mkvi trims (justification of the S, and love for the GLI)

[mediumbluemetalic]

i recently finished deciding on a 2012 tdi, and in researching which trim to go for, was amused at the oddly selective vitriol spewed [Thesaurusize much? This judgmental opening sets the tone for your entire first-ever post] at certain trims of this car on forums and in reviews.
without a doubt, the mkvi jetta as a whole is a step down from the mkv and iv. actually this is reflected quite accurately in online/zine reviews. i knew this going into my purchase, since obviously this generation has been out for a couple years.

however, to hear some (kids) [Again, judgemental tone. This isn't needed. This is what causes tempers to flare and posts to become locked.]on here, you would think the problems (mainly from cost-cutting) are only present in the S trim. This is likely because the SE is a popular trim, and these owners need to rationalize [A pretty reaching and hurtful assumption for a new poster, ya think?]their purchase.

the S trim probably is confusing to those who weren't aware of the canadian City Jetta. [Why would this be confusing to anyone? You keep assuming that we don't know anything on here, that we're morons without brains. Who on an enthusiast forum wouldn't know that the MkIV Jetta lived on in zombie form in Canada? Did YOU know that it's still for sale in Mexico, now dubbed the "Classic"? Also, did you know that the MkII Jetta is still being sold in China? The MkII Passat/Quantum is still sold there, too.] basically the S is a continuation of that line [I'm going to call false on this. The Jetta VI S has nothing to do with the Jetta IV City Zombie. The City Jetta (and Golf) existed because all trims of the Jetta V were too expensive for penny-pinchers in Canada. A continuation of the City Jetta line would more realistically look like a next-Generation Polo as it would serve as a separate yet simultaneous, smaller, cheaper alternative to the current Jetta], just in a newer and (surprisingly) lighter model. The 2.slow in the S, esp. the automatics, is most accurately compared to the version of the 2.slow in that city jetta, rather than other versions of the engine. the benefit of the 2.slow (along with all the other corner-cutting) is the vastly reduced sticker price (much like the price point of the city jetta). it's a perfectly sensible cheap daily driver, if you want a vw.

i test drove most of the jettas-- is the 2.5L that much better than the 2.slow (which has pretty decent low-end torque)? i certainly didn't think so. my previous vw was a 2.0T, and both the 2.slow and 2.5 (obviously) were huge steps down without much to separate them in real-world perception. [If you can't feel a difference between 170hp and 115hp, then perhaps you are lacking in real-world perception. If you didn't notice any difference, you should have put the shifter into Sport "S" mode or driven with a heavier foot. There is no mistaking the two.]

let's be honest, the mkvi jetta as a whole (including the tdi i just bought), relative to recent VWs, is pretty crappy, outside of the GLI of course. [But the GLI uses the same leatherette, the same coarse door panels and console, the same touch-screen radio that you seem to hate, and the same Fender system available in other Jetta trims. The only real difference is that the GLI gets the 2.0T, which is in great need of a 30+ hp bump, and the IRS, which (unlike a 55hp bump) doesn't really make much real-world difference.] but i saw a recent thread some kid [Again, rude and unnecessary. Manners!] started on how he was dressing up his S with chrome stickers and what not, and saw a lot of ridicule from others with SEs or SELs, claiming that he was simply polishing a turd. Are you serious? Buying a SE or SEL or, like me, a TDI, is doing the same thing! lol. Add the crappy leatherette seats, and the touchscreen radios all you want. It's still a mkvi jetta!

If any engine should be scratched from the lineup, it's the 2.5 (and it will be, according to reports), which like the 2.slow is neither fast nor super-efficient, but is more expensive and less proven over time to be reliable [Actually, the 2.Slow is the "turd," to use your terminology. It has been a serial oil-burner since it was born twenty years ago with less horsepower and worse fuel economy than every other Jetta competitor. The 2.5, by comparison, doesn't burn oil, has more power than the competition, and has an MPG rating that, while poor overall, matches the dead-weight 2.Slow.] (albeit perhaps only marginally). as a vw fan I'm happy [Not in this post ]with the S's existence as a extra-reliable (for VW) [What exactly are you trying to imply here amongst a host of VW enthusiasts? You're clearly not looking to make friends, I take it.] car for a super-cheap (for VW) price point that keeps sales figures high in the US and the company healthy. A 2.slow golf at similar prices would probably be a huge seller. [Right... except that it's made in Germany, dictating a starting price that's totally dissimilar to the Jetta S. Even if the Golf were available with that boat anchor that you call an engine, and even if VW gave it a twist-beam rear axle, it would still cost thousands more than the Jetta S because of its place of origin. And people would still dislike it because it's a hatch in a market where sedans are far preferred. It would never sell well. It would need to be built in the US or Mexico to ever have a shot, regardless of how decontented it becomes.]

