I much prefer the Jetta for the extra space, but they are not identical. The golf has more features - bigger tires/wheels etc. Not quite a GTD, but closer than the Jetta.
I noticed the differently sized wheels. That was a plus for the Jetta, though, considering the cost differential of tires (~30-40 per tire more for 17" over 16").
I am not sure about other creature comforts. Seats in the Golf were cloth. Other stuff (techno-gadgets and other distractions) mean little to me, so I didn't even explore those.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
No not really. The biggest thing is the Golf is made in Germany. As such it is subject to the 25% car tariff. Some in the enthusiast community actually seek it out, willing to spring for the mostly German content and assembly and long sea voyage. In addition, the wagon gets a higher price because it has always been in higher demand with lower units than say the Jetta sedan. It also reputedly has higher percentage resale value.
Ah, I didn't know about the manufacturing location difference. I looked at the Golf first as being comparably sized to the Fiesta (sub-compact), which is high on my list right now. Numbers-wise, it didn't seem too bad, but then I can completely load a Fiesta for $22K, including a moonroof and leather seats.
I like wagons, though, so more space is good if I'm not giving up fuel economy to do it! :shades:
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
No your research is very logical. This background FYI is normally opaque to the consumer, you and I. You and I have different wants, needs requirements, so it would be inappropriate to tell you would I would do.
However you did hit the nail on the head as the Jetta Wagon does VERY well mpg wise for all that extra space volume. If you drive that thing loaded to the gills, you will lose mpg, but that is both logical and obvious.
I like wagons, though, so more space is good if I'm not giving up fuel economy to do it!
There is still a chance Subaru will bring their diesel boxer engine to the USA. Then you could have your wagon, diesel with AWD.
Mazda says they are on track to bring diesel to USA in late 2012 or early 2013.
The arrival date of the new Skyactiv-D powered Japanese car was confirmed by spokesman Jeremy Barnes.
What has yet to be revealed is exactly what model will receive the diesel powerplant, although speculation is that the new CX-5 crossover will get the nod, while cars like the Mazda 3 and 6 could follow.
The 2.2-liter four-cylinder is capable of around 160 hp with over 300 lb-ft of torque, handily besting VW’s TDI mill. Perhaps the most attractive aspect of the Skyactiv-D engine, however, is that while it delivers excellent torque at low rpm it doesn’t fall on its face as the revs rise. In fact, it redlines at 5200 rpm, as opposed to 4500 rpm in most diesel engines, delivering more of that Mazda zoom-zoom quality.
This could be another option for US drivers wanting a diesel. It would probably get double the mileage of the current G550 gasser sold here. Looks rugged, not sure It is worth twice as much as the ML 350 Bluetec. Same engine transmission used in both. The G is 600 lbs heavier and rated to tow half as much. I think I would leave it for the Oprah set.
Rather poorly maintained. Though I would also want a short wheelbase model if it was for serious off roading. I think my hard core off road days are past. A leisurely jaunt down a wash is more likely the extent of my off roading. I believe the rest of the World still gets both 2 and 4 door models. It is only the USA that has such a limited number of vehicles to choose from.
When I bought my new 1964 Land Cruiser, I really wanted the Datsun Patrol. It was much higher rated and also a $1000 more. I should have spent the extra money. The TLC was really a POC engine wise. A very poor copy of a Chevy 6 cylinder. Poor metal especially the valves. Burnt 3 times in 25k miles.
It's also about 30 years old - time takes a toll. But it's a wonderfully bad color, certainly has either a vinyl or plaid cloth interior, plain wheels, etc. Show up the second world bought-their-way-in embezzler, trophy wife or crooked exec in their fancy new G.
Yeah, we never got a 2 door model. For the price of that new diesel 4 door, you could import your own old Euro 2 door in as-new condition and have enough money to maintain it for decades, and buy a nice diesel car too.
You got that right. $100k+ is way more than I would spend on a vehicle. There is a ugly blinged out G 55 AMG I see parked at the super market here. Has the ugliest wheels.
