Yeah, when I bought the VW diesel I was driving over 20,000 miles a year, much of it in heavy traffic on the Westside and between the Westside and the southwest Valley. I figured the extra cost for the diesel would pay off, plus I just liked the idea of the greater efficiency . . . even before the Iraq debacle I figured that dependency on imported oil was going to drive prices up. Assuming that I can keep the turbo from blowing up again and eating the engine I'll keep the car indefinately, especially since VW has pulled all the diesels from the American market.
I suppose the CVT is better than a conventional slushbox, but I still much prefer a manual, especially in a lower-powered car. What I just hate in an automatic is to be on the freeway in traffic in a slow moving lane, say 30 mph, and need to move over to another lane that is moving a lot faster, say 50. With an automatic if you back off the accelerator at all the damned thing will upshift and you'll find yourself in 4th gear, so when a gap opens up in the lane you need to move to you have to wait for it to downshift to get any power. With the manual I can be in the proper gear while I wait for the gap and then zap!, I'm in. Best example of what I'm talking about is trying to go from the southbound 405 to eastbound 10, just south of Pico. I stay in the left lane of the 405 past the Wilshire/Santa Monica mess, but then have to move to the right lane to get onto the 10, by which time the left lanes have started slowing to the usual crawl through Venice and to LAX.
I wonder, does the Toyota CVT get along without a torque converter? That would be nice. The old DAFs which pioneered production CVTs years ago didn't have torque converters, but then their layout was very different from a modern car.