and no, i don't hate my tdi [See, even you realize that you sound like a Negative Nancy. That should have been a red flag to revise your post, N00B ], i like it a lot, as it was sensible for my needs and budget, but i'm realistic about what i bought. the gli is the only truly nice car of the bunch.

How tall is the horse you ride on? Seems pretty high... This is just one of those occasional Public Service Announcements that had to be made. It's very rude to come into a forum partaking in name-calling, assumptions, and accusations, especially when you lack knowledge of the subject you're preaching about. We are a welcoming, knowledgeable group of people, but please, follow forum etiquette in the future, and refrain from the name-calling and assumptions that seem to characterize your post. 'Nuff said.

[DFWSKATE]

Amen to this dude

[itskohler]

Nice.

And you can still buy MK1s in Africa, lucky bastards.

[xHoldenMcNeilx]

awesome post man

[DFWSKATE]

Nice.

And you can still buy MK1s in Africa, lucky bastards.

I thought it was mk2s? I remember seeing an ad awhile back. I bet the interior is a lot more modern though

[itskohler]

They sell both. I'd love an African MK1, but getting through customs and DOT is a nightmare.

[DFWSKATE]

They sell both. I'd love an African MK1, but getting through customs and DOT is a nightmare.

Ahh I learn something every day

[jelle79]

First off, I want to thank jelle79 for mentioning my thread... I agree with your logic... When I bought my Jetta, I wanted nothing less than a GLI. I think that the GLI is the best MKVI model there is. But, being my first brand new car that I financed and with bad credit, low income, etc, I could only afford the S.

People should not be throwing it in others' faces that they can afford a SE, SEL, TDI or GLI and you cant.

I created the thread not for it to be criticized. I like the way my Jetta looks. I created it so that other S or even Low model SE owners could see how to "spruce it up" a little.

Seriously, its like why do you even care about whether I have an S. You have the car that you want... so why talk down on mine?

Basically, we should all just get along and use this forum for what its supposed to be for: To share our ideas and maybe learn a thing or two from eachother.

Yes, it was the reaction to your thread specifically that i found a bit ridiculous-- the sense of bullying against what you posted in good faith. And coming from whom? Posters who have apparently earned the right to look down upon others' cars because they purchased a big bad mkvi SE.

i recently finished deciding on a 2012 tdi, and in researching which trim to go for, was amused at the oddly selective vitriol spewed [Thesaurusize much? This judgmental opening sets the tone for your entire first-ever post] at certain trims of this car on forums and in reviews.

That wasn't my first post. And is my choice of words that difficult? And if someone comments on others' judgment in posting certain remarks here, that makes *them* judgmental? Then you must be as well then, correct?

without a doubt, the mkvi jetta as a whole is a step down from the mkv and iv. actually this is reflected quite accurately in online/zine reviews. i knew this going into my purchase, since obviously this generation has been out for a couple years.

however, to hear some (kids) [Again, judgemental tone. This isn't needed. This is what causes tempers to flare and posts to become locked.]on here, you would think the problems (mainly from cost-cutting) are only present in the S trim. This is likely because the SE is a popular trim, and these owners need to rationalize [A pretty reaching and hurtful assumption for a new poster, ya think?]their purchase.

Again, ad hominem. what does my number of posts have to do with the validity of my argument?

the S trim probably is confusing to those who weren't aware of the canadian City Jetta. [Why would this be confusing to anyone? You keep assuming that we don't know anything on here, that we're morons without brains. Who on an enthusiast forum wouldn't know that the MkIV Jetta lived on in zombie form in Canada? Did YOU know that it's still for sale in Mexico, now dubbed the "Classic"? Also, did you know that the MkII Jetta is still being sold in China? The MkII Passat/Quantum is still sold there, too.] basically the S is a continuation of that line [I'm going to call false on this. The Jetta VI S has nothing to do with the Jetta IV City Zombie. The City Jetta (and Golf) existed because all trims of the Jetta V were too expensive for penny-pinchers in Canada. A continuation of the City Jetta line would more realistically look like a next-Generation Polo as it would serve as a separate yet simultaneous, smaller, cheaper alternative to the current Jetta],

Why would this be confusing to anyone, you ask? Read again-- It would be confusing to those who WEREN'T aware of the City Jetta, i.e. people who think the 2.slow is coming back after some extended absence, instead of continuing to be utilized in vehicles at the low-end of the market in other countries. Yes I know about Mexico, and the mkii. And?