I am leaning toward ordering a ML 350 BlueTEC in White Diamond with Almond beige leather. With the premium electronics package. Not sure if I would like that phony leather being pushed these days. That would be about $55k. Half the price of a G and probably better handling and more comfortable. Being made in Alabama should not have a long lead time.
I'm definitely keeping my eyes/options open. The Skyactiv sounds interesting, but if they don't put it in one of their cars, I'm certain it will not be offered with a manual transmission.
As far as I'm concerned, no manual means it doesn't exist.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Nice color combo, I'd take an E bluetec in that. Try out the fake leather before you go against it - I find it to be pretty convincing. I visited that Alabama factory last November, it seems to be running along fine now, the models it makes aren't problematic.
A G55 attracts a certain set of tastes that don't match mine.
UPSHOT 38/40 oz per 1,000 miles. (tad over 1 L -33.8 oz, 1 qt 32 oz)
This is just a SWAG and FYI on ADD BLUE consumption, from what I can gather both from real world and capacity and consumption estimates. I am further guessing the consumption is usually more.
The Touareg has an add blue tank of 4.5 gal (128 oz) and estimated to go 15,000 miles per full tank.
There are two sizes, 2.5 gal and .5 gal containers.
I was surprised to read in a recent Automobile driving impressions article how little difference there is between the E350 diesel and gasser: 21/32 mpg vs. 19/28 mpg. I know, EPA mpgs are suspect, but that's just about negligable, and not enough for me to put up with the adblue and the harder to find fuel.
Both cars have about identical performance, I always wondered what the mpg difference would be in that case, compared to the slow diesel vs. fast gasser situation we usually encountered.
I think that 14.2% better fuel mileage is VERY significant. It is also significant and conversely insignificant on many levels also. It is just that when you talk about it terms of ONLY 4 mpg, difference, the language hides the percentage improvements. It is really discussions like this AND what the real passenger vehicle fleet mpg really IS that convinces me mpg is literally unimportant. I would also suppose that MPG RANGE is much higher for the diesel than the gasser. Again not to belabor the point, for it normally draws a " HUH?", the torque differences are probably MASSIVE, stump puller comes to mind. What they do not tell you is diesel is further handicapped (as in GOLF) so the differences get glossed over in discussions such as this. So for example if ADD BLUE were not required, you are really talking about a min of + 4 mpg BETTER. This of course would literally double the rate. They (policy wonks) realize this also, which is why they do it. As a backstory there are so called environmentalists that understand that GASSER really need GPF (gasser particulate filters also. As if gassers do NOT admit particulates also. They swag the damage is far greater than diesels on a one for one bases AMD the fact that 95% of gassers also spew more and are the overwhelming majority of vehicles. So in addition a GPF would probably gut gasser mileage a like amount, so offsetting losses would put diesel 29% BETTER.
So for example the TDI Touareg gets 22% better (EPA H) mileage (28 vs 23) and 53% more torque. (406 vs 265 # ft) I would swag a similar ratio for the F350.
I have not asked anyone with a MB "E" gasser about mileage. I have asked on the diesel and was told that getting 40 MPG on the highway was not difficult. Which is a much bigger percentage than the flawed EPA ratings indicate. Same goes for the ML350 BlueTEC. Getting overall 25 MPG is common while you are lucky to get 17 MPG combined on the ML350 Gas version. If I buy the ML diesel and don't get at least 30 MPG on the highway I will be very disappointed.
By averaging the 12 mileage reports on the EPA site for the ML diesel models sold from 2007 the overall is 24.7 MPG combined.
I am not sure what this means in English, but more importantly the real world, but the 2012 E Class Blue Tec (E350) has both a different CDI engine (406 # ft) and different 7 speed automatic. Now this combination is probably one of the best, indeed if not THE best combinations. However The 2012 ML 350 Blue Tec has the 455# ft (redesigned and the ML350 is redesigned for 2012)) engine and the 7 speed hybrid A/T, aka CVT. How they would equalize, if (each) they were in both platforms, I really have no idea.
