So, if I am going to get a luxury SUV, then I want it to be luxurious and quiet. I want to smell like walnut and leather with comfy seats.
No doubt the ML is tops for those criteria. In fact the hard seats of the X5 turned me off. Sadly the best Lux dealer in our area is the BMW dealer. They also keep a good inventory of X5 diesels in stock. At about $63k the X5D is $5k over the ML comparably equipped. If anything gets me into the ML it will be the quiet smooth luxury and seats. Also best 2nd row leg room.
Macs never break unless you are trying to get to cars.com. :P
That site loads immediately here. I'm hotspotting off an iPad in a county park but I don't like being tied into a closed ecosystem.
Translation - give me a flex fuel/hybrid/EV plug-in all the way.
And there's plenty of Apple forums with Q&As if sleep engineering doesn't fix your issue.
In diesel news, "This is a case of a small percentge of customers mistakenly fueling their diesel with gasoline," wrote Scott Vazin, a Volkswagen spokesman, in response to a query from Edmunds. "The part we're adding is a 'misfuel guard assembly kit' that includes a guard, collar, fuel flap and a new fuel cap with yellow DIESEL lettering."
It is interesting that three of us have notice the 7 speed MB shifts FAR differently. The other point of interest is that MB really does not take any pains to mention that the 7 speed transmission in the ML 350 BlueTec is in fact a A/T CVT hybrid.
There is a quite a lot of online discussion about the downshifting in the 7 speed transmission from MB. Daimler responded that the transmission offers 4 different driving modes. In the manual mode you pick which of the seven speeds you want. In fairness the model I drove was a 2007 and the first year for the 7 speed unit on the GL320 CDI. The salesman was clueless as are most car salesmen. At the time it turned me off so much on the Mercedes that I ended up with less than what I wanted buying the Sequoia for about $30k less than the MB GL diesel. Toyota was clearing out the older 2007 model for the new uglier 2008 Sequoia, so dealing with them was so much easier than with Mercedes. Not going to happen again.
PS I cannot find anything that would indicate the MB 7G-tronic has any CVT technology.
I actually saw the reference to "hybrid" on an Edmunds.com data sheet. I went back to look and could not find it. At the time, I put out several posts as to being interested to hear about longer term takes but really got no real response. I didn't have enough time with it in test drives to really say, other than it "felt" different.
Another thing is that one might miss a good thing, if one is not open to changing habits. (etc.)
As it applies to the (VW) diesels, I didn't "like" the DSG upon first buying it. The automatic shifting (up and down) felt quirky. The whole "sequential shift" section seemed almost like a waste. It was an $1,100 extra cost option. At the time I remember thinking, gee if one wanted to shift, suck it up and get a 6 speed M/T. etc., etc. The further "clue" for me was the 40,000 miles requirement to change the DSG oil and transmission filter ! Indeed it was almost a red flag and deal killer. At first it was use D/S and drive normally. Since several hundred thousand miles is still the goal, the verdict is still out (@56,000 miles) on the durability issue. However gradually, I started to really use the sequential shifter to establish space cushions in longer down grade traffic scenarios. The utility here is safer following distance, no fuel draw on downgrade (better fuel mileage), less use of brakes, almost instantly available torque to pull you through curves. Another is one I can not verify or quantify, but since on the longer downgrades I use the brakes almost exponentially LESS, it seems to make it hard/er for those that like to run up your six to time their own braking to maintain that 1/2 to 1 car length off the six position. So as a result, I have noticed most follow farther to way farther back.
Longer story short, when the 8 speed A/T showed up and having 2 more gears and now "LIFETIME" recommended A/T fluid changes, the new tool was easy to use, as the habits had already changed.
Another down stream potential consequence is I look forward now to the potential of the 8.9.10 speed DSG (if I decide to get another DSG) They seem to be going in the direction of a dry sump also. It also makes me ask the question of the utility of a 7/8 speed M/T.
I have to admit, DSG, especially in a VW does intimidate the hell outta my wallet. I think it has to do with a bunch of bad press issues I read a couple or so years ago. They made the processor/clutch units, etc so that entire units had to be replaced rather than individual banks of small parts. Maybe you can elaborate where I might have gotten these impressions? I don't recall, but I will admit, I'm also leery of basically any of the DSG regardless of brand. I do find it incredible the difference they can make vs a conventional auto in terms of FE. The Ford Fiesta is the most radical example of this. Perhaps any small output torque engine is most prone to the parasitic losses in a conv tran. Makes sense...there are numerous examples...Yaris, Fit, Versa etc. The stick versions are way better on fuel use than their auto equipped brethren are. Unlike a car with a lot more torque reserves like a turbo Cruze for example. The stick and auto have very similar numbers.
Well, that is why MB really didn't add any clarity to the issue. To be fair the reference seemed to be Edmunds.com. Using your criteria calling it a "normal slush box" 7 speed transmission would convey what?
It must have been someone else that used that term, as I don't..I usually use the term conventional. There is something about the term 'slushbox' when describing today's super high tech autos just doesn't seem right somehow. Like the difference between a Popsicle and Haagen Das (sp?).
Perhaps that is really the thing the designers have a lot to overcome. On the one hand, parasitic loss is less with a M/T. On the other hand, the auto "exotics" do well once the parasitic loss figures are established. For the manual how well a M/T driver does is up to THAT driver. What I would think makes it more defined for the diesels are the narrower rpm band with full torque coming on at lower and tighter rpm and with lower optimum @ the turbos optimum rpm. So for another example, the "Taylors" can get 84+ mpg on a H EPA rated 43 mpg Passat TDI following the general guideline of 5 mph under the speed limit.
So for example, on the 03 TDI max torque comes @ app 1,750 rpm to 2,950 and optimum turbo operation @ app 2,100 rpm. Even at a relatively "low" rpm of 2,800 rpm, I can still get 50 mpg @ app 90 mph. Redline being 5,100.
There is something about the term 'slushbox' when describing today's super high tech autos just doesn't seem right somehow.
I agree. When I think of slushbox it brings back memories of the horrible PowerGlide and DynaFlop 2 speed auto. The Hydra-Matic of that period was a much better transmission. I swapped out a bunch working in the wrecking yard.
Todays auto transmissions are pretty darn good. At least in the higher level vehicles. I was NOT impressed with the CVT in the Subaru I test drove. When I think of CVT it means snowmachine and lawn tractor transmissions to me. I don't think Subaru will get theirs to handle the torque of their diesels. Kind of a shame as they seem to have a decent diesel engine. Just won't sell in the USA with a manual transmission. Same problem for Honda. Could not get their diesel auto to pass emissions. They need to hire some German engineers.
My frame of reference for "slush box" A/T is really not that long ago, circa 2004 Civic 4 speed A/T. Now it has 135,000 miles. When it comes to diesels, the (infamous) 4 speed 01 M A/T on the 03 Jetta TDI. If there were ever a good reason to NOT get a VW, the 01M A/T would be high on the list !
So even Honda Accord has gone to the CVT for 2013 (2 mpg better than either 6 speed M/T or A/T). On the "same" Civic, they offer a 5 and 6 speed M/T and 5 speed A/T which incidently is rated (H EPA) higher than either M/T ?
I really do not know if I should include the 94/96 Toyota Landcruiser 4 speed A/T with push button over drive built by Aisin.
I didn't like the CVT in the Outback or Legacy I drove either. And yes, it is a shame about even using CVT and diesel in the same sentence even if they do make it able to handle the torque..just having the diesel makes the need for CVT less.
I sure do commend Mazda for using a proper auto in the new 6. And VW too with their...Shiftronic? 6 speed..forget the name. But I also have heard they are not the hardiest of transmissions and require expensive extra servicing often and using their expensive fluid. But I loved how it worked in a 2011 Jetta I drove. It had the 2.5 5 cyl...an engine so GOOD that I swear I have no idea why it seems to get bashed the way it does on foums. It feels smoother than people claim, feeling more like a 6 than a 5. Has more seat of the pants torque 'feel', regardless of what the dyno might say, and sounds terrific when wound out.
On the "same" Civic, they offer a 5 and 6 speed M/T and 5 speed A/T which incidently is rated (H EPA) higher than either M/T ?
Probably due to the auto having a taller final drive ratio. I suffer the same thing with my CRV. It's a stick. I know EPA usually shows an auto at being able to exceed the sticks in city on most cars with a 1.8 or bigger, but that is only cuz few sticks are driven right in town for mileage.
Pretty sure they use a lower final drive with standards, cuz they want them to have the get up and go. They think if you want a stick, you want to race everywhere you go. Probably too there are fewer clutch related wty claims with lower gearing. .That said, the stick CRV will really embarrass the auto version.
2011 Jetta I drove. It had the 2.5 5 cyl...an engine so GOOD that I swear I have no idea why it seems to get bashed the way it does on foums. It feels smoother than people claim, feeling more like a 6 than a 5. Has more seat of the pants torque 'feel', regardless of what the dyno might say, and sounds terrific when wound out.
I can tell you why it gets bashed. 0-60 times as reported by Edmunds for 2013 models
In my humble opinion if any diesel for Honda might be a hit, it would be a CRV.
Absolutely. Best vehicle Honda has to put in a diesel. Most people I know that are my age and older are buying CUVs. Just easier to get in and out of. Honda sells as many CRVs as Civics.
One could only hope..knowing my luck though, they'll offer it in the FWD only or some other ridiculous scenario. Plus, I would have to drive a new CRV..the last new generation one I drove was an 08 (07 first year) that had a terrible chassis shudder that made it feel like each little bump was 2.5 to 3 bumps. It was like half the spotwelds where missing or something.. I'm sure it had to do with lightening and crash ratings, but wow it was annoying. My bros ext cab 2 WD Tacoma does the same thing, except not nearly as noticeable as in the CRV. To me, it doesn't matter how great the mileage or whatever else is perceived important priorities in a new vehicle, you have to like the basic feel of solidity going down the road. Now that is not to say I don't like a supple ride, cuz I do, but when I hit A bump, I don't want it to feel like more than the bump I hit.
Btw, have you ever taken a db reading in your VW T? I wonder if it is quieter than the JGC? I'm talking road/wind noise...as it seems even crap brands have figured out how to quell diesel db on the other side of the firewall. My next vehicle is going to be hush quiet inside...I am so tired of the constant roar inside the CRV. Even if you slow to 45 mph it is STILL bad! Previous owner replaced the stock Bridgestones Desert Duelers with a Good Year Integra? I forget the name...some All Season tho..
Maybe I'll end up with an AWD Buick Lucerne with the Cruze diesel..if one could ever trust GM again..
I'm a pretty happy camper if a car does 0-60 in 10 seconds. Besides..45 to 75 times are a lot more real-world useful.
I think that guys arguing over less than half a second with new sleds like the Accord or 6 etc..is just freakin' hilarious. They are ALL rockets compared to just not that many years ago... and the last time I looked, speed traps are greater in number, not less.
My next vehicle is going to be hush quiet inside...I am so tired of the constant roar inside the CRV.
Not just the CRV. I rented a 2010 Accord for 2 weeks and it was miserably noisy on the highway. Same for the 2009 Prius my buddy has. Every little CA pothole reverberates through the car. And engine noise when accelerating as well. My Sequoia is better now that I replaced the OEM Dunlop tires with Michelins. Looking at the least noisy vehicles posted earlier today, the GL320 CDI was the Mercedes I test drove. I was so caught up in the transmission downshifting, I did not get much chance to listen for road noise.
Which brings up a serious issue I have with CA auto dealers. After they get a copy of your driver's license they still insist on being in the vehicle when you take it for a test drive. Which they usually direct a short loop up onto the freeway and back around to the dealership. Most of the time less than 5 miles. Of course they never have much fuel in them.
..."Btw, have you ever taken a db reading in your VW T? I wonder if it is quieter than the JGC? I'm talking road/wind noise...as it seems even crap brands have figured out how to quell diesel db on the other side of the firewall. "...
No I have not. That of course would be definitive. Unfortunately it is just a one off anecdotal comparison. Now I happen to be able to compare it against 3 Honda product,s 04 Civic, 2011 CRV and the Acura MDX as in past posts. The Acura MDX is the same to similar to the VW T TDI. The caveat is on acceleration, where the MDX is noisier. Both the CRV (another relatives) and the Civic are noticeably louder.
The Acura MDX is the same to similar to the VW T TDI. The caveat is on acceleration, where the MDX is noisier.
I think that is what sets the diesels apart from their gas counter parts. I hate hearing the screaming of the engine when it is trying to keep up at 75 MPH on long uphill drives. The Sequoia is fairly quiet until it downshifts in cruise to keep at a given speed. That roaring V8 engine at even relatively low 3500 RPM is noisy.
I have read most of the reviews on the 2014 JGC diesel and none included a decibel level at cruising speed. I think that all the Mags were given the same testing adventure offroad.
Yeah, a slushbox to me is a 3 speed "hydromatic" in a 82 Cutlass, or any other "big three" S**t box from that era. To GM's credit, they sold millions and millions of them and they had a very good reliability reputation.
I really like that some auto mag did a (4 ) head to (4) head comparison of the most likely competitors in the segment. Hopefully the article delineates the issues a mostly likely CUV TDI buyer is most likely to be concerned with.
Given the criteria I had a year + or so ago, (2 of the 4 competitors did not exist @ that time and two for this article were AXED) I would still have probably made the same choice. The additional caveat is that IF I had settled on the Porsche Cayenne (TDI- 2012 did NOT come with TDI option), the additional option could have easily been for the monies, to get two VW Touareg TDI's instead of one. Not that I want two CUV's instead of one, but it would certainly allow me more flexibility for the same monies! Indeed I could have gotten one/two Sport/s and one either lux/exec versions. If I were inclined to want or need better off road capability and to give a shot to Chrysler, I think the JGC would have been first on the list despite the $15k or so higher price tag.
Another way to put it is even with 2 to 3 MORE ( BMW-X5 35D redesign coming?) my criteria to go off road (aka not) has not changed. For any off roading I am likely to do, any to all are plenty capable.
Another is a pure guess on my part. I am thinking that one that is inclined to spend 58k plus on a JGC TDI is really not inclined to hit "the Rubicon trail" with it (literally and figuratively- however I shall keep a sharp eye out ). Now in a year or so, one MIGHT find one or two TOWING the rig with the JGC TDI to hit the Rubicon Trail WITH ! ? :shades: This is not your J Caesar's Rubicon
Purely as an outlier enthusiast market, (say 2 years down stream) IF the ItalianTDI engine proves to be a winner, this sub component might find its way into the off roaders parts bin.
As sidebars:
The author really did gloss over the reasoning, or purposely left it out, WHY VW T TDI got redesigned: FROM the (probably now STILL better) awesome off road capability of the past VW T TDI's TO more the on road, slightly off road, high speed sedan type market. (perhaps that would have made for him picking a clear winner harder.)
I think BMW X5-35 D was done a disservice. It would have been interesting to see how a longer time competitor in the field would have done EVEN as the last model waiting for redesign. Indeed it could be the BEST ever as the last model year of the breed!?
I agree with you, no need to leaving out the X5D with a lame excuse. I am also curious why the ML placed last on mileage, though 25.3 MPG combined is not shabby for a 5000lb brick of a vehicle. Well above the EPA average. The Cayenne with 29.2 MPG was really good considering the way reviewers generally wring out vehicles being tested. I have to assume that included the off road portions as well in the 900 mile tests. That comparo tells me that any of the four would have no trouble delivering 30+ MPG on the highway. My take is the Touareg and Cayenne have the best road handling, ML best ride noise level and comfort, and the JGC the off road prowess. With all four ready for any challenge.
The pre 2011 Touareg may have been more of an off road workhorse. I think the recent Dakar wins by the newer Touareg TDI and the record run from the tip of So America to the Arctic should be enough to give it high marks off road and on.
Two things have me leaning to the ML. Comfort and more space with the seats laying flat. I am not sure how MB manages 12 more Cubic Ft with the same overall length and width?
Yes the Rorschach word association with 12 cub ft more flashed more room for shopping booty ! Or 12 more gal paint cans for a re paint/model?
Yes I am thinking the ML would be a right FINE choice! I am guessing the -1 gear and the necessity to truncate or most likely expand the gear ratios spread a tad might be the mpg compromise. I can not draw a bead on the "hybrid" 7 speed transmission thing I read in the past, so I would hesitate to attribute mpg to that.
I do know three things are different about the Cayenne over the VW T (both now TDI options). First off, it is close to 200#'s lighter and chipped ever so slightly different. The 200#'s (179#'s actual) lighter reasoning should be apparent to the greater audience and the actual differences in the trend line graph chipping is WAY beyond my pay grade (good for +1 to +2 mpg?). Thirdly, I have read the suspension difference is to keep it more "Porsche like", but obvious this would have not as much to do directly with diesel and mpg other than VW/Porsche has normally (both) addressed diesel suspension differently.
I would think the MB should have a pretty balanced feel considering it is the only one with an aluminum block. If you were to believe EPA, it shows the MB with the slight edge in FE over the VW T.
According to that test specs pages, there are a number of curious figures. Just going by memory here..I'd say the Cayenne is chipped a fair bit differently..it got its identical peak torque at 1600. The T at 2000. (as did the JGC if I recall...2000) Considering the tranny and ratios and final drive ratios are all identical, I wonder what would stop a person from chipping the T the same as the C? That might be where your extra FE is. Also of note..the T was actually quicker by a tenth sec two places...forget where now. Not that it matters one iota...to me, anyway..
Frankly I was disappointed to read that test. I don't know where, but I was under the impression a base base JGC was 40k. I wonder if Cda does actually have a 40k model? Surely the idiots where I got that impression didn't mistakenly include the gasser in that appealing looking price? I'll betcha that is what they did, damn them. Forget where I read that. Surely no one is going to round down a 48 or 49k figure to 40? I don't even want a sunroof, so that has to help my case on an entry car. I also don't need keyless start, or auto climate or dimming mirrors, altho would like heated seats. Plus I would not order/pay for NAV, but would like a rear camera (rear only being good enough). I do know from experience when I check the MB site on pricing an ML250 (what I will probably end up with) that their option sheet, really spirals up fast...seems every time you checked something, it wasn't available unless you also had the previous 3500 option.
edit - Come to think of it, I'll likely always just own a poor man's car cuz that is basically what I am. Just because I could go out and buy any of them for cash tomorrow..well..probably Monday or Tuesday, doesn't mean I could afford one.. :sick:
Or maybe it was the VW T that could be had for 40k? ! Yes! I think that was it and I think I read it right here in this board!
I have to say tho, that I do not trust Chrysler's air suspension as I saw how they tried to execute it in my Mom's loaded loaded New Yorker. Just crap. AAMOF, I am quite leery of all air-suspensions created at the factory level where wty period dates are their biggest goal. I have to say that it worked flawlessly on my Subaru XT6 though, but I didn't own it out of wty. But was very very trick and cool..and worked. ALL that stuff is expensive as hell...so while I do not like the idea of a sharp ride (hoping sharp isn't too harsh a word) but it sounds like the T is just a more simple SUV. And I like simple.
Oh ya, it said the dash was digital on the Jeep? I couldn't load pics cuz almost outta usage for this month, but give me analog ANYDAY.
If the cheapest Jeep is 52 and the cheapest VW is 40 (or even 48 if that is what it is) I think I would still be swayed towards the VW.
Last plus...my favourite engine in that group is the MB motor. They've been building them the longest. Next is VW's. Pretty sure I would be quite happy with the T engine.
Of course all comments are reserved until I could drive each one back to back..although if the Cayenne was going to be part of the equation, the base model would have to tick my boxes cuz I wouldn't anti up for not even one option over base on that thing...92k...gimme a break...Plus...if I were to ever invest in a Porsche, it wouldn't be what Tony Soprano's wife drives... :lemon: :shades: totally kidding of course..
That is something about MB - although they have moved a little towards a more ala carte option strategy, there is still the big "p1" clump that you'll need to move along. Regarding ordering a MB without nav, ok if you want to keep it forever (and will probably require a special order for some models), but it will make the car undesirable when it comes time to part ways. Price to be paid for being a skinflint :P
Regarding affording it - live a little, you can't take it with you :shades:
If you were to believe EPA, it shows the MB with the slight edge in FE over the VW T.
I believe the EPA about as much as I believe the IRS and the rest of the Federal Government. :sick:
I do think Ruking has a point. The extra gear in the other 3 vehicles may be the difference. Gearing in the MB may be just slightly lower making a bit of difference. I would love to take one on a 300 mile road trip to get an idea on the highway mileage. Not likely with our MB dealers here.
Frankly I was disappointed to read that test. I don't know where, but I was under the impression a base base JGC was 40k. I wonder if Cda does actually have a 40k model?
The base Limited 2WD with diesel is $41k and change. Fully loaded Summit 4X4 will set you back about $57k MSRP. Limited 4X4 diesel about $47k. Lots of options in between.
I agree with you on the NAV. Even though most OEM NAVs are outdated before you buy them. A car without them will not sell as well. About like trying to sell a 2WD SUV. My buddy found out the hard way when he tried to unload a Yukon 2WD. No one was interested. He took a real beating on that one. Stripped vehicles are best when you plan to keep them till the wheels fall off.
You folks are probably aware of this but here goes anyway. TTAC says Jeep Wranglers may get diesel engines, air suspensions and 8 speed automatics. According to Auto News.
Edmunds announced the Wrangler Diesel as well. I think the plan will be across several Chrysler products. At least the ones that can stand the diesel engine price hit.
Prices are falling on OEM units too, which means they will gain more acceptance, and eventually be expected on entry lux cars and premium CUVs. Frankly, with what cars cost today, unless I was buying a basic commuter box, I would want it and wouldn't buy without it.
Reminds me of when I talked to a MB dealer about an older guy who special ordered a new E550 cabrio - ordered it with NOTHING, not even P1 (nav etc) - dealer tried to explain it to him, but he insisted. Apparently his wife threw a fit when she saw his decision, and rightfully so - deprecation will be insane on that one.
2WD SUV, maybe try to sell it in Florida. Like you say, fine if you never sell it.
You don't want a bunch of riff raff driving diesels do you? They would tie up the diesel pumps at the gas station.
They do sell a Golf TDI and a New New Beetle TDI. Even the Convertible is available with diesel. They just need to offer the Tiguan with the same engine, and they would have the market covered.
The funny part of the story was the fact that he used his brother's GM family buying perk. Flew back to see his family in Michigan that all worked for GM. Got this good deal on the end of MY closeout. Bought it and drove back home with his family to CA. Three years later he wanted to do the same thing so listed the Yukon and got no interest. Kept lowering the price until it sold. Flew back bought a new Yukon with AWD this time. Supposedly got this great family price. Got back to Los Angeles and the dealer there was selling the same vehicle for $2500 less than he paid in Michigan. He was frosted. Tried to get the dealer in Michigan to match. No way. He is one of those people that gets screwed on a regular basis.
He should have followed Edmund's and he would have known about the incentives GM was offering.
Hey guys !! Long time no post !! I had some life events (lost job, lost home, went 110 days unemployed, moved 1,000 miles, etc) so I have not been on for a while.
Anyhoo, I was looking to trade my long-in-the-tooth 2007 TCH recently, and REALLY wanted to give the Passat TDI a fair chance. I drove it, liked it, liked the interior space, liked the large trunk, did not mind the diesel engine noise (not much of that, but noticeable after the nearly-silent TCH) and liked the car. Possibly a little better than the 2013 Camry Hybrid.
But I leased the Toyota. Here's why:
1. My commute is short, 11 miles each way. I do a good bit of city driving. So I thought the TCH would do better in that area, just a little bit, in MPG. I would have LOVED getting 50+ MPG at 75 MPH, which is what I probably could have gotten in the Passat - however, point #2 overrode the excitement of that possibility: 2. VW reliability just SCARES the CRAP out of me. I've never been stranded by a Toyota (knock on wood) and I've never really had ANY engine or interior problems. I "like" that. I don't want to be worried that I might have a knob break or crack, or a problem with the diesel cleaning system.
I think the Passat TDI is a great car. For people who have had VW cars before, know the brand, maybe have a good relationship with the dealership near them, I think the Passat TDI is a better choice than the TCH, especially if you have a highway commute involving 65+ MPH speeds.
But I just could NOT pull the trigger because of Toyota's PROVEN (to me) reliability and the fact that in 114K miles over almost 7 years, I never had a single negative issue with my 2007 TCH. Even the 12V car battery did not have to be replaced - and that was in Phoenix where the heat usually kills a battery in about 3 years !! The 2007 was still getting about 34-36 MPG on average at 114K miles, which was about what it got since new - so the hybrid battery was not degraded at all.
I'm sold on Toyota. If they made a diesel Camry, I would be in HEAVEN. A diesel HYBRID Camry would put me in HOG HEAVEN !! :shades:
Anyway, I've got about 4K miles on my 2013 TCH and it's getting about 37.4 for the life of the car so far. I've had trips of 45+.
My next one will hopefully be the AVALON HYBRID, which I coveted this time, but could not afford. Maybe when my 36-month lease is up on this TCH I can afford to move into the Avalon. I think it's the most gorgeous 4-door car that Toyota has ever put on the USA shores.
Careful, someone will say that dually pickup drivers are trash and take too long filling up two 40 gallon tanks at the service station and upset host KCRam, lol.
I guess I'm thinking about a $18k diesel, and maybe Golfs will get there.
Larsb! Welcome back - sounds like you are landing on your feet. Keep hanging in there.
I am really glad to have you back. Wondered many times where you went. Must be TX if you have a job now. CA and AZ are for retired people and welfare recipients only.
The Avalon Hybrid is pricey for sure. You can almost buy a Mercedes E350 Bluetec and join Fintail. By the time your lease is up many more options will be available.
Hope this new job and location works out well for you.
Thanks, good to be here. I am indeed back in TX, Gary, very perceptive of you.
Cities I have lived in since 1985, reverse order: Arlington, Phoenix, Abilene, Arlington, Winters. Texas is a theme there ...
I really hope Toyota sees the light and makes a diesel sedan. I think they could really sell them. But then they'd be stepping on their hybrid sales, which they have kinda hung their hat on, so....
That is a good reminder, thanks, about not ending up with a slug that won't sell. I am surprised though, that for..what?...over 5 years, mfgrs sell a brand new vehicle with an obsolete NAV from day one. It wouldn't be so bad, except for their horrendous raping when you do upgrade the software. I have to admit, the main draw for getting NAV built in, is so that you aren't constantly unhooking and hiding a portable unit to resist theft. Often it isn't just the 100 buck GPS that gets taken...it can be a lot more than that...and the damage too.
But the mfgrs are pretty strategic about how they pkg it.
We just went past you on our vacation on I20. Unfortunately our Toyota is a gas guzzler. If Toyota would offer their fine Land Cruiser Diesel in the USA, I would be interested. Toy/Lex SUV hybrids are a big disappointment. Most owners getting well below the optimistic EPA guesstimate. Lexus will need to offer diesel in their lineup to catch up with the Germans that are eating their lunch in sales.
Re the extra gear..maybe..but there seems to be too great a difference. If it was a gas job, then ya, the shorter gearing could easily make up 3+mpg. But is still a consideration for sure..
As for the 41k 2WD. I guess that must have been it :sick: So ridiculous...I don't even consider one of these things in 2WD. It is just ridiculous...no one else does either...hence the odd time you read about your example with the slug Yukon. They're an anomaly. Like a fish outta water.
Tried to access the BMW site yesterday and couldn't even get started with a Build and Price page. Kept returning me to one of the sedans. Although I don't think I would ever trust the brand. I must be crazy to even consider trusting the MB name too, as I have no shortage of first hand horror stories through friends and family in the past. That ML 250 really does intrigue me though. No one needs over 400 ftlb, and the 2.1 has SO much it must be an incredible mill. At 369 ft lbs, even it would tow most any reasonable load.
Yes, I have to say the headlights on the Cayenne, hurt the image for me. But to be fair, it is rare to see one on the flesh here. Usually only when the rich tourists are out and about. So I'm not that familiar with all of its lines. I think I didn't pay attention mainly because I always felt it was totally out of my reach $wise. Same with the ML too FTM before the 4 cyl.
I am surprised though, that for..what?...over 5 years, mfgrs sell a brand new vehicle with an obsolete NAV from day one.
That is my gripe as well. My 2007 Top of the line Sequoia Limited came standard with NAV. The DVD with all the map data was from 2005. The updated one I can now buy for $169 is from 2009. I doubt they will ever update again.
By contrast the new Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel comes with U-Connect NAV. They use the Garmin system of navigation. According to the salesman, updates are free. In the top of the line NAV you are also online, with whom I am not sure. With Wifi for your tablet. So you should be covered for the future. You cannot buy a JGC diesel without NAV. Even the $41k 2WD comes with the smaller NAV unit.
Mercedes charges $249 for DVD updates. I will not buy a vehicle with DVD NAV again. I want one that can update online.
I got real spoiled using gas buddy and Google for hotels and restaurants on our 3 week road trip. All OEM NAVs should offer those up to the day services.
In the future, connectivity will be standard with OEM units, and they will self-update. Nowadays, one is stuck once out of warranty - but this is still the beginning. A mere decade ago, an OEM nav unit was uncommon even in highline cars, and cost a bit.
I like the OEM unit as it is less messy. My phone does a fine job when it has signal, but I don't want wires or some dopey suction cup thing stuck to the windshield. I have some OCD issues, too bad. The theft idea is a good justification, too. I am fine with the MB unit - it isn't the largest, but the resolution is excellent (makes my friend's 2012 Prius nav look antique) and it has worked well so far when called into use.
Comments
No doubt the ML is tops for those criteria. In fact the hard seats of the X5 turned me off. Sadly the best Lux dealer in our area is the BMW dealer. They also keep a good inventory of X5 diesels in stock. At about $63k the X5D is $5k over the ML comparably equipped. If anything gets me into the ML it will be the quiet smooth luxury and seats. Also best 2nd row leg room.
That site loads immediately here. I'm hotspotting off an iPad in a county park but I don't like being tied into a closed ecosystem.
Translation - give me a flex fuel/hybrid/EV plug-in all the way.
And there's plenty of Apple forums with Q&As if sleep engineering doesn't fix your issue.
In diesel news, "This is a case of a small percentge of customers mistakenly fueling their diesel with gasoline," wrote Scott Vazin, a Volkswagen spokesman, in response to a query from Edmunds. "The part we're adding is a 'misfuel guard assembly kit' that includes a guard, collar, fuel flap and a new fuel cap with yellow DIESEL lettering."
Volkswagen Refits Diesel Models To Prevent Misfueling
PS
I cannot find anything that would indicate the MB 7G-tronic has any CVT technology.
This doesn't look like any kind of CVT I have ever seen.
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2012/10/top-10-quietest-new-cars-revealed-by-which-c- ar-297176/
Another thing is that one might miss a good thing, if one is not open to changing habits. (etc.)
As it applies to the (VW) diesels, I didn't "like" the DSG upon first buying it. The automatic shifting (up and down) felt quirky. The whole "sequential shift" section seemed almost like a waste. It was an $1,100 extra cost option. At the time I remember thinking, gee if one wanted to shift, suck it up and get a 6 speed M/T. etc., etc. The further "clue" for me was the 40,000 miles requirement to change the DSG oil and transmission filter ! Indeed it was almost a red flag and deal killer. At first it was use D/S and drive normally. Since several hundred thousand miles is still the goal, the verdict is still out (@56,000 miles) on the durability issue. However gradually, I started to really use the sequential shifter to establish space cushions in longer down grade traffic scenarios. The utility here is safer following distance, no fuel draw on downgrade (better fuel mileage), less use of brakes, almost instantly available torque to pull you through curves. Another is one I can not verify or quantify, but since on the longer downgrades I use the brakes almost exponentially LESS, it seems to make it hard/er for those that like to run up your six to time their own braking to maintain that 1/2 to 1 car length off the six position. So as a result, I have noticed most follow farther to way farther back.
Longer story short, when the 8 speed A/T showed up and having 2 more gears and now "LIFETIME" recommended A/T fluid changes, the new tool was easy to use, as the habits had already changed.
Another down stream potential consequence is I look forward now to the potential of the 8.9.10 speed DSG (if I decide to get another DSG) They seem to be going in the direction of a dry sump also. It also makes me ask the question of the utility of a 7/8 speed M/T.
So for example, on the 03 TDI max torque comes @ app 1,750 rpm to 2,950 and optimum turbo operation @ app 2,100 rpm. Even at a relatively "low" rpm of 2,800 rpm, I can still get 50 mpg @ app 90 mph. Redline being 5,100.
I agree. When I think of slushbox it brings back memories of the horrible PowerGlide and DynaFlop 2 speed auto. The Hydra-Matic of that period was a much better transmission. I swapped out a bunch working in the wrecking yard.
Todays auto transmissions are pretty darn good. At least in the higher level vehicles. I was NOT impressed with the CVT in the Subaru I test drove. When I think of CVT it means snowmachine and lawn tractor transmissions to me. I don't think Subaru will get theirs to handle the torque of their diesels. Kind of a shame as they seem to have a decent diesel engine. Just won't sell in the USA with a manual transmission. Same problem for Honda. Could not get their diesel auto to pass emissions. They need to hire some German engineers.
So even Honda Accord has gone to the CVT for 2013 (2 mpg better than either 6 speed M/T or A/T). On the "same" Civic, they offer a 5 and 6 speed M/T and 5 speed A/T which incidently is rated (H EPA) higher than either M/T ?
I really do not know if I should include the 94/96 Toyota Landcruiser 4 speed A/T with push button over drive built by Aisin.
I sure do commend Mazda for using a proper auto in the new 6. And VW too with their...Shiftronic? 6 speed..forget the name. But I also have heard they are not the hardiest of transmissions and require expensive extra servicing often and using their expensive fluid. But I loved how it worked in a 2011 Jetta I drove. It had the 2.5 5 cyl...an engine so GOOD that I swear I have no idea why it seems to get bashed the way it does on foums. It feels smoother than people claim, feeling more like a 6 than a 5. Has more seat of the pants torque 'feel', regardless of what the dyno might say, and sounds terrific when wound out.
Probably due to the auto having a taller final drive ratio. I suffer the same thing with my CRV. It's a stick. I know EPA usually shows an auto at being able to exceed the sticks in city on most cars with a 1.8 or bigger, but that is only cuz few sticks are driven right in town for mileage.
Pretty sure they use a lower final drive with standards, cuz they want them to have the get up and go. They think if you want a stick, you want to race everywhere you go. Probably too there are fewer clutch related wty claims with lower gearing. .That said, the stick CRV will really embarrass the auto version.
I can tell you why it gets bashed. 0-60 times as reported by Edmunds for 2013 models
Passat 2.5L 9 secs
Jetta 2.5L 8.4 secs
Nissan Altima 2.5L 7.8 secs
Honda Accord 2.4L 7.5 secs
Absolutely. Best vehicle Honda has to put in a diesel. Most people I know that are my age and older are buying CUVs. Just easier to get in and out of. Honda sells as many CRVs as Civics.
I'm sure it had to do with lightening and crash ratings, but wow it was annoying. My bros ext cab 2 WD Tacoma does the same thing, except not nearly as noticeable as in the CRV. To me, it doesn't matter how great the mileage or whatever else is perceived important priorities in a new vehicle, you have to like the basic feel of solidity going down the road. Now that is not to say I don't like a supple ride, cuz I do, but when I hit A bump, I don't want it to feel like more than the bump I hit.
Btw, have you ever taken a db reading in your VW T? I wonder if it is quieter than the JGC? I'm talking road/wind noise...as it seems even crap brands have figured out how to quell diesel db on the other side of the firewall.
My next vehicle is going to be hush quiet inside...I am so tired of the constant roar inside the CRV. Even if you slow to 45 mph it is STILL bad! Previous owner replaced the stock Bridgestones Desert Duelers with a Good Year Integra? I forget the name...some All Season tho..
Maybe I'll end up with an AWD Buick Lucerne with the Cruze diesel..if one could ever trust GM again..
Besides..45 to 75 times are a lot more real-world useful.
I think that guys arguing over less than half a second with new sleds like the Accord or 6 etc..is just freakin' hilarious. They are ALL rockets compared to just not that many years ago... and the last time I looked, speed traps are greater in number, not less.
Not just the CRV. I rented a 2010 Accord for 2 weeks and it was miserably noisy on the highway. Same for the 2009 Prius my buddy has. Every little CA pothole reverberates through the car. And engine noise when accelerating as well. My Sequoia is better now that I replaced the OEM Dunlop tires with Michelins. Looking at the least noisy vehicles posted earlier today, the GL320 CDI was the Mercedes I test drove. I was so caught up in the transmission downshifting, I did not get much chance to listen for road noise.
Which brings up a serious issue I have with CA auto dealers. After they get a copy of your driver's license they still insist on being in the vehicle when you take it for a test drive. Which they usually direct a short loop up onto the freeway and back around to the dealership. Most of the time less than 5 miles. Of course they never have much fuel in them.
No I have not. That of course would be definitive. Unfortunately it is just a one off anecdotal comparison. Now I happen to be able to compare it against 3 Honda product,s 04 Civic, 2011 CRV and the Acura MDX as in past posts. The Acura MDX is the same to similar to the VW T TDI. The caveat is on acceleration, where the MDX is noisier. Both the CRV (another relatives) and the Civic are noticeably louder.
I think that is what sets the diesels apart from their gas counter parts. I hate hearing the screaming of the engine when it is trying to keep up at 75 MPH on long uphill drives. The Sequoia is fairly quiet until it downshifts in cruise to keep at a given speed. That roaring V8 engine at even relatively low 3500 RPM is noisy.
I have read most of the reviews on the 2014 JGC diesel and none included a decibel level at cruising speed. I think that all the Mags were given the same testing adventure offroad.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1307_luxury_diesel_suv_comparison/
Given the criteria I had a year + or so ago, (2 of the 4 competitors did not exist @ that time and two for this article were AXED) I would still have probably made the same choice. The additional caveat is that IF I had settled on the Porsche Cayenne (TDI- 2012 did NOT come with TDI option), the additional option could have easily been for the monies, to get two VW Touareg TDI's instead of one. Not that I want two CUV's instead of one, but it would certainly allow me more flexibility for the same monies! Indeed I could have gotten one/two Sport/s and one either lux/exec versions. If I were inclined to want or need better off road capability and to give a shot to Chrysler, I think the JGC would have been first on the list despite the $15k or so higher price tag.