You say the 2.slow mkvi has nothing to do with the city jetta, b/c the latter existed only because the mkv was too expensive for certain markets. How is that different than VW offering a low-cost mkvi for those same kinds of consumers in the US? OF COURSE the mkvi S is not an exact, proper continuation of the city jetta mkiv form, as it's just another mkvi. But it basically is a continuation of the city jetta in the US after its success in Canada, in terms of its position in their product line.

Let's focus on this a bit. The city jetta was in your words a "zombie" mkiv, in the mkv era. It was indeed, a cheaper decontented alternative to the mkv jetta. I think we can agree that the mkv base 2.5L, overall as a car (not only the engine), was quite a bit better than the contemporary city jetta. Now fast forward to late 2010. We now have a mkvi jetta with the same 2.slow as the city jetta; it is vw's new low-cost car. Now how does the mkvi SE compare to this low-cost car? Is it significantly better, like the mkv was better than the city jetta? No! The same crappy interior, same rear-drum brakes, same torsion-beam, goose-neck trunk hinges, etc., etc.

Let's keep in mind that most of the mkvi reviews in print and online were at the very least somewhat negative, and virtually all of them received a 2.5L for review. Yes, this does mean that if they reviewed a 2.slow it would be negative as well, but the point is they would *both* be negatively reviewed. (The validity of car reviews in general is a separate argument.)

just in a newer and (surprisingly) lighter model. The 2.slow in the S, esp. the automatics, is most accurately compared to the version of the 2.slow in that city jetta, rather than other versions of the engine. the benefit of the 2.slow (along with all the other corner-cutting) is the vastly reduced sticker price (much like the price point of the city jetta). it's a perfectly sensible cheap daily driver, if you want a vw.

i test drove most of the jettas-- is the 2.5L that much better than the 2.slow (which has pretty decent low-end torque)? i certainly didn't think so. my previous vw was a 2.0T, and both the 2.slow and 2.5 (obviously) were huge steps down without much to separate them in real-world perception. [If you can't feel a difference between 170hp and 115hp, then perhaps you are lacking in real-world perception. If you didn't notice any difference, you should have put the shifter into Sport "S" mode or driven with a heavier foot. There is no mistaking the two.]

This is just a matter of degree. I think they both kinda suck, with the 2.slow worse, but not by that much. If the 2.5 is your be-all end-all, then i guess yes, the 2.slow is abysmal compared to it.
How many people here, even in this thread, have test-driven a *mkvi jetta 2.slow* and a 2.5 back to back? Seriously. Be honest. I would even accept a comparison between a city jetta and a mkvi 2.5, with regard specifically to engines of course.

let's be honest, the mkvi jetta as a whole (including the tdi i just bought), relative to recent VWs, is pretty crappy, outside of the GLI of course. [But the GLI uses the same leatherette, the same coarse door panels and console, the same touch-screen radio that you seem to hate, and the same Fender system available in other Jetta trims. The only real difference is that the GLI gets the 2.0T, which is in great need of a 30+ hp bump, and the IRS, which (unlike a 55hp bump) doesn't really make much real-world difference.]

You're basically using the same argument i am in comparing the SE to the S. Just replace the GLI with the SE in what you wrote, and you have my argument. Except the difference is: the SE doesn't have IRS. And the GLI has a better interior than the others. And it has a real engine. But the 2.0T, which i think is so much better than the 2.5L it's laughable, apparently in your view isn't much of an upgrade b/c it "is in great need of a 30+ hp bump". But yet the 2.5L is so much better than the 2.slow? lol. I think the gap between the 2.0T and the 2.5L is greater than that between the 2.5L and the 2.slow, and even more so considering the decontenting of the SE compared to the GLI.