I am swaging you would be VERY close. Having since gotten out of the 500 miles tire, suspension, brake pads and rotors breaking in phase, (thank heavens) and combined aggressive turbo and engine break in, it posted 36 mpg, as posted in another message, I am closer to normal speeds (still doing slightly more aggressive turbo and engine break in) and am posting 31/32 mpg on a 26 gal tank. I think another reason why I like this crossover SUV (TDI 8 speed A/T) is it looks like 2,200 rpm/5,000 (44% of) redline? @ 80 mph. :shades:
If you go to the EPA website they list reported MPG from actual drivers, and I've found that when you add up these stats from ordinary people, they are pretty close to EPA numbers, at least for cars I'm very familiar with.
If you are going to write a big check and you have EPA numbers over HERE, and one anecdote from a neighbor over THERE, I'd bet on the EPA.
As for MPG, you have to look at GALLONAGE to calculate your own advantage to buying a vehicle. It's not about what everyone else is getting, it's about what you get NOW with your old vehicle as opposed to what you're likely to get with your NEW vehicle, and how many gallons saved that means in a year.
So person A who buys a 42 mpg vehicle to replace their 18 mpg vehicle has done very well in gallonage. The Person B who trades in a 32 mpg vehicle for a 42 mpg, the SAME 40 mpg vehicle, hasn't done very well at all.
Too bad the new E350s haven't attracted any user reports. I'll be interested to see if anybody does a comparison test, and the mpgs they report. I actually overstated the difference (bad source), the gasser is rated at 20/30 mpg, almost identical tot he 21/32 for the diesel E350.
And yes, it's all about gallons. I smile when folks complain their 40 mpg-rated car is 'only' getting 37 mpg. Way different than an 18 mpg car getting 15 mpg...
I think the more common comparisons are indeed like models. So for example in my case a TLC that gets 15 to 17 mpg vs a Touareg TDI getting 28-30 mpg is 76% to 87% better for a 46.4% to 43% fuel savings.
Gallons per year is slam dunk x say 10 years or even per 100,000 miles. So say 15,000 miles per year/ 15-17 and 28-30= 1000-882 gals and 536-500 gals.
Yep, you have to look at gallonage----GPY should replace MPG!
This is a good example of how superficial quantitative data can lead one astray.
This is why I think that people switching from gasser SUVs to diesel SUVs will benefit much more than people switching from gasser mini-cars to diesel minicars.
You really save when you switch from a gasser suv to a diesel minicar.
I never used to really care about mpg when I was a kid. Then I began driving my grandparents old '73 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (3 feet longer than a Suburban and just as heavy) with a 472 cube V-8. 27.5 gallon gas tank and I rarely got 250 miles out of it. Flooring it up a steep hill it seemed like you could see the fuel gauge moving. Gas was about $1.30 back then (mid 80's) and i had t think about every trip and how much gas I was going to use.
It didn't take long for me to decide a needed to buy my own car. Wound up with a '80 Scirocco stick shift (8 feet shorter than the caddy and about 1/3 of the weight - 1,950 lbs). Manual steering, stick shift, manual windows etc. 76 hp 1.6 liter. It could beat the Caddy in acceleration, and I could get 40 mpg if I was carefull (speeds were slower - 55 mph limit). Put 100,000 additional miles on the car and never got less than 30 mpg on a tank. To top it all off gas dropped down to the mid 70's per gallon.
Long story short I went from stressing about every little trip because of the cost, to not caring at all about what I was spending on gas. I highly recommend the guzzler to sipper switch.
as far as i understand for USA, it's not legal to have diesel or any engine that wasn't available from factory installed in a modern vehicle that didn't offer the same/similar engine when offered originally for USA.... and the only exceptions are when the same/similar engine is no longer available and nothing else will fit. anyone here with actual-fact-knowledge confirm or correct that?
