visceral as in the Golf, as if the CC was slower off the line. I was expecting some good noise and turbo whine, but instead it just sounded like a four-banger (which it is).

Don't get me wrong I loved the car, the handling was awesome. But this experience left me wondering. How fast is a stock 2.0T? I understand that my Golf is lighter and that certainly helps, but this was my first time driving the TSI and I was expecting it to be much better than my 2.5, but to me the difference wasn't that great.

I just want to hear your opinions about this.

Thanks!!!

A lot of what you are experiencing is the 6spd auto. I had that transmission in my 08.5 Jetta 2.5 and it dogged the hell out of it.

The 6mt is a lot more fun. I also think the 2.0T is solid, but begs for what tuning can do-just so much potential.

There is nothing to hear stock, today turbo cars seem to be so neutered.

I owned an '11 CC Sport, but traded it in on my MkV GLI. IMO, the 2.0t is inadequate for the CC...simply because it's bigger and weighs more than a GLI or GTI. Of course, a tune would change that, but I didn't want to go that route because I leased the car.

In a nutshell, I enjoyed the CC for a while, but I got bored with it. Now that I'm back in a Stage 1 MkV, I'm happy again.

Have you looked at the weight of a MKv GLI? Yep, 3300lbs, same as a CC Sport. Whoops.

The 2.0T is about average for the car stock giving you better performance than a typical midside sedan, but not a 6. Tuning is a whole other story. Stage 1+ intake is like night and day, can't wait for stage two next month.

[Logical]

I would think the DSG auto would have been more satisfying. Passengers have told me it accelerates rather quick (non performance oriented drivers). To a driver that demands performance its slow, but to the average joe its should be enough. Acceleration isn't mind blowing either but if I'm not careful on the highway i think I'm going 65 but really pushing 90.

[AZ_CC]

I think its pretty decent for a little turbo 4 banger....especially one that weighs almost 3400 lbs....my trailblazer SS would shift very firm and throw u forward when WOT but that was a pure performance truck and it ran 13.2@104 mph in the 1/4....the cc is more in the middle, its classy and luxury but has some bite to it and yet still gets great gas mileage....I actually like the way it pauses and shifts then the boosts kicks back in, it feels cool

[wh1te09gti]

A lot of what you are experiencing is the 6spd auto. I had that transmission in my 08.5 Jetta 2.5 and it dogged the hell out of it.

The 6mt is a lot more fun. I also think the 2.0T is solid, but begs for what tuning can do-just so much potential.

There is nothing to hear stock, today turbo cars seem to be so neutered.




Have you looked at the weight of a MKv GLI? Yep, 3300lbs, same as a CC Sport. Whoops.

The 2.0T is about average for the car stock giving you better performance than a typical midside sedan, but not a 6. Tuning is a whole other story. Stage 1+ intake is like night and day, can't wait for stage two next month.

+1 on weight it only looks heavier. weight difference (if any ) is hardly noticeable.
so You traded hot looking cc for jetta ? i traded jetta for cc and there is no way i would ever trade back.
unless You got crazy deal or something.

[Ribz80]

+1 on weight it only looks heavier. weight difference (if any ) is hardly noticeable.
so You traded hot looking cc for jetta ? i traded jetta for cc and there is no way i would ever trade back.
unless You got crazy deal or something.

Same for me. Small gas tank on the Jetta annoyed me too.

[phantom2010]

I think it's underwhelming stock for sure.......I think with the tune it's a great engine though, plenty or torque and more than fast enough for daily driving.

[FULLYLOADEDVR6]

I own a 2010 CC sport 6 spd man stock at the time and my buddy owns a 2009 2.5 JETTA 5 speed man with intake and exhaust. We happened to catch a light where we were side by side so of course we both took off. I do not believe in popping the clutch and smoking tires off the line as to which he did. At the top of third gear i had him by more then two car lenths. Now he thinks he can keep up with me. So of course we attempt to do this in motion at 60mph. We both took off in third gear and by the time I hit 5th gear I was so many car lenths in front that i could only guess 12 plus. So that should show the difference. The CC is a sled off the line but is fair for highway driving. Best bang for the buck is a stage one flash and intake.

[the_runner213]

Does anyone know the average 0-60 for the CC VR6? I've scoured the net and was able to find the fastest at 5.5s and 6.7s as highest. However, nothing seemed concrete, so maybe the folks here know?

Thanks!

[Logical]

Does anyone know the average 0-60 for the CC VR6? I've scoured the net and was able to find the fastest at 5.5s and 6.7s as highest. However, nothing seemed concrete, so maybe the folks here know?

Thanks!

5.5 seems a bit too quick. From test numbers I've read, low to mid 6 seconds. The CC isn't all about speed, its about driving luxury bargain that looks like few cars on the road. Hell the only car you can say looks most like it is the CLS

[Tsquared]

Does anyone know the average 0-60 for the CC VR6? I've scoured the net and was able to find the fastest at 5.5s and 6.7s as highest. However, nothing seemed concrete, so maybe the folks here know?

Thanks!

Low to mid 6's. It's quick enough.

[baddceo]

VR6 is about 6.5 the european version which has better gearing and 300 hp gets there in 5.9 which is pretty dramatic for that 20 hp. Maybe in sport mode it will do a little better.

[vr6pilot]

CC ain't bad, really. There is a sport mode on the auto and it's a different animal from "drive". It's nice to have the option to scoot or pull down 31+mpg on the hwy.

[bp328i]

It's a lot faster than a 2012 base model Jetta. My CC had to stay overnight at my dealer and they put me in base model 2012 Jetta.

Talk about a slug, that car was awful. Night and day different between the Jetta and CC.

[AZ_CC]

It's a lot faster than a 2012 base model Jetta. My CC had to stay overnight at my dealer and they put me in base model 2012 Jetta.

Talk about a slug, that car was awful. Night and day different between the Jetta and CC.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha I had the same experience with them giving me a jetta with the 2.5 so I could go jumpstart my cc with a dead battery and bring it back. when we were driving on the highway my brother was driving the jetta and we did a 60 pull and I gave him the hit. Once I hit the gas I immediately started reeling him in and past him seconds later.

[piperpilot964]

I personally would never buy a car with DSG. Have driven it and just didn't like it. My 03 Jetta with tiptronic tranny was a better feel and performance to my bottom. The DSG is what makes the 2.0T seem like a slug to you.

That said, stage 1 is all you really need to make the the CC with a 6sp mt a really nice driver, that and lower it with springs or springs/coils to get the "jeep" wheel gap fixed. I personally do not feel the cost of the intakes out there, justify the measly hp gain you get. If you are going to fully mod the back end (exhaust) then an intake makes sense to balance the better breathing exhaust. A good after market air filter will yield just about the same results as these so called CAI, at less cost. but hey if you like shinny carbon boxes hidden by the hood or just have a thing for cone filters, you can add that as well. If you are not wanting to go full stage 2 with the whole exhaust change out, then a turbo outlet pipe is not a bad, relatively low cost mod IMHO.

The CC is just such a different car in the way of trim and creature comforts than a golf.

[AZ_CC]

Yea the dsg is very different and iam still getting used to it but its not bad....and yes of course the cc is very different than a golf, its waay bigger!!!!....its bigger inside than my trailblazer was and that was a suv....but overall for the size and all its a pretty cool car and you don't see a lot of them around like you do the jetta and the golf. But thats just my .02

[Bthasht]

This will probably hurt some butts....the cc is no racekor. Plain and simple. You want a racekor buy a r32. You want gorgeous styling with luxurious feel get a cc. Plainly put

Sent from the tip of my fingers using tapatalk

[AZ_CC]

^^^^I agree totally^^^^

[bacardicj151]

^^^^I agree totally^^^^

[the_runner213]

I agree that the CC VR6 isn't a race car. I just simply wanted to know if someone had a solid average with a really low standard deviation. Before jumping into the world of VW, I had the 2010 Prius V, and before that, a 2007 Acura TL Type-S. I forgot how fast it felt on the Type-S, and for some odd reason, I feel like the CC VR6 is faster even though Type-S' 0-60 at around low to mid 5's. Perhaps it has to do with the Prius...had to really adjust to the super insane slow speed...haha.