Here's my point: Go down the list of downgrades in the mkvi jetta compared to the mkv. They are all present (or absent, as it were) in the SE as well as the S. The difference is the 2.slow sucks worse than the 2.5L, which also sucks. I can almost (not really) understand posters with GLIs talking down to einsteinjs and others with the S, but I can't understand posters with SEs talking down to those with the S! (Yes, i just used "posters" instead of "kids". I agree with you on that, calling them "kids" can be obnoxious.)

One thing I did not assert is the superiority of my TDI to the SE, which I very well could. I didn't/don't because my car is still a mkvi jetta, which suffers from most of the same downgrades as the other mkvi jettas (except the GLI). This is my point!

but i saw a recent thread some kid [Again, rude and unnecessary. Manners!]

Agreed. But this was not out of disrespect, as this kid was actually the one I was sticking up for!

started on how he was dressing up his S with chrome stickers and what not, and saw a lot of ridicule from others with SEs or SELs, claiming that he was simply polishing a turd. Are you serious? Buying a SE or SEL or, like me, a TDI, is doing the same thing! lol. Add the crappy leatherette seats, and the touchscreen radios all you want. It's still a mkvi jetta!

If any engine should be scratched from the lineup, it's the 2.5 (and it will be, according to reports), which like the 2.slow is neither fast nor super-efficient, but is more expensive and less proven over time to be reliable [Actually, the 2.Slow is the "turd," to use your terminology. It has been a serial oil-burner since it was born twenty years ago with less horsepower and worse fuel economy than every other Jetta competitor. The 2.5, by comparison, doesn't burn oil, has more power than the competition, and has an MPG rating that, while poor overall, matches the dead-weight 2.Slow.]

Again, have you driven a "modern" 2.slow, as in the city jetta or the mkvi? And if an engine born twenty years ago (which has proven the most reliable of any VW) has such bad fuel economy, how bad then is the 2.5L when it comes to its respective, slightly worse (with manual), fuel economy? And "turd" is the tone I'm quoting from the thread in which people with SEs are mocking the S.

The fact is, the 2.5L is a lame duck in the jetta, and the 2.slow will probably suffer the same fate, but it looks like it will be no sooner than your beloved 2.5L.

(albeit perhaps only marginally). as a vw fan I'm happy [Not in this post ]with the S's existence as a extra-reliable (for VW) [What exactly are you trying to imply here amongst a host of VW enthusiasts? You're clearly not looking to make friends, I take it.]

Everyone knows what i mean, and i doubt anyone really disagrees.

car for a super-cheap (for VW) price point that keeps sales figures high in the US and the company healthy. A 2.slow golf at similar prices would probably be a huge seller. [Right... except that it's made in Germany, dictating a starting price that's totally dissimilar to the Jetta S. Even if the Golf were available with that boat anchor that you call an engine, and even if VW gave it a twist-beam rear axle, it would still cost thousands more than the Jetta S because of its place of origin. And people would still dislike it because it's a hatch in a market where sedans are far preferred. It would never sell well. It would need to be built in the US or Mexico to ever have a shot, regardless of how decontented it becomes.]

Sticker on jetta se: 18995.
Sticker on base (2.5L) golf: 17995.
sticker on jetta s: 16675.
Sticker on hypothetical 2.slow, decontented golf: ????, but by your logic, thousands more than the jetta S? if it were just $500 less than the 2.5L golf, it would be 17495, which is only $820 more than the S, not thousands. Even if they kept the prices the same and slotted the 2.5L upwards and the 2.slow filled the same 17995 price point (which would increase their margins, regardless of where the golf is manufactured), it's still only $1320 more than the S, not thousands.

and no, i don't hate my tdi [See, even you realize that you sound like a Negative Nancy. That should have been a red flag to revise your post, N00B ], i like it a lot, as it was sensible for my needs and budget, but i'm realistic about what i bought. the gli is the only truly nice car of the bunch.

I feel i adequately explained myself buying a tdi but still being realistic about the overall quality of the mkvi jetta compared to the mkv, and the varying features among the mkvi trims. Even if were a "negative nancy" about my car (which i'm not), that means i shouldn't post it??

How tall is the horse you ride on? Seems pretty high... This is just one of those occasional Public Service Announcements that had to be made.

Not as tall as those in the other thread who were mocking the S, and not as tall as yours, apparently.

It's very rude to come into a forum partaking in name-calling, assumptions, and accusations, especially when you lack knowledge of the subject you're preaching about.