I would imagine it is up to your state. In CA you can put a newer CA diesel engine into a vehicle. If it is 1998 or newer it has to pass the new smog test now in place. On older conversions they do a visual inspection of the swap. I have read about VW TDI swaps into Volvo, Cummins van diesels are commonly put into older PUs and SUVs. Just read about a MB 190D going into a Toyota 4Runner. You cannot put a diesel in front of a stick that was only sold in CA with an automatic. I considered putting a small Cummins in my Ford Ranger. The hassle was not worth the cost or the effort. Research is the key to success.
Another option is importing a 20 year old diesel from Canada. Not sure if you can do the same from Europe.
The new EPA stickers now say $/year - similar to gallons per year.
If you know your math gpy offers no more info than mpg for percentage increases, but it makes it more apparent. For instance to many people a 10 mpg improvement is the same, when in fact it is far from that. Going from 10 to 20 mpg (100% improvement in mpg) is much more beneficial than going from 40 to 50 mpg (25% improvement). GPY or $PY makes this more apparent.
You're right, for the same car the % change is no different mpg or gpy. The difference is that a 2 mpg difference is MUCH smaller going, say, from 38 to 40 mpg than it is going from 15 to 17 mpg, in gallons used, while a 200 GPY difference is always 200 GPY, regardless of the starting point.
yeah, in a sense that's right. Well, not math impaired but maybe budget-impaired :P
With GPY as a measure, one might realize that going from 15 to 18 mpg in fact saves you 177 gallons a year over 15,000 miles.
To save 177 gallons, a person who now drives a car getting 30 mpg would have to buy one getting 45 mpg.
Now, true...the person owning the 30 mpg vehicle had a much smaller fuel bill to begin with.
the point is that with GPY, your relative budget planning can make more sense. You need to save say $700 bucks a year in fuel so that it pays for your insurance---okay, so you only have to go from 15 mpg to 18 mpg---you don't have to buy a used Toyota Echo.
In other words, you don't have to make drastic changes or impulsive leaps toward 30 mpg to accomplish reasonable goals.
There needs to be more emphasis on how far (miles) you can go per gallon of gas or diesel.
If you know you get 20 miles to a gallon and you know the mall is 20 miles away, then you may decide to hit the local neighborhood store instead of spending $4 just to drive to the mall.
It's hard for a lot of people to make that connection.
Dollars per mile? Miles per dollar? That may help VW sell more TDIs.
I've been testing the "range" estimate on my MINI's trip computer--I was brave enough to let the trip range get down to 5 miles, and the car was still running. Idon't think I'm going to push it any further.
I wonder---I sometimes see debris coming out of some diesel pickup exhausts (not like THAT however) and I sure can smell it. I can smell a diesel car in the parking lot as I walk by.
Just got off the phone with a Mercedes dealer in Medford Oregon. He told me the 2012 ML 350 no longer have the Run Flat tires. That was one obstacle that needed to be addressed. Lead time to get one just as I want it is 3 months. I want the diamond white color and almond interior.
Yes, RF tires are hideous. I recall the BMW salesman saying the BMW X5 35 D had run flats. He was downloading a bunch of information, so I didn't say anything, but made a mental note to swap them out. (if I had gone with the BMW)
Way cool about the arctic white and beige interior. It looks like an order will have to be made at the factory, albeit with your name on it, when you pull the trigger ! I am getting the feeling that is a pretty rare combination across these three diesel competitors. (BMW X5 35D, MB ML 350 Bluetec, VW Touareg TDI) Since you are closer to the Las Vegas dealers, it might be worth a call to the Henderson, NV dealer. They seemed pretty rock and roll.
I really would like to buy in Europe and travel around a bit. So far nothing on my radar is available for EU delivery. If MB decides to sell the ML250 BlueTEC here it would probably be available. Though it may be built in Alabama and shipped back to the EU.
Well I did, The VW Touareg TDI is assembled in Slovakia. Talk about a SLOW boat ride. But the Slovakia export came to me. Funny how the German made engine , TDI and US turbo are mated to a Japanese 8 speed transmission (Aisin ) So far I am impressed. Seems to be one of the best examples of over capacity that I have heard of in a while. The torque capacity is 627# ft. The engine output is 406 # ft.
Comments
225/45/17 vs 205/55/16
I am not sure about other creature comforts. Seats in the Golf were cloth. Other stuff (techno-gadgets and other distractions) mean little to me, so I didn't even explore those.
I like wagons, though, so more space is good if I'm not giving up fuel economy to do it! :shades:
However you did hit the nail on the head as the Jetta Wagon does VERY well mpg wise for all that extra space volume. If you drive that thing loaded to the gills, you will lose mpg, but that is both logical and obvious.
There is still a chance Subaru will bring their diesel boxer engine to the USA. Then you could have your wagon, diesel with AWD.
Mazda says they are on track to bring diesel to USA in late 2012 or early 2013.
The arrival date of the new Skyactiv-D powered Japanese car was confirmed by spokesman Jeremy Barnes.
What has yet to be revealed is exactly what model will receive the diesel powerplant, although speculation is that the new CX-5 crossover will get the nod, while cars like the Mazda 3 and 6 could follow.
The 2.2-liter four-cylinder is capable of around 160 hp with over 300 lb-ft of torque, handily besting VW’s TDI mill. Perhaps the most attractive aspect of the Skyactiv-D engine, however, is that while it delivers excellent torque at low rpm it doesn’t fall on its face as the revs rise. In fact, it redlines at 5200 rpm, as opposed to 4500 rpm in most diesel engines, delivering more of that Mazda zoom-zoom quality.
Mazda diesel 2013
Yeah, we never got a 2 door model. For the price of that new diesel 4 door, you could import your own old Euro 2 door in as-new condition and have enough money to maintain it for decades, and buy a nice diesel car too.
I am leaning toward ordering a ML 350 BlueTEC in White Diamond with Almond beige leather. With the premium electronics package. Not sure if I would like that phony leather being pushed these days. That would be about $55k. Half the price of a G and probably better handling and more comfortable. Being made in Alabama should not have a long lead time.
As far as I'm concerned, no manual means it doesn't exist.
A G55 attracts a certain set of tastes that don't match mine.
This is just a SWAG and FYI on ADD BLUE consumption, from what I can gather both from real world and capacity and consumption estimates. I am further guessing the consumption is usually more.
The Touareg has an add blue tank of 4.5 gal (128 oz) and estimated to go 15,000 miles per full tank.
There are two sizes, 2.5 gal and .5 gal containers.
Both cars have about identical performance, I always wondered what the mpg difference would be in that case, compared to the slow diesel vs. fast gasser situation we usually encountered.
So for example the TDI Touareg gets 22% better (EPA H) mileage (28 vs 23) and 53% more torque. (406 vs 265 # ft) I would swag a similar ratio for the F350.
By averaging the 12 mileage reports on the EPA site for the ML diesel models sold from 2007 the overall is 24.7 MPG combined.
I am swaging you would be VERY close. Having since gotten out of the 500 miles tire, suspension, brake pads and rotors breaking in phase, (thank heavens) and combined aggressive turbo and engine break in, it posted 36 mpg, as posted in another message, I am closer to normal speeds (still doing slightly more aggressive turbo and engine break in) and am posting 31/32 mpg on a 26 gal tank. I think another reason why I like this crossover SUV (TDI 8 speed A/T) is it looks like 2,200 rpm/5,000 (44% of) redline? @ 80 mph. :shades:
If you are going to write a big check and you have EPA numbers over HERE, and one anecdote from a neighbor over THERE, I'd bet on the EPA.
As for MPG, you have to look at GALLONAGE to calculate your own advantage to buying a vehicle. It's not about what everyone else is getting, it's about what you get NOW with your old vehicle as opposed to what you're likely to get with your NEW vehicle, and how many gallons saved that means in a year.
So person A who buys a 42 mpg vehicle to replace their 18 mpg vehicle has done very well in gallonage. The Person B who trades in a 32 mpg vehicle for a 42 mpg, the SAME 40 mpg vehicle, hasn't done very well at all.