Another way to put it is even with 2 to 3 MORE ( BMW-X5 35D redesign coming?) my criteria to go off road (aka not) has not changed. For any off roading I am likely to do, any to all are plenty capable.
Another is a pure guess on my part. I am thinking that one that is inclined to spend 58k plus on a JGC TDI is really not inclined to hit "the Rubicon trail" with it (literally and figuratively- however I shall keep a sharp eye out
Purely as an outlier enthusiast market, (say 2 years down stream) IF the ItalianTDI engine proves to be a winner, this sub component might find its way into the off roaders parts bin.
As sidebars:
The author really did gloss over the reasoning, or purposely left it out, WHY VW T TDI got redesigned: FROM the (probably now STILL better) awesome off road capability of the past VW T TDI's TO more the on road, slightly off road, high speed sedan type market. (perhaps that would have made for him picking a clear winner harder.)
I think BMW X5-35 D was done a disservice. It would have been interesting to see how a longer time competitor in the field would have done EVEN as the last model waiting for redesign. Indeed it could be the BEST ever as the last model year of the breed!?
The pre 2011 Touareg may have been more of an off road workhorse. I think the recent Dakar wins by the newer Touareg TDI and the record run from the tip of So America to the Arctic should be enough to give it high marks off road and on.
Two things have me leaning to the ML. Comfort and more space with the seats laying flat. I am not sure how MB manages 12 more Cubic Ft with the same overall length and width?
Yes I am thinking the ML would be a right FINE choice! I am guessing the -1 gear and the necessity to truncate or most likely expand the gear ratios spread a tad might be the mpg compromise. I can not draw a bead on the "hybrid" 7 speed transmission thing I read in the past, so I would hesitate to attribute mpg to that.
I do know three things are different about the Cayenne over the VW T (both now TDI options). First off, it is close to 200#'s lighter and chipped ever so slightly different. The 200#'s (179#'s actual) lighter reasoning should be apparent to the greater audience and the actual differences in the trend line graph chipping is WAY beyond my pay grade (good for +1 to +2 mpg?). Thirdly, I have read the suspension difference is to keep it more "Porsche like", but obvious this would have not as much to do directly with diesel and mpg other than VW/Porsche has normally (both) addressed diesel suspension differently.
According to that test specs pages, there are a number of curious figures. Just going by memory here..I'd say the Cayenne is chipped a fair bit differently..it got its identical peak torque at 1600. The T at 2000. (as did the JGC if I recall...2000) Considering the tranny and ratios and final drive ratios are all identical, I wonder what would stop a person from chipping the T the same as the C? That might be where your extra FE is. Also of note..the T was actually quicker by a tenth sec two places...forget where now. Not that it matters one iota...to me, anyway..
Frankly I was disappointed to read that test. I don't know where, but I was under the impression a base base JGC was 40k. I wonder if Cda does actually have a 40k model? Surely the idiots where I got that impression didn't mistakenly include the gasser in that appealing looking price? I'll betcha that is what they did, damn them. Forget where I read that. Surely no one is going to round down a 48 or 49k figure to 40?
I don't even want a sunroof, so that has to help my case on an entry car. I also don't need keyless start, or auto climate or dimming mirrors, altho would like heated seats. Plus I would not order/pay for NAV, but would like a rear camera (rear only being good enough). I do know from experience when I check the MB site on pricing an ML250 (what I will probably end up with) that their option sheet, really spirals up fast...seems every time you checked something, it wasn't available unless you also had the previous 3500 option.
edit - Come to think of it, I'll likely always just own a poor man's car cuz that is basically what I am. Just because I could go out and buy any of them for cash tomorrow..well..probably Monday or Tuesday, doesn't mean I could afford one.. :sick:
Or maybe it was the VW T that could be had for 40k? ! Yes! I think that was it and I think I read it right here in this board!
I have to say tho, that I do not trust Chrysler's air suspension as I saw how they tried to execute it in my Mom's loaded loaded New Yorker. Just crap. AAMOF, I am quite leery of all air-suspensions created at the factory level where wty period dates are their biggest goal. I have to say that it worked flawlessly on my Subaru XT6 though, but I didn't own it out of wty. But was very very trick and cool..and worked. ALL that stuff is expensive as hell...so while I do not like the idea of a sharp ride (hoping sharp isn't too harsh a word) but it sounds like the T is just a more simple SUV. And I like simple.
Oh ya, it said the dash was digital on the Jeep?
If the cheapest Jeep is 52 and the cheapest VW is 40 (or even 48 if that is what it is) I think I would still be swayed towards the VW.
Last plus...my favourite engine in that group is the MB motor. They've been building them the longest. Next is VW's. Pretty sure I would be quite happy with the T engine.
Of course all comments are reserved until I could drive each one back to back..although if the Cayenne was going to be part of the equation, the base model would have to tick my boxes cuz I wouldn't anti up for not even one option over base on that thing...92k...gimme a break...Plus...if I were to ever invest in a Porsche, it wouldn't be what Tony Soprano's wife drives... :lemon:
:shades: totally kidding of course..
Regarding affording it - live a little, you can't take it with you :shades:
I believe the EPA about as much as I believe the IRS and the rest of the Federal Government. :sick:
I do think Ruking has a point. The extra gear in the other 3 vehicles may be the difference. Gearing in the MB may be just slightly lower making a bit of difference. I would love to take one on a 300 mile road trip to get an idea on the highway mileage. Not likely with our MB dealers here.
Frankly I was disappointed to read that test. I don't know where, but I was under the impression a base base JGC was 40k. I wonder if Cda does actually have a 40k model?
The base Limited 2WD with diesel is $41k and change. Fully loaded Summit 4X4 will set you back about $57k MSRP. Limited 4X4 diesel about $47k. Lots of options in between.
http://www.jeep.com/hostc/bmo/CUJ201403/models.do
Or maybe it was the VW T that could be had for 40k?
The Touareg TDI Sport starts at about $47k and goes up from there.
The Cayenne just does not appeal to me. Looks to Lexus egg like.
http://www.waltersporsche.com/new/Porsche/2013-Porsche-Cayenne+Diesel-937f85b40a- 0a0064014ffad713c8d31f.htm
http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2016-jeep-wrangler-to-get-diesel-engine.html
(@ least 6 TDI's each)
1. BMW X5 35 D
2. Audi Q7
3. VW Touareg
4. ML 350 Bluetec
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee
6. Porsche Cayenne
Seems MB is making the first move into the small sized CUV segment with the GLK 250.