Ok sure. Again, have you test-driven the exact cars I'm discussing? Are you disputing what i'm citing in einsteinjs' thread (that he corroborated) as my reason for posting in the first place?

We are a welcoming, knowledgeable group of people, but please, follow forum etiquette in the future, and refrain from the name-calling and assumptions that seem to characterize your post. 'Nuff said.

Name-calling? assumptions? "noob, negative nancy, lack of knowledge" lol. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.
I posted to criticize the negative tone of other posters. If what you just posted in response to my post is valid, then so is my post and opinions, regardless of when i joined. I did, though, neglect to put in some smiley faces as you did in a disingenuous attempt to soften your condescending tone.

I am/we are beating a dead horse here. If you respond, I will probably, eventually, read it, but I won't post again in this thread, as i don't have much else to say. Thanks to sirbluevw and einsteinjs, since they are the kind of people who i made my original post for. Sirbluevw is right- the mkvi forum is affected by bullying, and i found it ridiculous for the reasons outlined above. Apparently though, my pointing that out is deemed by others (mostly with 2.5s, how odd) to be inappropriate. Little defensive?

[SirBlueVw]

By far this has been one of the best posts on Vortex I have read.

[itskohler]

I've never seen someone whine so much on the forums until now.

[einsteinjs]

Yes, it was the reaction to your thread specifically that i found a bit ridiculous-- the sense of bullying against what you posted in good faith. And coming from whom? Posters who have apparently earned the right to look down upon others' cars because they purchased a big bad mkvi SE.



That wasn't my first post. And is my choice of words that difficult? And if someone comments on others' judgment in posting certain remarks here, that makes *them* judgmental? Then you must be as well then, correct?




Again, ad hominem. what does my number of posts have to do with the validity of my argument?



Why would this be confusing to anyone, you ask? Read again-- It would be confusing to those who WEREN'T aware of the City Jetta, i.e. people who think the 2.slow is coming back after some extended absence, instead of continuing to be utilized in vehicles at the low-end of the market in other countries. Yes I know about Mexico, and the mkii. And?

You say the 2.slow mkvi has nothing to do with the city jetta, b/c the latter existed only because the mkv was too expensive for certain markets. How is that different than VW offering a low-cost mkvi for those same kinds of consumers in the US? OF COURSE the mkvi S is not an exact, proper continuation of the city jetta mkiv form, as it's just another mkvi. But it basically is a continuation of the city jetta in the US after its success in Canada, in terms of its position in their product line.

Let's focus on this a bit. The city jetta was in your words a "zombie" mkiv, in the mkv era. It was indeed, a cheaper decontented alternative to the mkv jetta. I think we can agree that the mkv base 2.5L, overall as a car (not only the engine), was quite a bit better than the contemporary city jetta. Now fast forward to late 2010. We now have a mkvi jetta with the same 2.slow as the city jetta; it is vw's new low-cost car. Now how does the mkvi SE compare to this low-cost car? Is it significantly better, like the mkv was better than the city jetta? No! The same crappy interior, same rear-drum brakes, same torsion-beam, goose-neck trunk hinges, etc., etc.

Let's keep in mind that most of the mkvi reviews in print and online were at the very least somewhat negative, and virtually all of them received a 2.5L for review. Yes, this does mean that if they reviewed a 2.slow it would be negative as well, but the point is they would *both* be negatively reviewed. (The validity of car reviews in general is a separate argument.)



This is just a matter of degree. I think they both kinda suck, with the 2.slow worse, but not by that much. If the 2.5 is your be-all end-all, then i guess yes, the 2.slow is abysmal compared to it.
How many people here, even in this thread, have test-driven a *mkvi jetta 2.slow* and a 2.5 back to back? Seriously. Be honest. I would even accept a comparison between a city jetta and a mkvi 2.5, with regard specifically to engines of course.



You're basically using the same argument i am in comparing the SE to the S. Just replace the GLI with the SE in what you wrote, and you have my argument. Except the difference is: the SE doesn't have IRS. And the GLI has a better interior than the others. And it has a real engine. But the 2.0T, which i think is so much better than the 2.5L it's laughable, apparently in your view isn't much of an upgrade b/c it "is in great need of a 30+ hp bump". But yet the 2.5L is so much better than the 2.slow? lol. I think the gap between the 2.0T and the 2.5L is greater than that between the 2.5L and the 2.slow, and even more so considering the decontenting of the SE compared to the GLI.

