Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

lemko

The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger are simply getting long in the tooth.

Notice there are no new Hummer ads on television. Even if you could afford the fuel, driving a Hummer when others can barely afford fuel for their more sensible vehicles is in bad taste.

There will always be a small hardcore group to whom cars like the Challenger and Camaro appeal regardless of the cost of fuel. Saw plenty of them revving and racing their hot cars last week at the Carlisle GM Nationals.

british_rover

I sold a guy a LR3 yesterday who was also looking at H2s. He said they all but begged him to buy one and it kind of turned him off.

1stpik

"Yesterday's Accord is today's Civic."

It's true. I drive a Civic, and it's plenty big enough for 4 adults. I even have trouble getting it into some parking spaces because the wheel base / turning radius is so big.

I'm old enough to remember the Civics of the 80s, along with the Corollas and Sentras. They're like Tonka toys compared to today's models.
.

andre1969

one thing that really doesn't impress me about the new Accord is that it seems like they made it bigger on the outside, yet that doesn't really translate into any additional useable interior room. For instance, the trunk is still only like 14 cubic feet, which IMO is compact! It's pretty well laid out though, so to me it actually looks bigger than the published volume. Inside, I'd consider it to be a roomy 4 seater, but then so was the 03-07 style. However, the critical dimension for me is legroom, and I just don't find the '08 to be any better than the '03-07 in this regard. I fit just fine in the old one, and don't fit any better in the new one. The new one also seems like the sides curve in more, which makes me want to lean inward a bit.

Now the '98-02 style Accord felt tight to me. There's a guy at work who has one, and '02 I think. Fully loaded with leather and a power driver's seat, yet even with those extra adjustments, it didn't seem to go back far enough for me to be comfortable. Seems like in one redesign, the thing went from a cramped compact to a roomy midsize. And it really doesn't need to get any bigger, IMO.

I think the Civic has grown into a decent-sized car. I'd say my fit in the front seat is snug, rather than cramped. It's not nearly as roomy as an Accord or some old mastodon from the 70's, but it seems adequate. It's probably the first Civic that I would actually consider big enough to own. I guess when you look at some dimensions though, it's not exactly a little car. I think overall length is around 176", which isn't exactly huge. I don't think that dimension has grown much in years. But the wheelbase is punched out to something like 106.3", which not too long ago would have been midsized. I think the original Taurus was around 106", while a Celebrity was around 104.9". Even a 1978-83 Malibu sedan, which has a combined interior/trunk volume of 119 cubic feet, just one foot shy of being classified as full-sized by the EPA, was only 108.1".

I had a 1991 Civic sedan for a rental car once. I thought it was pretty comfortable up front, but you would not have been able to fit an adult in the seat behind me. And that car felt well-built, yet fragile, at the same time. They have definitely come a long way.

andys120

And that car felt well-built, yet fragile, at the same time. They have definitely come a long way.

I know the feeling. I owned a Prelude for many years and it was a pretty well made car
but when I swapped it for a SAAB I was amazed at how much thicker the metal seemed on the Swedish car.

stever

Is the tank of gas in your car worth more than your car?

Do you drive a beater because it gets better gas mileage than most new cars do?

Would you pay top dollar for a 20 or 30 year old car that gets good mpg?

nippononly

"The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger are simply getting long in the tooth."

Yes, but they are also full-size cars in a time when full-size car sales are falling fast. ALL the available engines except the 3.5 are guzzlers (well, there's the 2.7 as well, an obvious make-it-as-cheap-as-possible engine option that ought to go away since it doesn't save any gas anyway). I dunno...it seems like these models are obsolete in the same ways SUVs are as daily transportation.

I totally agree on the Hummer thing - it is in bad taste to be driving one now in areas where people are having trouble buying gas at all or are choosing between doing that and putting food on the table.

I am quite sure there will be handfuls of people eager to buy Challengers and Camaros, but I believe the business model for both of those cars is built on WAAAY more than handfuls of sales.

All 3 domestics seem to be super challenged in trying to build a lightweight sport coupe, relying instead on turning full-size 4-door models into 2-doors with big engines and huge tires as their path to offering a sport coupe. Chrysler has this problem the worst of the three - they can't build a good small car for sport or for anything else it seems.

I am very impressed by the new Cobalt SS (the turbo model, not the old S/C model) - that's the kind of sport coupe that has a chance of selling well in the era of expensive gas. Now they just need to spend another $500 on materials inside the car, and they would really give the Japanese and Germans a run for their money...

nippononly

people are bidding up 10 and 15 year old Metros to $5000 or more on eBay, especially the little 3-cylinder models that pull 50 mpg without trying. Wish I had a few of THOSE to sell! That's more than they sold for brand new in some cases...

lemko

Holy smoke! A topic with which I most definately can identify! I drive my beater 1988 Buick Park Avenue just about every day because of its great fuel economy. Not too long ago, the Park Ave just sat out in front of my house for weeks on end before I drove it while my 2002 Seville STS was my daily driver. Now, my 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance sits for weeks while my Park Ave is in constant use!

In the Park Ave's defense, it doesn't look as horrible as the car pictured in your post.

Karen_S

No kidding! I saw a 1996 Geo Metro w/116k miles and the current bid is $3700. It still has 11 hours to go.

lemko

...15 year-old Civics in great shape are worth their weight in gold these days!

nippononly

Welll, but then 15 year old Civics are always worth real money when everything else their size and age has depreciated to worthless.

I have a friend whose father has hung onto an early 90s Festiva (the car pictured in Karen's pic) and still drives it today despite its ratty condition and huge number of miles. Those were actually pretty reliable (built by Kia I believe?) and got really great gas mileage.

andre1969

Yes, but they are also full-size cars in a time when full-size car sales are falling fast. ALL the available engines except the 3.5 are guzzlers (well, there's the 2.7 as well, an obvious make-it-as-cheap-as-possible engine option that ought to go away since it doesn't save any gas anyway). I dunno...it seems like these models are obsolete in the same ways SUVs are as daily transportation.

I always find it amusing that Chrysler still even bothers with the 2.7. In EPA estimates, it actually is slightly more economical than the 3.5. I think in something like a Charger it scored 21/28, compared to 19/27 for the 3.5 (before the newer, lower numbers came out). But I imagine that in something the size of a Charger or 300, you'd have to rev the snot out of it to get any power out of it, and that's going to hurt its economy.

For comparison, my 2000 Intrepid was rated at 20/29, but I think the newer ones somehow got a slight boost, to 21/29. I think the 3.5 used to be rated around 17/26 or 18/26. Considering the added weight of the LX cars, not to mention the RWD setup, I'm actually impressed they were able to get the EPA estimates they did. The best economy I ever got out of my Intrepid was around 32, but that was driving around 58-65, letting it lose a bit of momentum on the up-grades, and with the a/c off for the most part. Oh, and the tires inflated to around 40 psi. I imagine it would be pretty hard to get a 2.7 Charger or 300 to do that, though!

Another problem with the 2.7 is that it's actually not a cheap engine to make. It's DOHC and more complicated than the 3.5. It's also built to tighter tolerances, with less room for error, which sounds all sophisticated until you go too long between oil changes, or let it get too low often enough, and it sludges up! Chrysler would be just as well to dump the 2.7, and replace it with either a detuned version of the 3.5, or just a smaller-displacement version, like the 3.2 they used to have.

Seems to me that they'd have some kind of economy of scale by dumping the unique 2.7 and replacing it with something that's a relation to the 3.5. But I guess they have their reasons for keeping it around?

I have to admit, I do still kinda like the Charger, and I'm sure they're offering heavy discounts on them these days. But if I were to get one, I wouldn't want a 2.7, so it would be the 3.5. But if I replace the Intrepid, it's going to be with something more fuel efficient, not less. Well, unless I get seriously seduced by the G8! :shades:

stever

an early 90s Festiva

Is that what it is? I wondered. I looked at some Festiva images, but it also looked a bit like a Golf/Rabbit, Horizon/Omni and LeCar. Any of which would be in more demand today than 10 years ago.

If only I still had my '82 Tercel. :sick:

nippononly

Well, it might actually be the infamous Yugo, I can't tell for sure because of the angle. But if it's not the Yugo, then I'm all but certain it is the early 90s Festiva.

andys120

I was told by a Dealer client that the Charger with the Hemi got a little better mileage than the 3.5 in his real world driving. He was a daily long distance (60 miles each way) commuter.

fintail

It looks like a Fiat Uno to me

andre1969

I was told by a Dealer client that the Charger with the Hemi got a little better mileage than the 3.5 in his real world driving. He was a daily long distance (60 miles each way) commuter.

I think the Hemi still has cylinder deactivation, doesn't it? It used to be rated around 17/25, which isn't a huge difference from the 3.5's 19/27. So I guess in the right conditions out on the highway, it's possible. I don't do enough highway driving to make it worth it though, and I have a feeling that big engine would just be too much temptation to open up.

I think the Hemi is also geared pretty tall, so out on the open road it's just loafing along, but then the transmission has shorter lower gears so that when you take off, it gets you moving pretty quickly.

stever

The real question is ....

How much is it worth? :shades:

nippononly

Hey, you have that AMG Mercedes, right? Do you also have something older and less powerful to drive to keep miles off the AMG (and save gas too, I guess)?

fintail

Yep, I have a car that is about 40 years older and has about 1/3 the power of the E55. But it gets only maybe 3-4mpg better in town and actually a few less mpg on the highway. The mileage isn't an issue, it's a 2002 with 33.6K on it. My commuting days only average about 10 miles per day of driving, a little more on weekends. The gas guzzler isn't killing me yet, but my next car will likely not have a tuned V8.

fintail

In today's crazy economy, probably half of MSRP after 20 years and 250K miles

lemko

If the Cobalt had as nice an interior as my friend's Jetta GLI, it would eat the Civic and Corolla for breakfast.

andys120

The Cobalt SS made the August Road and Track's list of fast and frugal fun cars and scored very highly in their complex formula for determining which were the best balance of fun and fuel efficiency.

boaz47

desperate if they are paying more than 2k for a metro. I have seen them in the green sheet for just under that. But Ebay is where they sell corn flakes that look like Iowa isn't it? But getting a used small car is a good idea. They can be had for less than a Gem EV and should last a few more yeas with any luck. I have had about 4 sammies in my life and I never had to pay more than 2k for one. In fact my son and I bought two for just under 3k once. My son bought a 96 Saturn SL1 for 1k and had to replace the motor with a used one from a wreaking yard for another $500.00. He has driven it for two years now and it gets real close to 40 MPG on the highway. If I had to drive much more I might still make an offer on an old justy I know about. But I put gas in the Tahoe on June the 9th and it is still full. The little Pontiac has gone two weeks on half a tank.

The Pontiac is the very definition of beater. It is a 92 with a 2.0 and one of the best air conditioners I have ever had. And the best part is paid for and cost almost nothing to insure. In fact the last set of tires we bought for it lasted more than three years. They are still on the car.

As long as you have a good car to take out for special events or to go on vacation with there is very little reason not to look hard at a good used economy car for a daily driver.

nippononly

Well, I don't think the REGULAR Cobalt would be eating lunches, but it would be doing better in sales, that's for sure. But the SS? Yes, it would be eating the SI's lunch, and the GTI's, and maybe that GLI's for that matter. And the Mazdaspeed3's?

m4d_cow

I'm not sure the Challenger and Camaro will tank. So far the 6cyl models have proven to be the sales leader in the past, and it will still be now. Even more so with gas prices these days. Oh wait a sec, will Challengers come in v6 too? I'm not sure......

One thing I'm surprised to find out is that Cadillac's sales have sputtered except CTS and Escalade??? I wonder how the Escalade manage to survive these times. But at the same time other cadillac models, particularly the STS became my consideration. There are still a few NEW '07 models on the dealers' lot, and I'm expecting bargains on those. I heard you can get the leftover '06-07 STS v8 for less than 40k, less than 35k for a v6. That, I believe, is called a bargain...

I personally considered a 300c hemi at first, but the real world mileage (14-15mpg city driving) is a real turn off. They said the '09 300 should be an all new model, yet no details even now. I guess the 300 is really a dying breed. And the supposedly economical 2.7? Try loading the car for real time driving and the mileage drops since the engine has to work harder to pull the weight (18mpg city, same as the 3.5).

I'm shocked to see BMW making such dumb calls with the X6. Do they really expect them to sell well? As far as I know even the sales of the cheaper X5 and X3 have declined. Why havent they learned from Mercedes with its tanked R-class?

I also had similar experience with british_rovers post. I just looked around at a local LR and GMC dealer and they practically begged me to buy one... whats up with that? Do they really sell that poorly?

Lincoln... well it doesnt need the gas price to kill it. I'm not sure anybody remember the brand still exist anymore (same goes to mercury and buick).

andre1969

I'm not sure the Challenger and Camaro will tank. So far the 6cyl models have proven to be the sales leader in the past, and it will still be now. Even more so with gas prices these days. Oh wait a sec, will Challengers come in v6 too? I'm not sure......

Actually, this might hit on one reason the Mustang has survived for so long, the 6-cyl engine angle. My auto encyclopedia doesn't break out production for the Mustang by engine type, but I think the 6-cyl engine was the volume seller from the get-go. Now in later years, especially the 80's, when the 302 was a screaming bargain, it might have become the most popular engine, but by and large, the Mustang would always have enough volume from the smaller engines to sustain it.

Not necessarily so with the Camaro and especially the Challenger/Barracuda. When the Camaro came out in 1967, they sold 59K 6-cyl models and 162K V-8's. In 1974, during the first oil embargo, they sold 22K 6-cyl models, and almost 129K V-8's. The last year my book breaks out Camaro production by engine was 1976. 38K 6-cyl, 145K V-8's. The story is similar with the Pontiac Firebird/Trans Am.

As for the 1970-74 Challenger/Barracuda, instead of being "ponycars" based on compacts like the Falcon and Nova, they were essentially shortened intermediates designed to take any engine Chrysler had available, from the puny 198 CID slant six on up to the 426 Hemi and 440. My book doesn't break out production figures by engine, but it's a safe bet that the slant six versions of these were pretty rare. In fact, Chrysler gave up and just made the 318 V-8 standard in the Challenger for '73-74, and the Barracuda in '74.

The market wasn't strong enough back then to support that many ponycars, at least not long-term, and I doubt if it is today, either. Plus, Chrysler's not in exactly the best shape for long-term survival these days, so I have a feeling that's going to scare potential Challenger buyers away. I think the 3.5 V-6 is going to be standard in the Challenger, but I dunno if that's going to be enough to make the car sustainable.

lemko

The STS is very expensive. An STS with a V-8 and all the stuff my DTS has on it would be over $70K. The DTS is just getting old despite the really nice updates and its FWD drivetrain holds it back. Can't understand why the SRX doesn't sell. It's far prettier than most of the cross-overs out there and seems to be very well put-together. The XLR is a niche product. You're better off just getting a Corvette.

Ewww! The R-Class? Does "R" stand for "retarded?" What dummy thought a luxury minivan was a good idea?

As long as the 300-C Hemi wouldn't be your only car, I'd go for it. It might be your last chance to buy a modern muscle car with the way things are going. Don't even bother with the 2.7 V-6 in the 300 as it is no match for the car. The 3.5 should be adequate and probably the most sensible choice.

Lincoln? The MKZ would make a very nice Mercury, but a Lincoln it ain't! I don't know what to make of the rest of the lineup - an anonymous clan of truck-based SUVs and crossovers. Can you still get a new Lincoln Town Car? The Town Car would still probably be their only vehicle in which I'd remotely be interested. Even then, it's a car that would've appealed to my tastes 15 years ago but now looks like a relic.

stephen987

Nobody (including the author of the original article) has yet mentioned the G8 GT. A fantastic car from most accounts, but seriously ill-timed given the sudden rise in fuel prices.

andys120

I'd have to agree that the entire Lincoln line should be a casualty. Oddly the scuttlebutt on the street is that it is Mercury that will be dropped with some models dropped and others folded into the Lincoln line-up.

The Mercury Mariner/ Ford Escape twins offer excellent real-world mileage in their Hybrid variant. Lincoln needs a version, Stat!

andre1969

The G8 might be a bit poorly timed, but for what it is, I think it has pretty impressive fuel economy. I finally got a chance to drive one, and by today's standards, it's definitely a full-sized car. A full-sized car with a V-8 bigger than most trucks, that can do 0-60 in about 5.6 seconds with an automatic transmission, yet before the dumbed down fuel economy figures came out, would've probably rated 17/26.

Still, with the way fuel prices are, and the job market, that's probably not enough to sustain the car. Even though it's a bargain, and economical for what it is, it's not exactly power for the masses.

oregonboy

The article spoke at length about the bloating of the American pickup, primarily the F-150, but no mention was made of the up-sizing of the Japanese "compact pickup" class: Toyota Tacoma and Nissan Frontier.

The compact pickup used to be the mainstay of the home owner and do-it-yourselfers who needed an economical utility vehicle for light hauling. It the rush to fill the perceived need for a bigger, more "commanding presence", they have been upsized to nearly the dimensions of the "old-school" American pickups.

The one remaining true compact on the market is the Ford Ranger. The only reason that it has remained at it's current size is that Ford has been too cheap to redesign its platform since Moses was in diapers. :P

jamez

andys120

I concur with your analysis of the pickup market. My wife asked me if there were any little pickups that got good mileage. I pointed out a neighbor's new Tacoma and said, no, they're all big gas guzzlers except the Ranger which is an archaic piece of crap.

Mahindra introduces it's diesel-powered mini truck next year but I'd be hesitant to buy an Indian-built truck. A friend bought an Indian-built Enfield motorcycle. The engine castings were so poor it literally oozed oil. :sick:

.

corvette

In my rural town, there are three car dealers. One of them has taken a motorboat as a trade-in, and another has taken a golf cart... Wonder what kind of MPG the golf cart would get if it were street-legal? :P

1stpik

irnmdn

Prius now outsells entire lineup of Buick or Pontiac divisions, not to mention Mercury.

boaz47

In California if they have windshield wipers, lights and turn signals they can be registered as a limited use vehicle, 35 MPH and under. The electric ones can go about 20 to 30 miles between charges and about 15 MPH. The Gas ones are a bit faster and have a longer range. The gas ones should get at least 40 MPG considering they can run for about 8 hours on 5 gal of gas. But the gas ones are in no way green.

oldfarmer50

"...if it were street legal..."

Here in NY they arrested a guy for DWI who was sitting on top of a motorized beer cooler and riding down the sidewalk. The cooler must have been street legal or they would have cited him for speeding too.

maxhonda99

YOu can get a Enfield motorcycle in the US?? Where??

m4d_cow

Lets not forget Jaguar's owned by an Indian company now... lets just hope the quality doesnt sink that low...

That reminds me, I also believe Jags are one step closer to its doom era. I heard the XJ loses about 40-50% of its value in 3 years...wow...

Yeah G8 is rather forgotten. I wonder if this also reflects the public's reaction. If thats the case then I feel sorry for Pontiac. It seems like a good car, but I'm no fan of its extreme "lookatme" decor. Dump the stupid hood scoops and by all means restyle the cheap looking interior.

lemko, I agree, the R-class is a total eww, no wonder they sell so poorly.
As for the STS, it doesnt sound expensive from what I hear. You can get those leftover '07 models for about 55% of its original value. At the same time I cant help but wonder if I can get even better deals on used ones...

If this is for real I'd consider it over a 300 anytime. That is unless there are good deals and rebates on 300s.
A 300 v6 will cost about 35k, while its possible to get an 07 STS v6 for roughly the same ammount. From quality standpoint its not even a contest. Which will you choose then?

Oh, and Jeeps. The formerly popular grand cherokee is now collecting dust on dealer lots. Its the same as cadillac, they still have a few leftover '07s around here (also tagged clearance sale).

nippononly

They have a REALLY SMALL sales target for the G8, I think it's 20K annually, so I'm pretty sure it will make it. If only they have that small a sales target for the Camaro too (and the Firebird - I forgot to look, is a Firebird planned as well?), then it should survive without a problem.

Turbo 4s seem to be the near-term future for high-powered sport coupes - I'm not sure how well these V-6 models are going to do. Has anyone seen the latest TV ad for the Mustang? "25 mpg!" it trumpets. Are you kidding? 25 mpg? Nothing to celebrate, seems to me, and that's even before you consider that the V-8 does even worse and that around town even the advertised V-6 is going to pull about 20 mpg. IOW, most minivans will do better, some SUVs too.

The top-end Caddy sedans will do better once they are combined properly into one hard-hitting model that replaces both STS and DTS and has RWD. The $40K+ price range, I think, is still one that is unaffected by the gas prices.

andre1969

If only they have that small a sales target for the Camaro too (and the Firebird - I forgot to look, is a Firebird planned as well?), then it should survive without a problem.

As far as I know, they're not planning a Firebird, but it would be cool. When I was at the GM show in PA last weekend, there was a guy there who had built a scale replica of what one might look like. He also had made up some photoshopped images of stuff he had thought up. One thing he did, that I thought was cool, was design a model that looked more like the "Smokey and the Bandit"/"Rockford Files" era Firebird, and the styling actually blended in very well with the new body. Of course, it's easier to make something up in Photoshop than it is in real life!

I guess if they use that 3.6 DOHC engine in the base Camaro, it shouldn't be too bad on fuel. In the G8, I think it gets 17/26 with the new ratings, which was probably 19/28 using the old numbers that just seem more "right" to me. Maybe eventually I'll learn to adapt to the newer EPA figures!

Similarly, I'd expect a 3.5 Challenger to be able to get around the same 19/27 that the 3.5 300/Charger/Magnum had been getting (I think it's 17/25 with the new figures). So those economy figures don't sound TOO bad.

Alas, a large-ish, heavy, sporty coupe just doesn't make that much sense these days. Even if the V-6 models get passable mileage and give decent performance, these things just cry out for the V-8, and I imagine people buying the V-6 are still going to get ragged on as poseurs.

When I drove the G8, I thought the V-6 actually seemed decent...until I got to drive the V-8. That was enough to put a big smile on my face. :shades: Of course, drive it like that too much, and I wouldn't be smiling when it came time to fill it up! Especially with that appetite for Premium.

I wonder how a turbo 4 would work, if they tried to put one in something heavy like a Camaro, Challenger, or Mustang? I had an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe, which at the time seemed a pretty decent blend of power and economy. It probably weighed around 2800 lb I guess. It had a 3-speed automatic, which I'm sure hampered fuel economy, yet it was still rated around 20/28. I can't remember if it required premium fuel, but I think that's what we put in it. When I was married, we took it to Washington state for our honeymoon. During the stretches I drove, we probably averaged around 28 mpg, but the wife was able to get it over 30. There was some turbo lag, but it was still decently quick.

In retrospect though, my Intrepid has similar acceleration, gets similar fuel economy on regular fuel, yet weighs about 600 pounds more I'd guess. So in some ways, that shows how far they've come. I guess turbos have come a long way since the 80's, though!

andys120

If you'll recall, Ford did try a Mustang Turbo-4 back in the early-mid '80s. The Mustang SVO was designed with the gas crunches of the 1970s in mind but by the mid '80s gas prices had fallen enough to make the cheaper-to-buy V8s much more popular.

I don't think that's going to happen again. It's time to rethink the whole idea of the Pony car and come up with something that's lighter, more efficient and better balanced.
Turbo motors are where I'd go if I were the design engineer.

andre1969

I don't think that's going to happen again. It's time to rethink the whole idea of the Pony car and come up with something that's lighter, more efficient and better balanced.
Turbo motors are where I'd go if I were the design engineer.

Or if nothing else, perhaps the ponycar should at least get back to its roots...which was being designed from an economical, inexpensive, lightweight (for the era) compact car. The stuff that's coming out now, like the Camaro and Challenger, is really more musclecar than ponycar anyway, being based on larger car architecture. For that matter, is the Mustang its own dedicated platform, or is it based on something existing?

m4d_cow

dont work well on heavy vehicles. Look at mazda cx-7. The mileage is dismal by all measurements available, and that car is LIGHT by suv standards.

btw, lemko, while luxo minivan is a dumb idea in the states, its a very popular idea in asia. Theyre everywhere, Toyota Alphard, Nissan Elgrand, and even Honda's Elysion. You have no idea how luxurious they are until youve sat in one

nippononly

Well, the Cobalt SS is rated like 20/30 and makes 260 hp. The 3.6 without DI makes the same power, but would probably be rated lower, especially in the city. More importantly, when you're stuck in traffic or just running around doing your errands and not laying into the turbo, you will get much better mileage with the 4 than with the V-6.

But ultimately, the point somone made above is crucial: these cars need to get a lot lighter. Why do they need to be based on a full-size car platform?

Went by a VW dealer the other day, and I see that the first of the diesels has arrived. The one I saw was a Jetta. So, are these DOA? That Jetta was rated 29/40, diesel is now 20% higher-priced than regular unleaded. The Corolla automatic is rated 27/35, only uses 10% more fuel than the Jetta diesel and runs on regular unleaded. Civic is rated 25/36, so it's in the same ballpark. And both cost about 20% less to buy than the Jetta diesel does.

andre1969

So, are these DOA? That Jetta was rated 29/40, diesel is now 20% higher-priced than regular unleaded. The Corolla automatic is rated 27/35, only uses 10% more fuel than the Jetta diesel and runs on regular unleaded. Civic is rated 25/36, so it's in the same ballpark. And both cost about 20% less to buy than the Jetta diesel does.

That's actually one reason I wish the EPA hadn't gone to the down-rated numbers. The Corolla had been rated at 30/38, while the Civic was rated at 30/40. So if the Diesel Jetta is coming in at 29/40 with the new numbers, I imagine using the old ones it would have been more like 35/45. Which sounds really impressive, IMO. But still, the fuel savings isn't huge, and when you factor in the higher cost of the car, plus the higher cost of Diesel fuel, I guess it is sort of DOA, unless VW can still pass these things off as premium economy cars, somehow. A Jetta used to be a much nicer car inside than a Civic or Corolla, but those cars have made gains in recent years...especially the '09 Corolla.

nippononly

Of course, diesel fuel COULD fluctuate a lot in price, perhaps? Why did it jump up so much higher than unleaded this year anyway? If it went back down to the same price as regular unleaded, the Jetta would be worth the extra dough even at $5000 more than a comparable Civic. After all, it would also have a nicer interior and a lot more torque right off the line, two tangible items you get for your 5 grand besides just fuel savings.

OTOH, at 29/40 it's the same price as a Prius, with at least 25% WORSE fuel economy, and the Prius ALSO runs on regular (but I bet the Jetta is a lot more fun to drive).

ronsmith38

If you want to get an old Pinto, Vega or Arrow just buy a new Kia or Hyundai.
Seriously, two 1971 Honda AN600 sedans are listed on Ebay for $999. (With 2 you may get one to run.)