Reminds me of when I talked to a MB dealer about an older guy who special ordered a new E550 cabrio - ordered it with NOTHING, not even P1 (nav etc) - dealer tried to explain it to him, but he insisted. Apparently his wife threw a fit when she saw his decision, and rightfully so - deprecation will be insane on that one.
2WD SUV, maybe try to sell it in Florida. Like you say, fine if you never sell it.
They do sell a Golf TDI and a New New Beetle TDI. Even the Convertible is available with diesel. They just need to offer the Tiguan with the same engine, and they would have the market covered.
The funny part of the story was the fact that he used his brother's GM family buying perk. Flew back to see his family in Michigan that all worked for GM. Got this good deal on the end of MY closeout. Bought it and drove back home with his family to CA. Three years later he wanted to do the same thing so listed the Yukon and got no interest. Kept lowering the price until it sold. Flew back bought a new Yukon with AWD this time. Supposedly got this great family price. Got back to Los Angeles and the dealer there was selling the same vehicle for $2500 less than he paid in Michigan. He was frosted. Tried to get the dealer in Michigan to match. No way. He is one of those people that gets screwed on a regular basis.
He should have followed Edmund's and he would have known about the incentives GM was offering.
Anyhoo, I was looking to trade my long-in-the-tooth 2007 TCH recently, and REALLY wanted to give the Passat TDI a fair chance. I drove it, liked it, liked the interior space, liked the large trunk, did not mind the diesel engine noise (not much of that, but noticeable after the nearly-silent TCH) and liked the car. Possibly a little better than the 2013 Camry Hybrid.
But I leased the Toyota. Here's why:
1. My commute is short, 11 miles each way. I do a good bit of city driving. So I thought the TCH would do better in that area, just a little bit, in MPG. I would have LOVED getting 50+ MPG at 75 MPH, which is what I probably could have gotten in the Passat - however, point #2 overrode the excitement of that possibility:
2. VW reliability just SCARES the CRAP out of me. I've never been stranded by a Toyota (knock on wood) and I've never really had ANY engine or interior problems. I "like" that. I don't want to be worried that I might have a knob break or crack, or a problem with the diesel cleaning system.
I think the Passat TDI is a great car. For people who have had VW cars before, know the brand, maybe have a good relationship with the dealership near them, I think the Passat TDI is a better choice than the TCH, especially if you have a highway commute involving 65+ MPH speeds.
But I just could NOT pull the trigger because of Toyota's PROVEN (to me) reliability and the fact that in 114K miles over almost 7 years, I never had a single negative issue with my 2007 TCH. Even the 12V car battery did not have to be replaced - and that was in Phoenix where the heat usually kills a battery in about 3 years !! The 2007 was still getting about 34-36 MPG on average at 114K miles, which was about what it got since new - so the hybrid battery was not degraded at all.
I'm sold on Toyota. If they made a diesel Camry, I would be in HEAVEN. A diesel HYBRID Camry would put me in HOG HEAVEN !! :shades:
Anyway, I've got about 4K miles on my 2013 TCH and it's getting about 37.4 for the life of the car so far. I've had trips of 45+.
My next one will hopefully be the AVALON HYBRID, which I coveted this time, but could not afford. Maybe when my 36-month lease is up on this TCH I can afford to move into the Avalon. I think it's the most gorgeous 4-door car that Toyota has ever put on the USA shores.
Laterz Dudes !!
I guess I'm thinking about a $18k diesel, and maybe Golfs will get there.
Larsb! Welcome back - sounds like you are landing on your feet. Keep hanging in there.
The Avalon Hybrid is pricey for sure. You can almost buy a Mercedes E350 Bluetec and join Fintail. By the time your lease is up many more options will be available.
Hope this new job and location works out well for you.
Cities I have lived in since 1985, reverse order: Arlington, Phoenix, Abilene, Arlington, Winters. Texas is a theme there ...
I really hope Toyota sees the light and makes a diesel sedan. I think they could really sell them. But then they'd be stepping on their hybrid sales, which they have kinda hung their hat on, so....
I am surprised though, that for..what?...over 5 years, mfgrs sell a brand new vehicle with an obsolete NAV from day one. It wouldn't be so bad, except for their horrendous raping when you do upgrade the software. I have to admit, the main draw for getting NAV built in, is so that you aren't constantly unhooking and hiding a portable unit to resist theft. Often it isn't just the 100 buck GPS that gets taken...it can be a lot more than that...and the damage too.
But the mfgrs are pretty strategic about how they pkg it.
As for the 41k 2WD. I guess that must have been it :sick: So ridiculous...I don't even consider one of these things in 2WD. It is just ridiculous...no one else does either...hence the odd time you read about your example with the slug Yukon. They're an anomaly. Like a fish outta water.
Tried to access the BMW site yesterday and couldn't even get started with a Build and Price page. Kept returning me to one of the sedans. Although I don't think I would ever trust the brand. I must be crazy to even consider trusting the MB name too, as I have no shortage of first hand horror stories through friends and family in the past. That ML 250 really does intrigue me though. No one needs over 400 ftlb, and the 2.1 has SO much it must be an incredible mill. At 369 ft lbs, even it would tow most any reasonable load.
Yes, I have to say the headlights on the Cayenne, hurt the image for me. But to be fair, it is rare to see one on the flesh here. Usually only when the rich tourists are out and about. So I'm not that familiar with all of its lines. I think I didn't pay attention mainly because I always felt it was totally out of my reach $wise. Same with the ML too FTM before the 4 cyl.
That is my gripe as well. My 2007 Top of the line Sequoia Limited came standard with NAV. The DVD with all the map data was from 2005. The updated one I can now buy for $169 is from 2009. I doubt they will ever update again.
By contrast the new Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel comes with U-Connect NAV. They use the Garmin system of navigation. According to the salesman, updates are free. In the top of the line NAV you are also online, with whom I am not sure. With Wifi for your tablet. So you should be covered for the future. You cannot buy a JGC diesel without NAV. Even the $41k 2WD comes with the smaller NAV unit.
Mercedes charges $249 for DVD updates. I will not buy a vehicle with DVD NAV again. I want one that can update online.
I got real spoiled using gas buddy and Google for hotels and restaurants on our 3 week road trip. All OEM NAVs should offer those up to the day services.
I like the OEM unit as it is less messy. My phone does a fine job when it has signal, but I don't want wires or some dopey suction cup thing stuck to the windshield. I have some OCD issues, too bad. The theft idea is a good justification, too. I am fine with the MB unit - it isn't the largest, but the resolution is excellent (makes my friend's 2012 Prius nav look antique) and it has worked well so far when called into use.