And yes, it's all about gallons. I smile when folks complain their 40 mpg-rated car is 'only' getting 37 mpg. Way different than an 18 mpg car getting 15 mpg...
Gallons per year is slam dunk x say 10 years or even per 100,000 miles. So say 15,000 miles per year/ 15-17 and 28-30= 1000-882 gals and 536-500 gals.
This is a good example of how superficial quantitative data can lead one astray.
This is why I think that people switching from gasser SUVs to diesel SUVs will benefit much more than people switching from gasser mini-cars to diesel minicars.
I never used to really care about mpg when I was a kid. Then I began driving my grandparents old '73 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (3 feet longer than a Suburban and just as heavy) with a 472 cube V-8. 27.5 gallon gas tank and I rarely got 250 miles out of it. Flooring it up a steep hill it seemed like you could see the fuel gauge moving. Gas was about $1.30 back then (mid 80's) and i had t think about every trip and how much gas I was going to use.
It didn't take long for me to decide a needed to buy my own car. Wound up with a '80 Scirocco stick shift (8 feet shorter than the caddy and about 1/3 of the weight - 1,950 lbs). Manual steering, stick shift, manual windows etc. 76 hp 1.6 liter. It could beat the Caddy in acceleration, and I could get 40 mpg if I was carefull (speeds were slower - 55 mph limit). Put 100,000 additional miles on the car and never got less than 30 mpg on a tank. To top it all off gas dropped down to the mid 70's per gallon.
Long story short I went from stressing about every little trip because of the cost, to not caring at all about what I was spending on gas. I highly recommend the guzzler to sipper switch.
anyone here with actual-fact-knowledge confirm or correct that?
Another option is importing a 20 year old diesel from Canada. Not sure if you can do the same from Europe.
http://inertialabs.com/Diesel-Import-CAN.htm
I'm not following. I don't see the difference, and I believe I mentioned it here in this thread before.
Let's take, as an example, the decrease I have seen swapping my GTI for the 135i.
GTI: 28mpg average... or 535.7 GPY
135i: 26mpg average or 576.9 GPY
mpg=7.15% decrease
GPY=7.15% decrease
GPY, however, took extra calculating; wherease mpg was simply dividing the 2 numbers my car already provides me. So why is GPY more informative??
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
If you know your math gpy offers no more info than mpg for percentage increases, but it makes it more apparent. For instance to many people a 10 mpg improvement is the same, when in fact it is far from that. Going from 10 to 20 mpg (100% improvement in mpg) is much more beneficial than going from 40 to 50 mpg (25% improvement). GPY or $PY makes this more apparent.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
How does THAT work?? The price of gas changes daily!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
With GPY as a measure, one might realize that going from 15 to 18 mpg in fact saves you 177 gallons a year over 15,000 miles.
To save 177 gallons, a person who now drives a car getting 30 mpg would have to buy one getting 45 mpg.
Now, true...the person owning the 30 mpg vehicle had a much smaller fuel bill to begin with.
the point is that with GPY, your relative budget planning can make more sense. You need to save say $700 bucks a year in fuel so that it pays for your insurance---okay, so you only have to go from 15 mpg to 18 mpg---you don't have to buy a used Toyota Echo.
In other words, you don't have to make drastic changes or impulsive leaps toward 30 mpg to accomplish reasonable goals.
If you know you get 20 miles to a gallon and you know the mall is 20 miles away, then you may decide to hit the local neighborhood store instead of spending $4 just to drive to the mall.
It's hard for a lot of people to make that connection.
Dollars per mile? Miles per dollar? That may help VW sell more TDIs.
Kramers per tank.
Still, funny.
Way cool about the arctic white and beige interior. It looks like an order will have to be made at the factory, albeit with your name on it, when you pull the trigger ! I am getting the feeling that is a pretty rare combination across these three diesel competitors. (BMW X5 35D, MB ML 350 Bluetec, VW Touareg TDI) Since you are closer to the Las Vegas dealers, it might be worth a call to the Henderson, NV dealer. They seemed pretty rock and roll.
You really should spring for something that lets you do overseas delivery. :shades: