By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
And yeah, the Liberty CRD didn't help diesel's cause in the US much.
400 Club
@ less than 200,000 miles, my 03 VW Jetta TDI is the proverbial PUPPY.
Well, it's made of a Mercedes ML class, which means the best of what it is made of isn't made by Jeep or Chrysler, which I kind of suspected all along.
Chrysler needs to stop getting bailed out by other manufacturers and then sell whatever comes out of the deal. I know they had to marry Fiat to stay afloat, but thoughts of a Fiat merged with a Dodge (Dart) doesn't exactly conjure up thoughts of reliability. I know. I had a 1979 Fiat Strada
What does any of this have to do with Diesels? I really thin the 2014 GC Diesel is a great vehicle. It is absolutely gorgeous. I just have heard nightmares about the 2011 to 2013 models and it seems that quality still eludes Jeep. It was the same with my 1999. I loved the way it looked and it drove like a dream. With the V8 it was a tall AWD muscle car that my wife and kids could fit it comfortably. Every repair bill was $1000. Owning it was like owning a boat Bust Out Another Thousand.
So, Chrysler has work to do. They better come up with entirely new product line from the ground up, make it modern, attractive, and RELIABLE.
European oems are facing very BLEAK European sales prospects, due to a host of reasons. The WSJ articles that I have read has difficulties seeing beyond 2014, 2015 and 2016 (reduced to poor sales) Of 100 European auto assembly plants, one article said that fully 35 are hemorrhaging massive amounts of money. The good spin on one article says words to the effect that yearly sales of 12 M appear to be "bottoming". :lemon:
As shaky as the American markets have been and remain, nonetheless it is seen as a bright spot, currently. So really both sides (Fiat/Chrysler may have been though EACH was the savior when in fact each are the desperate save'ees.
Does it really say that? Geez..they didn't even spell We're right
My friend in the city says he just doesn't see Darts down there. Except at the dealer's lot, haha In a way I am not surprised...they screwed up a few things at least. First..the 1st ones out (the turbos) called for premium gas when Ford and GM says 87 is ok. That hurt them right there. Second, they are not coming nearly as close to EPA as GM's Cruze does, so that's another biggy. (edit) meant to say that I suspect this could be related to their amendment saying that, apparently, 87 can be used now. I bet they just altered the ECU by massaging a few adjustments here and there but basically retarding the timing to avoid pre-detonation, which of course is mileage killer. Third, the more affordable car..the one that is advertised as the cheap lowest Sugg Retail whenever they invest in a TV or newspaper ad, is with the base car whose engine is not as good as GM's base 1.8 NA engine. Fourth, Dart's one up from base NA engine is not know to be all that great engine...rough, loud, raspy..so they really haven't done a very good job on a few counts. It is a really good looking car though. I prefer it better than the Cruze. As for Ford, well they're of off in troubled Ecoboost clouds of denial, so don't even offer a NA base engine. Plus after my recent afternoon checking them all out, they are just so incredibly inferior to even Chrysler..(again, IMO of course) so that sure isn't saying much for them..
Even the Fiat 500, is a night and day better car than the Fiesta..just sit in both back-to-back.
And of course we know that Chrysler is already starting to embrace offering more diesels. Athough that said, while I like the look of the JGC very much...it has at least two big strikes against it, IMO. The new V6 is seems to be a bit thirsty from anything I have read so far...and especially when you compare it to a GLK..even tho I know it is a bit unfair due to size, if you raced them both up a hill tho with 5 passengers...is where the comparo would come back into focus again I bet..
With JGC, you sure are paying a lot for that low range transfer case..
now if the JGC actually had the MB engine too..that would probably instill a LOT more confidence in it...just ask any Liberty owner their thoughts on that.. :lemon:
Honda a year or so ago lost a small claims court case (10,000 I believe, I am not sure of the current SCC maximums) with obviously broad implications. (I am not sure that precedence takes a precedence here) Because of the broad implications, I think the greater powers that be, THEN moved to shut down the abilities of broader numbers of folks to get auto oem "justice" in small claims court.