Here's my point: Go down the list of downgrades in the mkvi jetta compared to the mkv. They are all present (or absent, as it were) in the SE as well as the S. The difference is the 2.slow sucks worse than the 2.5L, which also sucks. I can almost (not really) understand posters with GLIs talking down to einsteinjs and others with the S, but I can't understand posters with SEs talking down to those with the S! (Yes, i just used "posters" instead of "kids". I agree with you on that, calling them "kids" can be obnoxious.)

One thing I did not assert is the superiority of my TDI to the SE, which I very well could. I didn't/don't because my car is still a mkvi jetta, which suffers from most of the same downgrades as the other mkvi jettas (except the GLI). This is my point!



Agreed. But this was not out of disrespect, as this kid was actually the one I was sticking up for!



Again, have you driven a "modern" 2.slow, as in the city jetta or the mkvi? And if an engine born twenty years ago (which has proven the most reliable of any VW) has such bad fuel economy, how bad then is the 2.5L when it comes to its respective, slightly worse (with manual), fuel economy? And "turd" is the tone I'm quoting from the thread in which people with SEs are mocking the S.

The fact is, the 2.5L is a lame duck in the jetta, and the 2.slow will probably suffer the same fate, but it looks like it will be no sooner than your beloved 2.5L.



Everyone knows what i mean, and i doubt anyone really disagrees.



Sticker on jetta se: 18995.
Sticker on base (2.5L) golf: 17995.
sticker on jetta s: 16675.
Sticker on hypothetical 2.slow, decontented golf: ????, but by your logic, thousands more than the jetta S? if it were just $500 less than the 2.5L golf, it would be 17495, which is only $820 more than the S, not thousands. Even if they kept the prices the same and slotted the 2.5L upwards and the 2.slow filled the same 17995 price point (which would increase their margins, regardless of where the golf is manufactured), it's still only $1320 more than the S, not thousands.



I feel i adequately explained myself buying a tdi but still being realistic about the overall quality of the mkvi jetta compared to the mkv, and the varying features among the mkvi trims. Even if were a "negative nancy" about my car (which i'm not), that means i shouldn't post it??



Not as tall as those in the other thread who were mocking the S, and not as tall as yours, apparently.



Ok sure. Again, have you test-driven the exact cars I'm discussing? Are you disputing what i'm citing in einsteinjs' thread (that he corroborated) as my reason for posting in the first place?



Name-calling? assumptions? "noob, negative nancy, lack of knowledge" lol. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.
I posted to criticize the negative tone of other posters. If what you just posted in response to my post is valid, then so is my post and opinions, regardless of when i joined. I did, though, neglect to put in some smiley faces as you did in a disingenuous attempt to soften your condescending tone.

I am/we are beating a dead horse here. If you respond, I will probably, eventually, read it, but I won't post again in this thread, as i don't have much else to say. Thanks to sirbluevw and einsteinjs, since they are the kind of people who i made my original post for. Sirbluevw is right- the mkvi forum is affected by bullying, and i found it ridiculous for the reasons outlined above. Apparently though, my pointing that out is deemed by others (mostly with 2.5s, how odd) to be inappropriate. Little defensive?

[kDubya_SE]

...But as you can see it is $3,635 more than the S. that is about $100 more a month in payment (with a good interest rate)...

I can't let these numbers go uncorrected. $3,636 would only be a $65 bump on a 60 month loan (at 2.9%). It would take either 20% for 60 months or 2.9% for 36 months to get a $100/month bump out of that price.

[einsteinjs]

I can't let these numbers go uncorrected. $3,636 would only be a $65 bump on a 60 month loan (at 2.9%). It would take either 20% for 60 months or 2.9% for 36 months to get a $100/month bump out of that price.

My apologies. Ur right. But thats still a big number for some people... Especially the bank when they are deciding whether you can afford it.

[kDubya_SE]

My apologies. Ur right. But thats still a big number for some people... Especially the bank when they are deciding whether you can afford it.

Sure it's a big number for some people. I have no problem with that. It shouldn't matter to banks though - if they're willing to loan you $18k I don't think they'd balk at $21k.

[einsteinjs]

Sure it's a big number for some people. I have no problem with that. It shouldn't matter to banks though - if they're willing to loan you $18k I don't think they'd balk at $21k.