The CC is definitely a nice looking vehicle, and they're hardly seen on the road compared to the rest of the luxury vehicles within the range of its class. I can't stop looking back at it every-single-time I walk away. Ha! I've already been asked by several folks about the vehicle; most never heard of the CC! LOL! I guess it has a lot to do with people focusing purely on brand when it comes to luxury vehicles. I'll be honest, I never in my life imagined myself driving a VW. I always thought I'd see myself in an Audi, BMW, or Mercedez Benz for a European brand, but look at me now. Then again, all of this had to do with my brother buying the '12 CC Sport. He's the one that kept pushing me to check out the '13 CC...after I saw the styling, interlagos rims, and LED front/back lights....I was sold. That same day I made my purchase, I was on the verge of jumping back into an Acura. The TL SH-AWD model.

[vr6pilot]

This will probably hurt some butts....the cc is no racekor.

duh. But neither is the Mercedes that the CC is styled after. Doesn't mean it can't be fast or at least give a spirited drive. Sorry to say, the R32 is also not a racekor. That and anything else you want to throw out are just civilian passenger cars that are quicker or better handling than the average.

[Bthasht]

duh. But neither is the Mercedes that the CC is styled after. Doesn't mean it can't be fast or at least give a spirited drive. Sorry to say, the R32 is also not a racekor. That and anything else you want to throw out are just civilian passenger cars that are quicker or better handling than the average.

So you mean to tell me my cc can be
a racekor, and the r32 can get its butt kicked by my cc. Damn i went the wrong route slamming my cc on wheels. I should have gone fast...screw the z06
Sent from the tip of my fingers using tapatalk

[usaf-lt-g]

If only the VR6 had some decent performance mods.... alas.... I have seen few.

[vr6pilot]

So you mean to tell me my cc can be
a racekor, and the r32 can get its butt kicked by my cc. Damn i went the wrong route slamming my cc on wheels. I should have gone fast...screw the z06
Sent from the tip of my fingers using tapatalk

If that's what you got from my post then we clearly hail from two different planets. Enjoy your stay.

[Renovattio]

The op was referring to the 2009 CC with the automatic and not the DSG (badass transmission :]).

The CC is plenty fast for what it needs to do, I believe 0-60 is in the low 6 sec range, which is comparable to 328i, c300 and also the a4 (the pig out of the four). In sport mode feels quite fast, I can't say by any means that is slow or near to being considered slow. True, it can't keep up with a stock 335 or g37, but those cars are also more expensive and vw (strictly vw brand) does not make anything that goes that fast really. But again, I am not sure I would buy a g37, 335 on the other hand, hmmmm.....

[vr6pilot]

I owned a G35S and that car was fast. What an excellent motor. But I never could get it to hit 20 mpg no matter what I did. Even on a long distance trip, 100% highway, still 19 mpg.

Wound up trading that for the CC and neither myself nor the wife have ever looked back. There were definitely other factors beside the mileage but the overall package is way better and the 200ish horsepower is plenty.

[Ribz80]

I agree that the CC VR6 isn't a race car. I just simply wanted to know if someone had a solid average with a really low standard deviation. Before jumping into the world of VW, I had the 2010 Prius V, and before that, a 2007 Acura TL Type-S. I forgot how fast it felt on the Type-S, and for some odd reason, I feel like the CC VR6 is faster even though Type-S' 0-60 at around low to mid 5's. Perhaps it has to do with the Prius...had to really adjust to the super insane slow speed...haha.

The CC is definitely a nice looking vehicle, and they're hardly seen on the road compared to the rest of the luxury vehicles within the range of its class. I can't stop looking back at it every-single-time I walk away. Ha! I've already been asked by several folks about the vehicle; most never heard of the CC! LOL! I guess it has a lot to do with people focusing purely on brand when it comes to luxury vehicles. I'll be honest, I never in my life imagined myself driving a VW. I always thought I'd see myself in an Audi, BMW, or Mercedez Benz for a European brand, but look at me now. Then again, all of this had to do with my brother buying the '12 CC Sport. He's the one that kept pushing me to check out the '13 CC...after I saw the styling, interlagos rims, and LED front/back lights....I was sold. That same day I made my purchase, I was on the verge of jumping back into an Acura. The TL SH-AWD model.

You will find your TL-S did 0-60 in about 6.0, MIGHT crack high 5's. A Vr6 CC is right around the same neighborhood but a bit slower.

This will probably hurt some butts....the cc is no racekor. Plain and simple. You want a racekor buy a r32. You want gorgeous styling with luxurious feel get a cc. Plainly put

Sent from the tip of my fingers using tapatalk

The R32 is no race car. Far from it.

If only the VR6 had some decent performance mods.... alas.... I have seen few.

That is the nature of NA cars to factory boosted. It is just so easy to pick up hp and for not a lot of money from a car with a turbo or supercharger. From swapping a pulley for $60 on one of my cars for 30whp or a free retune on the other netting the same, it's just hard to resist.

[vr6pilot]

By the way, since i have exclusive access to the internet, I found that typical third-party reviews put the 2.0T in the 7.3~7.4 second range for 0-60 times.

Times for the 2012 Jetta SE range from 8.7~9.3.

[Ribz80]

By the way, since i have exclusive access to the internet, I found that typical third-party reviews put the 2.0T in the 7.3~7.4 second range for 0-60 times.

Times for the 2012 Jetta SE range from 8.7~9.3.

I typically found high 6's.

I think most of the big car mags had 6.7, VW had 6.9 on the website.
A Jetta 2.5 SE is typically 8.2-8.4

Look at trap speeds which is the best indication of a cars prowess in a roll on and indicate hp. You will find a nearly 10mph spread between the two cars. That is quite substantial.

[vr6pilot]

I typically found high 6's.

Racekorrrrrrrr!!!

To the OP:

Everything I've read on the 2.5L praises it's low end torque. So, from a stop, I'm sure the Jetta feels pretty lively....but then quickly runs out of breath....whereas the turbo will naturally feel a bit soft right off the line but ultimately pull harder and longer.

[Tsquared]

I typically found high 6's.

I think most of the big car mags had 6.7, VW had 6.9 on the website.
A Jetta 2.5 SE is typically 8.2-8.4

Look at trap speeds which is the best indication of a cars prowess in a roll on and indicate hp. You will find a nearly 10mph spread between the two cars. That is quite substantial.

Drove some slushbox/DSG 2.0 CC's before the vr6. They couldn't do 6.7's with a rocket strapped to their butt. Can't say for the manual, but I'm dubious.

[milan187]

I have a DSG and 2.0t and my previous car was a 2.5 rabbit manual.

CC and DSG kick ass compared to my old car which had a unitronic stage 1 (that did not do much).


I could be wrong but did the 09 CC come with a regular automatic and not DSG?


40k miles and I love my DSG more now then the day I bought it.

[Ribz80]

Racekorrrrrrrr!!!

To the OP:

Everything I've read on the 2.5L praises it's low end torque. So, from a stop, I'm sure the Jetta feels pretty lively....but then quickly runs out of breath....whereas the turbo will naturally feel a bit soft right off the line but ultimately pull harder and longer.

I liked the engine note of my 2.5L(the 170hp version that came out in 08.5), that's about it.

From what I remember the 2.0 TSI makes peak tq from 1700rpms. That is LOW. I am willing to bet the TSI makes the same or better tq even below 2000rpms, a dyno from each will prove it.

Drove some slushbox/DSG 2.0 CC's before the vr6. They couldn't do 6.7's with a rocket strapped to their butt. Can't say for the manual, but I'm dubious.

That sounds scientific lol. Like I said, I have driven the DSG TSI setup before as well as the fun sapping tiptronic setup. The 2.0T 6mt is a high 6 second car to 60, that is fact-not opinion lol.