I also saw a post in the local traffic section of our local rag by some Prius owners citing 44 mpg (this area) in response to some "electrical plug in" cultists' assertion that plug in is damn near free".
I thought that was refreshing. So for example if I am getting 41/42 in a 2009 Jetta TDI, I am happy with my choice and cheaper price tag !
Under STANDARD ACCESSORIES ( (item 7/of 52, no #)
"R66" Extended Mobility Tires (run-flat tires)
I haven't been to see it yet @ the dealer, so like you, I would hope it is a misprint.
While I hope I am incorrect, I do not perceive a run flat tire AND ESPECIALLY a 19 in tire will be able to get 10,000 to 15,000 miles of wear per 1/32nd, like some of the oem tires VW uses. Right now on a poorly rated tire, 18 in (GY E LS2's H rated), I am getting app 14 to 14.5k per 1/32nd in. The history of the two others is as it wears down it tends to wear SLOWER. One other factor or variable is VW recommends a highway fuel mileage of 3 psi OVER the recommended TP of 33/38 PSI or 36/41 psi. I haven't seen the MB tech manual to know and or say.
diesel vs gasoline generators: which is better?
Actually the 30,000 hours design parameter tracks with the 1.9 L TDI engine (VW engines actually have industrial generator applications) So for example, if the average speed is 45 mph, the design life would be 1.35 M miles (45 mph x 30,000 hours) Obviously there are a plethora of factors that "CONSPIRE" in premature break down.
So if one looks at my post of the 560,000 miles 02 Jetta TDI owner, he says he has little to no "LOBE"(cam) wear !!!! (I do not know this fellow, but know the fellow who does the TB/WP maintenance. This is despite NOT using a VW specification oil (there are more generic background oil specifications which have been obviously "ROBUST".
Curious that they said the diesel is quieter. I've been around both and I personally have yet to be around a diesel that was quieter than a gas.
And another big omission they didn't even touch on was propane. Around here, that seems to be the most popular. My guess is because it starts easier when the wx is really cold. Another bonus is propane doesn't go stale the way gasoline does. I wonder why they didn't mention that difference between diesel and gas?
And those who are in town on natural gas they also go that route.
I'm in the market to replace my two generators. With one auto start type. Generac is a well known name among these types. I haven't found anyone who can tell me how the auto start works though. I have heard that they actually react so fast that there is no interruption in power. Seems hard to believe, no? Perhaps they might, if it is a brown out like we have had two of in the last 2 weeks. At one point, my AC here was only 30 volts. And even at 80 volts, it still wouldn't start the fridge or freezers...just sitting there clicking and frying and self-destructing is my guess.
I think that fast start ability would apply to the gas only types, especially if it's below 10¼.
Now I think as it applies to electrical (car plug in as one application), when it really counts, electricity is NOT ready for prime time. It is not even ready for prime time even if one has a solar and battery system supporting the property.
I heard a CA power official say on a radio program that the major issue for electrical power generation is JIT. He went on to posit that JIT in current technical terms means 87% of power generation is IDLE most to all of the time. So clearly we (CA) have WAY more than enough power generation, but surely most folks can see the challenges, problems and issues here. So to advocate more "dependency" on electrical sounds like mudder hood, DOG and Affel pie, but clearly in terms of power generation, environmentally wasteful and in that sense almost totally irresponsible.
So oxymoronically to use "LESS" electrical energy you have to have GREATER than 87%(idle) capacity to solve the JIT issue. I think most thoughtful folks know what that can imply/ means.
Yes at idle most gassers are quieter than even modern diesels. But under load that reverses. When a gas engine has to run at 4000 RPMS plus to get you up a hill, while the diesel idles up at 1600 RPM the noise factor is in favor of the diesel. Even hybrids like the Prius scream when they are put under a load.
And another big omission they didn't even touch on was propane.
Both propane and Natural Gas are preferable for an emergency generator
I have heard that they actually react so fast that there is no interruption in power.IMO.
That is hard to believe. Unless they use a battery backup with auto transfer. I worked on emergency systems most of my Telephone career and getting any generator up to speed and able to take the load is at least a 10 minute operation. I am looking at this one from Costco.
http://content.costco.com/images/content/misc/pdf/11671393spec.pdf
You mentioned 10 minutes...but that was with a fairly involved system of dependencies I'm guessing?
What is this difference over any other transfer switch do you think?
"DLM Load Control Module in conjunction with the Sync Smart Switch"
What is with these large companies who you would think would want to portray as much professionalism as possible, yet don't even invest in (what I am certain would be) a negligible cost of a proof-reader for their website info. There may be others, but "discription" jumped right out at me
If they really have done that...so frustrating..such a seemingly great vehicle on so many levels and they have to screw it up thinking they are offering people what they want. Could it be that the demographic they surveyed, really did demand RFTs? The world is going to hell in a hand basket of ignorance. And the rich are leading the pack.
Might have to wait for Mazda to put their diesel in the AWD 5. I'm sure it probably doesn't measure up in the true driving dynamics that the GLK does, but maybe in the bigger picture it might make a lot more sense for me and my purpo$e$.
"Because the engine is so torque rich at nearly any rpm, this car feels faster than the data shows it is."
2013 Volkswagen Passat TDI SEL Premium: Track Tested
For my winter mountain/chain control application (VW T TDI comes in a SPORT trim line, aka 18 in) 19 in and 20 in and WIDER still tires seem almost counter productive. In addition, there are premiums for the 19 to 20 in tires.
To make a longer story short, the oem tire prices (same tire brand and model, BUT are (SET) 18 in $840, 19 in $1084, 20 in $840 respectively and wider still (255,266,275 mm). There are many threads documenting anecdotal information that indicates the 19in (Luxury) and 20 in (Executive) tires wear ultra fast. There are not too many comparisons among the three sizes, for obvious reasons (higher cost per mile driven) Now I do not really know what that means, as most folks do not talk in terms of miles per 1/32 in consumed. I have another sense (swag) that mpg on 19/20 in tires are not even near what I can do in an 18 in tire, let alone with 3 psi more.
This is not to mention the premium one pays over any number of 15,16,17 18 in tire sizes. So yes I wish it came oem with 16 if not 17 in max size. But then that would require way different engineering (specifications)
And what in blazes does this mean?:
Steering is somewhat distant-feeling but accurate.
What a convoluted, elusive comment to describe steering..
The car should be offered with a conventional 6 sp auto and AWD option in order to tick the boxes for a good many of us out there.
While not a diesel, my wife's 2010 Mazda CX-7 AWD has a great automatic transmission. Will downshift to hold the set speed in cruise control when going down hills.
It's the GT trim level, so it has 19" wheels & tires. Looking at around $1000 to replace them later this year (car has 32K on it already and I suspect the tires will need to be replaced prior to winter).
If Mazda puts the diesel into the CX-5, I wonder if it would be available on all trim levels. The CX-5 GT also comes with 19" wheels, though they are not run flats.
Yes, that's a good 90k$ question. And maybe not even offering AWD.
Recently talked with a saleswoman about Kia's newly designed Rondo. From just checking it out in the showrm, I can say it really is a great improvement over the older one. Seats and overall aesthetic redesign especially. I can't say for the DI engine now as I am not a fan.
Anyway, she actually confessed that had they offered that car in AWD, she could have literally doubled her sales of it so far. We live in snow country here. And she even went so far as to admit that besides me, there have been more than just a few ask for a diesel..so maybe there is hope..
Mazda...this is your chance...don't screw it up..
I just didn't get there..
I think some of that style of writing must be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I see it in bike forums/mags all the time. it's like they must spend hours trying to figure out how can I say this and make it more elusive and open to (mis)interpretation better than the next guy.
Instead of saying it like he did, just say the damn thing goes where you point it but it's not a go-kart type of experience. Steve...you're hired!! :shades:
Aesthetics. They look cool. End of.
- They're harder to balance.
- Less tread life (which I have never understood...I would have thought the opposite in fact).
- Create more unsprung weight
- cost more
- uses up torque necessitating an entirely new final drive gear set ratio for all the frig trannys involved.
- and if they don't get the above right, actually use more fuel to turn too. - in fact fact we KNOW that whether they get the gearing just right or not...they HAVE to use more fuel because they are HEAVIER :sick:
I loved my Tercel tires. I could still buy a set for under $200 at TireRack. 13" and narrow - that little FWD sucker was pretty good in snow up in Anchorage. Rarely got stuck and rarely had to put chains on. It would diesel along most anywhere.
2013 models, at least, have runflats - as the adblue tank is in the spare tire well.
The GLK I checked over has a full sized spare. Kind of a round donut though full height. I did not see a filler for the AdBlue.
This could be a deal-breaker for me. Could it be that the demographic they surveyed, really did demand RFTs?
If true it will be a deal breaker for me. My wife and I were not really enamored with the 19" wheels to start with. Make them run flats and they have lost a customer. I would much rather have 16" or 17" wheels and tires. I don't think for a second it has anything to do with what the customers want. It was some mindless committee deciding that it would be a good idea.
I am now waiting for confirmation from the salesman that assured me that Mercedes would NOT go to RFTs. If it is true, it is back to the drawing board and waiting for a chance to drive the Jeep GC and Touareg TDI.
So for example, the 2012 VW T (TDI, gasser and hybrid) had the so called "space saver" spare. When I bought the 2012, I did understand going into it about the space saver spare. I was disappointed, but it was not a deal breaker. The back story on this is that VW has prided itself (though the years) on having a FULL size spare. FF to 2013 and I understand they made the change TO full sized spare. In that time, I did fill out a few surveys and sections were designated to make non standard comments and I did mention I would have PREFERRED a full size spare. So do you think they may have listened?
Although I loved the Jetta, I now need an all wheel drive and higher clearance. So replacing the Jetta with another Jetta was no longer an option. I really wanted to purchase a SUV diesel and waited a full year to see if something came to market before buying. But I soon realized that the car of my dreams was not going to materialize anytime soon.
FYI - The Toureg and the Cayenne are out of my budget. (However, I did convince a friend to purchase the Cayenne Diesel)
I am still waiting for the TDI Tiguan or the BMW X3 Diesel to appear.
Anyway, no convincing needed here. The options are just too limited.
There is only one Touareg TDI in a 50 mile radius of me and it is not a color I would buy. They are also selling well below invoice so I can get a base without NAV for about the same as a loaded GLK. Or about $45k.
The plus for the Touareg is more room. A lot bigger fuel tank for more range. Sounds like 32 MPG is easy enough with the Touareg on the highway. That is about 800 miles between fuel stops. the GLK with a 15.6 gallon tank and 38 MPG is less than 600.
This is getting confusing. I just got an email from a big MB dealer. He said that only the GLK250 BT with AMG package and fancy wheels come with RFTs and no spare. Time to reflect.
Or what I hope, that the 4cyl is engineered different, and the tank can somehow be placed elsewhere. My car has runflats, and they definitely can show harshness.
Granted, but there is such a thing as overkill...besides...bigger brakes, when not needed, just adds even more unsprung weight (more work for the suspension to control).
I had a VW Fox for a short term that had the same config..it too was very good in snow. Climbed my hill well, for a 2WD.
Believe me...I was sooo trying to resist that that was in fact the real behind the scenes reason..
That was a possible nail you really hit squarely on the head.. :sick: