# Hey Camp ... Subi Impreza 2012



## wa-loaf (Apr 14, 2011)

I keep getting emails from Subaru about it. The latest said that it is coming with a "new" boxer engine that will get 36mpg. Are they finally getting the diesel over here?


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 14, 2011)

That's impressive for AWD.  I'm sure one of these days, I'll post a thread "Hell has frozen over, I bought a Subaru"  

mainly because I have a feeling they'll eventually be the only manufacturer left offering AWD vehicles with manual transmissions.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 14, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> I keep getting emails from Subaru about it. The latest said that it is coming with a "new" boxer engine that will get 36*mph*. Are they finally getting the diesel over here?


Is it for a city car?


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 14, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Is it for a city car?



Er, MPG ... fixed. :dunce:


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 14, 2011)

The full text from the email:



> 2012 SUBARU IMPREZA: SEE IT LIVE APRIL 20TH!
> Visit subaru.com on April 20th to witness the official unveiling of the all-new 2012 Subaru Impreza at the 2011 New York International Auto Show. Then log on to the 2012 Subaru Impreza Facebook page to submit your questions about the new Impreza and watch as a Subaru of America executive responds to fans in a live stream.
> 
> Subaru Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive and an all-new SUBARU BOXER® engine make the 2012 Impreza the most fuel-efficient All-Wheel Drive car in America at 36 MPG.* Join us on April 20th to learn more!


----------



## mondeo (Apr 14, 2011)

Hmm, I'll have my '06 STI paid off next year. It would be nice to see a 325-350hp replacement that gets 30mpg highway with a DSG.

And folding rear seats. I mean, really, Subaru. Carrying skis in the front seat is not conducive to passenger transport.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 14, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Hmm, I'll have my '06 STI paid off next year. It would be nice to see a 325-350hp replacement that gets 30mpg highway with a DSG.
> 
> And folding rear seats. I mean, really, Subaru. Carrying skis in the front seat is not conducive to passenger transport.



I have a full sized sedan that has 360 hp with AWD.   I can fit my 170 skis inthe trunk with out putting the seat down.  I do however cause it is easier.  Just took them out and put them in the closet:-(


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 14, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I have a full sized sedan that has 360 hp with AWD.   I can fit my 170 skis inthe trunk with out putting the seat down.  I do however cause it is easier.  Just took them out and put them in the closet:-(



you think mondeo is going to go from his boy racer car to a Ford Taurus?  :lol:

bout as likely as me buying another used set of wheels and tires


----------



## mondeo (Apr 14, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I have a full sized sedan that has 360 hp with AWD. I can fit my 170 skis inthe trunk with out putting the seat down. I do however cause it is easier. Just took them out and put them in the closet:-(


360hp in a 4300lb car != 325hp in a 3300lb car.

Also, my shortest skis are 178. You still on beginners?


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 14, 2011)

Honestly, they haven't said anything about a diesel.

Official unveiling is next week on the 20th @ the NYC Auto Show....I'm not sure who is going, but if it's me I'll post as soon as I find out fer ya.


----------



## skijay (Apr 14, 2011)

So they are using the new engine from the 11 Forester in the 12 Impreza?  In order to acheive that type of fuel economy I assume they are using the CVT.  

I do wish they would bring the Boxer Diesel to North America.


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 14, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Honestly, they haven't said anything about a diesel.
> 
> Official unveiling is next week on the 20th @ the NYC Auto Show....I'm not sure who is going, but if it's me I'll post as soon as I find out fer ya.


I'm thinking about going to the show this year.  It's been a few years since I went.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 14, 2011)

RootDKJ said:


> I'm thinking about going to the show this year.  It's been a few years since I went.



You gonna b there on the 20th??


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 14, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> You gonna b there on the 20th??


Haven't decided yet.


----------



## Edd (Apr 14, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> I keep getting emails from Subaru about it. The latest said that it is coming with a "new" boxer engine that will get 36mpg.



I've gotten the same one twice this week.  I was curious so I started searching for as many photos as I could but I didn't see anything design-wise that did it for me.  I love the look of the current hatchback but it is just too small for me.



deadheadskier said:


> I'm sure one of these days, I'll post a thread "Hell has frozen over, I bought a Subaru"



I am counting the days.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 14, 2011)

Wow, this is funny. I was totally going to post this today. I bet Camp's lips are sealed or he'll get sacked, heh!

This looks incredible so far. 36 MPG solves one of the biggest problems with Subbies... even their smallest cars were under 30 MPG highway which is honestly terrible when many other compacts are now getting 40 MPG. Bigger than the current Impreza which is good since the Legacy/Outback are now bloating leaving a HUGE hole in the Subbie lineup for reasonably sized vehicles. Especially in the wagon class.... a small hatch or an SUV are the only choices. I wonder if the 2012 Impreza Hatch will split the difference? Is this the reincarnation of the non-SUV Outback Wagon?

From what I have read, the reason for the big MPG jump is a lot less HP. I think somewhere around 30-35 less HP than previous years? Not sure how much the engine change effects it. Personally, 140 HP is more than enough for me if the curb weight isn't ridiculous. I was originally really "up" on diesel. But with so many compacts hitting 40 MPG, it is really tough to justify diesel for small cars. The WV Wagen was justifiable because it got more than 10+ MPG than the next closest wagon. This 2012 Impreza really closes that gap. If price comes in under $20k for an auto, it really makes the WV Jetta Wagen seem like a waste of money.

Well, I was pretty much set on a Hyundai Elantra Touring this Summer. Now I am full of doubt. Looking forward to next week to find out more!!


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 14, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Wow, this is funny. I was totally going to post this today. I bet Camp's lips are sealed or he'll get sacked, heh!
> 
> This looks incredible so far. 36 MPG solves one of the biggest problems with Subbies... even their smallest cars were under 30 MPG highway which is honestly terrible when many other compacts are now getting 40 MPG. Bigger than the current Impreza which is good since the Legacy/Outback are now bloating leaving a HUGE hole in the Subbie lineup for reasonably sized vehicles. Especially in the wagon class.... a small hatch or an SUV are the only choices. I wonder if the 2012 Impreza Hatch will split the difference? Is this the reincarnation of the non-SUV Outback Wagon?
> 
> ...



It will be worth the wait, I promise. Subie has hit a home run w/ this car.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 14, 2011)

RootDKJ said:


> Haven't decided yet.



Only way I'm going is if my owner makes me. Yes, it would be fun, but the thought of drving into that city makes me uke:

Our distibutorship is putting on one hulluva party tho :beer:


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 14, 2011)

Is the great mileage with a CVT or a MT?

If it's the former, consider my Subie curiosity short lived.  :lol:


----------



## legalskier (Apr 14, 2011)

_The new Impreza borrows quite a bit of styling from its older sibling, the Legacy—especially the headlights and the muscular rear haunches. Beyond that, picking out the design features that are reminiscent of other cars turns into a game of I Spy as played by the Micro Machines spokesman and his family. The grille looks like the Cruze’s! The greenhouse reminds me of the Saturn Ion’s!  In truth, the Impreza is one of the few cars with design that almost doesn’t matter. Most buyers will be more interested in the all-weather traction and the excellent claimed fuel economy.***_
http://blog.caranddriver.com/2012-subaru-impreza-spied-completely-uncovered/


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 14, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Is the great mileage with a CVT or a MT?
> 
> If it's the former, consider my Subie curiosity short lived.  :lol:



I think it is with the CVT, but the MT mileage can't be that far off.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 14, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Is the great mileage with a CVT or a MT?
> 
> If it's the former, consider my Subie curiosity short lived. :lol:


I'm hoping it's with a dual clutch transmission and direct injection. With a 7-speed dual clutch, you should get fairly similar highway performance. If they don't refresh the engine a bit, I don't know what they're thinking. It's pretty ancient. I'm scared of bloat, though they were fairly successful in keeping it down with the last refresh.

Camp- any word on if the WRX and STI will get any light shed on them at NY, or are they an announcement to follow later? I've read that they don't arrive until early 2012, but I don't think Subie's even acknowledged their continued existence yet.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Is the great mileage with a CVT or a MT?
> 
> If it's the former, consider my Subie curiosity short lived.  :lol:



CVT, better stick w/ Hyundai:smile:


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 15, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Camp- any word on if the WRX and STI will get any light shed on them at NY, or are they an announcement to follow later? I've read that they don't arrive until early 2012, but I don't think Subie's even acknowledged their continued existence yet.



Not 100% certain, but I would imagine we wont see much on that car until mid summer at the dealer meeting in Chicago....think early August??


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 15, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> CVT, better stick w/ Hyundai:smile:



tough to get a MT Hyundai these days as well.  Mine's an Auto because I wanted a V6 at the time.  Thankfully I have my wife's MT Mazda for fun driving.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 15, 2011)

Just did my April allocation for Subie....it's down about 90%!!!!!!

Again, if anyone is in the market for a new Subie DO NOT WAIT!!! Inventory levels are going to go WAY down and ordering a car right now is NOT an option. Ugh.


----------



## hammer (Apr 15, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Just did my April allocation for Subie....it's down about 90%!!!!!!
> 
> Again, if anyone is in the market for a new Subie DO NOT WAIT!!! Inventory levels are going to go WAY down and ordering a car right now is NOT an option. Ugh.


I would guess that this will have a ripple effect on overall car supplies. Makes me glad that my purchase is already done...


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2011)

Are they checking parts and cars for radiation?  Has it been talked about at the dealership?


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> Are they checking parts and cars for radiation?  Has it been talked about at the dealership?



Yes, Nissan had a boat sitting outside the port for several days be4 it was let in.

No worries here at the store. By the time units hit here they've been touched/inspected by numerous people.


----------



## hammer (Apr 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> Are they checking parts and cars for radiation? Has it been talked about at the dealership?


I'm guessing that it has been discussed at the US assembly plants...


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 15, 2011)

When does the new nuke powered boxer engine come out?


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Yes, Nissan had a boat sitting outside the port for several days be4 it was let in.
> 
> No worries here at the store. By the time units hit here they've been touched/inspected by numerous people.



thats what i figured..


----------



## gorgonzola (Apr 15, 2011)

hmmmm gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "hot car"...


----------



## Nick (Apr 18, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Well, I was pretty much set on a Hyundai Elantra Touring this Summer. Now I am full of doubt. Looking forward to next week to find out more!!



Hyundai =/ Subaru .... srsly


----------



## Nick (Apr 18, 2011)

dmc said:


> Are they checking parts and cars for radiation?  Has it been talked about at the dealership?



Questions I've never thought about. That's not something you want on the window sticker!!


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 19, 2011)

XV Concept debuted at the Shanghai Auto Show (suggested as being similar to a US Impreza Outback Sport):

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/04/another-day-another-impreza-design/

http://www.insideline.com/subaru/im...eza-crossover-at-2011-shanghai-auto-show.html

Looks interesting. Totally Aping Volvo in front end design. Seriously love the panoramic glass roof, nice rip off from the VW SportWagen, cool feature. That color is whack. Looks taller than the current Impreza Wagon or is that just a trick on the eyes? Wheels are hideous. Tell me that the back seats fold down flat and I am sold.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 19, 2011)

The new Beatle is looking pretty sporty:


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 19, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> The new Beatle is looking pretty sporty:


You're either showing your age or poor taste. Or both. 

Too small for my needs, but it will be interesting to see what they rate the new 2012 Hyundai Accent at for MPG. The hatch looks pretty damn sporty and I just read a rumor of Prius like numbers.

It seems like things are really being stepped up across the board. Both with MPG, interior quality, and features. Compared to my bare bones 99 base econobox, everything new looks damn near royalty to my eyes. It is great to see 40 MPG as the new standard for compacts. Subaru is wise to step it up in this category. Trailing the industry standard by 4 MPG isn't that bad. Without the upgrade in MPG to the Impreza, Subaru would have been nearly 50% behind in fuel economy from average in category, and more than 50% behind the category leaders.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> You're either showing your age or poor taste. Or both.



Hey, didn't say I wanted one. I've got 2 kids. I need a station wagon at a minimum. Will probably move to the new Outback when my current one starts costing me money.

I do think it's a sharp revision of the Beetle and looks like it would be a blast to drive.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> XV Concept debuted at the Shanghai Auto Show (suggested as being similar to a US Impreza Outback Sport):
> 
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/04/another-day-another-impreza-design/
> 
> ...



Not a fan.  Looks like some sort of Suzuki to me...


----------



## bvibert (Apr 19, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> The new Beatle is looking pretty sporty:



Overall I like this redesign much more than the previous one.  The taillights don't do anything for me though.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> . Seriously love the panoramic glass roof, nice rip off from the VW SportWagen, cool feature.



I've actually read that most people don't care for the panoramic roof in the VW.  Too much sunlight/glare coming through and makes it difficult to cool in the summer.

I think it seems pretty cool, but I've read that as I've done a fair amount of research on the Jetta Sportwagen


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I've actually read that most people don't care for the panoramic roof in the VW.  Too much sunlight/glare coming through and makes it difficult to cool in the summer.


Did those folks not realize you can shade the roof? :lol: Yea, I know that the SportWagen shade still admits some light even when closed. Cooling is not really an issue... keep the shade closed when you are parked and open the roof when you get in the car. Maybe it really boils with the SportWagen shade? Eh, just blast the AC if it is that much of an issue. You certainly don't get a sunroof because you want something super practicable. You get it cause sunroofs are DAMN COOL. 8) I miss having a sunroof... one of the few "must have" features I care about in a new car. Sounds odd I know, I really like em' and miss having one.

If this Subaru Impreza hatch fits the bill cost wise, it instantly rules out the WV TDI as an option. Though given the cost and value aspects, especially when compared to newer model vehicles hitting 40 on regular gas, I had pretty much already ruled it out any ways.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 19, 2011)

Oh, I get it.  We have sun roofs in both our cars.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 20, 2011)

Link to watch the new 2012 
http://www.subaru.com/auto-show/index.html


----------



## hammer (Apr 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> You certainly don't get a sunroof because you want something super practicable. You get it cause sunroofs are DAMN COOL. 8) I miss having a sunroof... one of the few "must have" features I care about in a new car. Sounds odd I know, I really like em' and miss having one.


We were "forced" to buy our Jeep GC with a panoramic sunroof (only way to get a vehicle in-stock with the color and other options we wanted). Normally I'm indifferent to a sunroof but it has been nice to have the panoramic one. The shade completely blocks out the sunlight so getting unwanted sun is not a problem.


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> . You get it cause sunroofs are DAMN COOL. 8) I miss having a sunroof... one of the few "must have" features I care about in a new car. Sounds odd I know, I really like em' and miss having one.


Agreed.  I went through 7 years of company cars that didn't have sun roofs.  I love the panoramic roof in my car.  I don't find it heats up too much in the summer.  I usually close the shade and leave it vented while parked if there's no rain predicted.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 20, 2011)

I hate sunroofs. I'd rather have the head room.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I hate sunroofs. I'd rather have the head room.



Do you wear a helmet in your car or something?  You're like 5'10


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 20, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Do you wear a helmet in your car or something?  You're like 5'10



He needs room for the horns.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I hate sunroofs. I'd rather have the head room.



I can't wear a baseball hat without the little button on the top rubbing on the headliner of my car, but I still wouldn't trade the sunroof for more head room.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 20, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Do you wear a helmet in your car or something? You're like 5'10


I'd rather have 4" of headroom and no sunroof than 2" of headroom. Also, they add weight up high, and cost. And they aren't an option in the non-Limited STI.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I hate sunroofs. I'd rather have the head room.



At 6'4" I agree....if you want sun, get a convertible...go big or go home


----------



## dmc (Apr 20, 2011)

I love my huge sunroof...  It's the first car I owned with one..  Had Moonroofs... total waste..  

Love cruising around the mountains with the sunroof open and windows down..    Sometimes I camp in my car and have the roof open at night..  Great star watching..


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Seriously love the panoramic glass roof, nice rip off from the VW SportWagen, cool feature.



Subaru has loads of experience with large sunroofs. The 2005-2009 Legacy Limited and Legacy Outback Limited models have a *huge* sunroof that extends from the driver over the rear seat passengers. I've got a 2005 Legacy GT Limited and the sunroof covers most of the interior, I think it extends over 30 inches back.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 20, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Link to watch the new 2012
> http://www.subaru.com/auto-show/index.html



Wow, are these things always this dull?


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 20, 2011)

The front of the 2012 Impreza looks alot like the 2005 Legacy/Outback.  Not too original but a nice design, at least for 2005! 
I guess Subaru doesn't want to be too progressive?

And what's with the ugly wheel arches. They used these to ruin the 2010 Legacy design and they're at it again. Fire that designer!


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 20, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Wow, are these things always this dull?



Normally much more entertaining than that. Specially when the FUJI guys try and say "Regacy", cracks me up every time.

I have no idea why they even had a link to that....yawn.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 20, 2011)

mlctvt said:


> The front of the 2012 Impreza looks alot like the 2005 Legacy/Outback.  Not too original but a nice design, at least for 2005!
> I guess Subaru doesn't want to be too progressive?
> 
> And what's with the ugly wheel arches. They used these to ruin the 2010 Legacy design and they're at it again. Fire that designer!



Yup, and in 2010 Subie sales were up, so I'd guess some people liked 'em.


----------



## WoodCore (Apr 20, 2011)

mlctvt said:


> Subaru has loads of experience with large sunroofs. The 2005-2009 Legacy Limited and Legacy Outback Limited models have a *huge* sunroof that extends from the driver over the rear seat passengers. I've got a 2005 Legacy GT Limited and the sunroof covers most of the interior, I think it extends over 30 inches back.




I drive a 05' GT wagon and *love* the large sunroof not to mention that it's got some "get up and go" under the hood!


----------



## mondeo (Apr 20, 2011)

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/20/2012-subaru-impreza/

Some stuff I like. Some I don't.

110 lbs lighter, great. Extra rear passenger legroom, good. Wider track, good.

74hp/l in a 2.0 compared to 68hp/l in a 2.5, well, not impressed at all. Actually don't know what the point is until they get DI. Doors 5 inches longer? That means they open wider, bad for tight parking. Like the Legacy front end, dislike the rear. I hate the Toyota Matrix they put on the back of the hatch. Longer wheelbase, bad (less responsive handling.) Door mounted mirrors look like they forgot about them, and said, well, let's just put these truck-sized mirrors on stems that don't fit in whatsoever. And yes the mirrors are larger, but useless addition of space. Not once have I wanted any more vertical coverage in the mirror. They just look stupid now, and add drag and weight. Smaller A-pillar is good, it's a little large on the current Impreza. Lowered shoulder line? F that. I don't need to see the ground next to me, I'd rather feel like I'm sitting on the ground.

But STI sweep on a base Impreza? That's actually going to piss a decent number of STI owners off. It's one of those extra little touches that makes a STI, a STI.

Oveall, I think they hit the major points. Keep it the same size, lighter, better fuel efficiency, replace an ancient engine architecture. Add DI and have a 2.5L version of the engine, the STI should get a good bump in both efficiency and power, maybe 30-33mpg highway. Needs a 6 or 7 speed non-torque converter automatic to go along with it. But just about everything else I don't like.


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 20, 2011)

WoodCore said:


> I drive a 05' GT wagon and *love* the large sunroof not to mention that it's got some "get up and go" under the hood!



Perfect combination of Incredible performance, AWD, manual transmission in a Wagon package.

I'm runninn stage 2 so my "get up and go" just went way up. 
for those not familiar Stage 2 performance is about equal to a WRX STI. 0-60 time in the  mid 4 second range. It's so fun to embarass sports cars and American V8s with this little 2.5 liter turbo WAGON.


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 20, 2011)

mlctvt said:


> Perfect combination of Incredible performance, AWD, manual transmission in a Wagon package.



i'm trying to find a used one of these but having a hard time


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 20, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Yup, and in 2010 Subie sales were up, so I'd guess some people liked 'em.



DId 2010 sales of the "Turbo" increase over 2006, 2007, 2008 sales? I doubt it.  
I've heard to even get one now you have to order it since dealers don't stock them. That's the Subaru way to kill a model. Like what they did with the Manual GT wagon. Make them anavailable, don't advertise them and then complain sales weren't there. 

Merican's like their jacked up high cars and Subaru delivers in the Outback and Forester so those sales skyrocketed with the new taller models. I guess I'm not a normal customer then I prefered the older model of both cars.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Door mounted mirrors look like they forgot about them, and said, well, let's just put these truck-sized mirrors on stems that don't fit in whatsoever. And yes the mirrors are larger, but useless addition of space. Not once have I wanted any more vertical coverage in the mirror. They just look stupid now, and add drag and weight.



Haha, just looked at the pics. They totally designed the car and said "oh crap we forgot mirrors!". :lol:


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 20, 2011)

It looks like they ground the sides off the car creating the flat wheel arches that extend to the back of the car and a sharp crease along the rear bumber. Maybe the car turned out wider than they wanted so they just removed a inch or two from the body work on each side,  :smile:
whatever, it's ugly

I hoping that the STI 5 door version fixes some of these things.


----------



## roark (Apr 20, 2011)

wow, the hatch looks like a dead ringer for a matrix/vibe.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 20, 2011)

mlctvt said:


> DId 2010 sales of the "Turbo" increase over 2006, 2007, 2008 sales? I doubt it.
> I've heard to even get one now you have to order it since dealers don't stock them. That's the Subaru way to kill a model. Like what they did with the Manual GT wagon. Make them anavailable, don't advertise them and then complain sales weren't there.
> 
> Merican's like their jacked up high cars and Subaru delivers in the Outback and Forester so those sales skyrocketed with the new taller models. I guess I'm not a normal customer then I prefered the older model of both cars.



Turbo sales up??? Kinda doubt it, but I really don't know---don't track 'em.

Many of the die hard Subie fans aren't fans of the new product, but for every 1 that drops out 2 step in...can't please everyone, but guess that's what makes the world go around. Personally, I like the new models....bigger (i fit in them better) and much less wind noise which always pissed me off.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2011)

I see you can get the new Imprezza in a 5speed MT.  This may get a look in 2-3 years when we're shopping again.


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 20, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Haha, just looked at the pics. They totally designed the car and said "oh crap we forgot mirrors!". :lol:


:lol:


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I hate sunroofs. I'd rather have the head room.


I am 6'1" and don't notice the lack of headroom with a sunroof. At least while driving. I don't care about rear passengers since I rarely drive with any.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)

roark said:


> wow, the hatch looks like a dead ringer for a matrix/vibe.


Whoa, there! Them's fighting words! The hatch looks much better than a Vibe. Icky. Don't even put the two in the same sentence, the Vibe stands alone in the butt ugly category. And it is over priced to boot.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)

mlctvt said:


> And what's with the ugly wheel arches. They used these to ruin the 2010 Legacy design and they're at it again. Fire that designer!


Agreed. They don't look as pronounced on the Impreza as on the Legacy and Outback models. Seriously one of the worst design issues going on in Subaru right now. I bet it is a big hit with Joe Average Car Buyer, though.... especially the older crowd.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)




----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Haha, just looked at the pics. They totally designed the car and said "oh crap we forgot mirrors!". :lol:


It really is amazing how great the car looks but how badly those mirrors stick out!!! WTF were they thinking!!! Ugh! Totally out of place on that size car. Especially considering many of the exterior changes were to enhance aerodynamics and improve gas mileage.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)

AutoBlog.com said:
			
		

> Folding the seats on the five-door yields a *flat floor*, now *level with the bumper*.


Winner!!!


----------



## roark (Apr 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> It really is amazing how great the car looks .



:razz::razz::razz:

Seems like a good car, but looks? Meh.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)

roark said:


> :razz::razz::razz:
> 
> Seems like a good car, but looks? Meh.


COUGH COUGH :razz::razz::razz:

Some more shots:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2012-subaru-impreza-five-door-new-york-2011/#4074534

I think the hatch looks really good (sans the side mirrors). The sedan is very blah. For the record, I don't like the current hatch. This seems like an improvement.


----------



## roark (Apr 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> COUGH COUGH :razz::razz::razz:
> 
> Some more shots:
> http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2012-subaru-impreza-five-door-new-york-2011/#4074534
> ...



nah, my outlander is the more controversial looking older model - the one with thenose 

The sedan looks totally generic. By subaru standards the hatch is pretty bland. I hated the last gen impreza hatch when I first saw it, but it's grown on me. 

The mileage gain is impressive, so long as it isn't a total dog to drive it should be a solid choice.


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 20, 2011)

Interesting that the cargo volume for the 5-door is 49 cuft. The exact same as my wife's  '05 Impreza WRX Wagon. 
The flat floor is great too. And unlike my wifes car the rear suspension (strut towers) don't  impede into the cargo area .


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2011)

roark said:


> :razz::razz::razz:
> 
> Seems like a good car, but looks? Meh.



It seems like every Asian hatchback the past 8 years have their stylistic base in the Mazda3. 

We love our 3 and would consider replacing it with another one.  But Mazda completely screwed up the re-design with the smiley face front grill.  awful IMO


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 20, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> It seems like every Asian hatchback the past 8 years have their stylistic base in the Mazda3.
> 
> We love our 3 and would consider replacing it with another one.  But Mazda completely screwed up the re-design with the smiley face front grill.  awful IMO



Just read the 2012 Mazda 3 is going to get 40 mpg ...


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Just read the 2012 Mazda 3 is going to get 40 mpg ...



link?

I'm google lazy tonight :lol:


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> We love our 3 and would consider replacing it with another one.  But Mazda completely screwed up the re-design with the smiley face front grill.  awful IMO


Seriously. I'm normally not one to let one tiny cosmetic detail determine my entire opinion of a vehicle. But that grill puts the Mazda3 automatically in the "not even bothering to read about it" category.


----------



## hammer (Apr 20, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> It seems like every Asian hatchback the past 8 years have their stylistic base in the Mazda3.
> 
> We love our 3 and would consider replacing it with another one.  But Mazda completely screwed up the re-design with the smiley face front grill.  awful IMO


Is it as bad as the Acura front beak?


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2011)

Yeah, it's too bad.  We have an 04 and the car still looks great/modern.

Honestly the only complaint we have with it is that its a bit too small in terms of storage.  The Elantra Touring is MUCH bigger in that regard even though it still appears to be a somewhat 'compact' car.  Love the way the Mazda drives though.  zoom, zoom.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2011)

hammer said:


> Is it as bad as the Acura front beak?



http://1mazdausa.com/mazda3hatch.html

don't care for it compared to ours 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:36&biw=1024&bih=677


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2011)

More flying pictures...


----------



## hammer (Apr 20, 2011)

Looks better than an Acura to me...







And what is it with all of the creased wheel arches?  Not too crazy about that look on a low car...


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 20, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> link?
> 
> I'm google lazy tonight :lol:



http://www.caranddriver.com/news/ca...get_face_lift_163-hp_skyactiv_engine-car_news


----------



## wa-loaf (May 22, 2011)

Looks like some kind of little sports car: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/21/toyobaru-spotted-on-the-405/


----------



## deadheadskier (May 22, 2011)

sharp lines.  looks a little like an Audi A5


----------



## mondeo (May 22, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> sharp lines. looks a little like an Audi A5


Only half the size (hopefully.)


----------



## riverc0il (May 22, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Looks like some kind of little sports car: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/21/toyobaru-spotted-on-the-405/


Rear wheel drive, IIRC.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 22, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Only half the size (hopefully.)



I actually like the size of the A5.  Comfortable for 4 ppl


----------



## mondeo (May 25, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I actually like the size of the A5. Comfortable for 4 ppl


Not knocking the A5 (well, not in this case at least.) Just saying that'd I'd like to see the Toyabaru end up under, say, 2200lbs.


----------



## AdironRider (May 27, 2011)

I wont buy a Subaru until they can make something with AWD and a manual transmission that isnt a total piece of shit with the rest of the car. I just dont get the blind love. So its an AWD wagon with a stick, the interior sucks, I highly doubt the mpgs will come close to 36, and itnt terribly underpowered. Even the WRX and STI's have no power below 3k rpms. I also hate that I have to practically wear earplugs cause theres so much road noise in subarus. 

Solid drivetrain and a manual can be found elsewhere, with a much better car making up the rest.


----------



## Edd (May 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> I wont buy a Subaru until they can make something with AWD and a manual transmission that isnt a total piece of shit with the rest of the car. I just dont get the blind love. So its an AWD wagon with a stick, the interior sucks, I highly doubt the mpgs will come close to 36, and itnt terribly underpowered. Even the WRX and STI's have no power below 3k rpms. I also hate that I have to practically wear earplugs cause theres so much road noise in subarus.
> 
> Solid drivetrain and a manual can be found elsewhere, with a much better car making up the rest.



Are you comparing the Subies to other cars in the same price range?  If so, which ones?


----------



## campgottagopee (May 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> I wont buy a Subaru until they can make something with AWD and a manual transmission that isnt a total piece of shit with the rest of the car. I just dont get the blind love. So its an AWD wagon with a stick, the interior sucks, I highly doubt the mpgs will come close to 36, and itnt terribly underpowered. Even the WRX and STI's have no power below 3k rpms. I also hate that I have to practically wear earplugs cause theres so much road noise in subarus.
> 
> Solid drivetrain and a manual can be found elsewhere, with a much better car making up the rest.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Curious, when is the last time you've driven an STI???


----------



## AdironRider (May 27, 2011)

Three days ago. One of my good friends out here bought a 2010 last summer. Waste of money if you ask me considering the WRX's are almost just as quick for 10k less, and if Im not mistaken now have the widebody kits as well. Why someone would buy STI for anything else other than the name is beyond me. 

Either way it has more road noise than my truck of all things, and my truck only cost 20k. 

Ive driven a Suzuki of some form, forget the actual model name, but its a little tiny crossover similar to an Impreza wagon. Not only was it 5k cheaper, overall build quality was worlds and away better. 

Subarus looks great on paper and scream practicality. Then you buy one and deal with rattles throughout the interior, cat converter issues, eating tires, etc etc etc. Id take anything else over a Subaru. You spend something like a tenth of your life or more commuting or traveling, might as well enjoy the ride.

My fiancee is a blind Subaru lover, which means I get stuck driving her around in her POS Forester. Before that it was an Impreza coupe from the late 90s, which was better as I liked the 2.2 motor more, but the rest of Subarus problems were all present.


----------



## campgottagopee (May 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Three days ago. One of my good friends out here bought a 2010 last summer. Waste of money if you ask me considering the WRX's are almost just as quick for 10k less, and if Im not mistaken now have the widebody kits as well. Why someone would buy STI for anything else other than the name is beyond me.
> 
> Either way it has more road noise than my truck of all things, and my truck only cost 20k.
> 
> ...



The STI is a rally car, your gonna get road noise with a car built for performance. Nature of the beast.

Suzuki...that would be a good car for you.


----------



## Edd (May 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Ive driven a Suzuki of some form, forget the actual model name, but its a little tiny crossover similar to an Impreza wagon. Not only was it 5k cheaper, overall build quality was worlds and away better.



Put me down as skeptical.


----------



## AdironRider (May 27, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> The STI is a rally car, your gonna get road noise with a car built for performance. Nature of the beast.
> 
> Suzuki...that would be a good car for you.



Bull. Its Subaru being cheap on a 35k+ vehicle. Im not talking raging engine noise or tuned exhaust. I shouldnt be driving over partitions in pavement and have it sound like someone turned the bass up to 11. 

Look, Subarus can be fun, and they are pretty reliable, but if you want to enjoy your time in the car, there are plenty of other companies out there that deliver. 

Nothing is wrong with having reliable, practical transportation, Id just rather enjoy the driving experience rather than have it be just practical and reliable.


----------



## Black Phantom (May 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Bull. Its Subaru being cheap on a 35k+ vehicle. Im not talking raging engine noise or tuned exhaust. I shouldnt be driving over partitions in pavement and have it sound like someone turned the bass up to 11.
> 
> Look, Subarus can be fun, and they are pretty reliable, but if you want to enjoy your time in the car, there are plenty of other companies out there that deliver.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with having reliable, practical transportation, Id just rather enjoy the driving experience rather than have it be just practical and reliable.



He just told you to stick with your fucking suzuki. Why can't you just leave it at that and STFU?


----------



## AdironRider (May 27, 2011)

I dont have a Suzuki, I drive a Nissan Frontier, something with real 4x4, gets 20-22mpg in the real world (when my girls Forester sees 24), and doesnt rattle everywhere and is actually somewhat enjoyable to drive. 

He asked me to compare a comparable vehicle. The SX4(?) is just that, not that fwd POS you seem to think I was referencing. SX4 is cheaper, awd, and actually has better build quality. 

Enjoy your shitbox Black Phantom, your a perfect example of blind love.


----------



## Black Phantom (May 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> I dont have a Suzuki, I drive a Nissan Frontier, something with real 4x4, gets 20-22mpg in the real world (when my girls Forester sees 24), and doesnt rattle everywhere and is actually somewhat enjoyable to drive.
> 
> He asked me to compare a comparable vehicle. The SX4(?) is just that, not that fwd POS you seem to think I was referencing. SX4 is cheaper, awd, and actually has better build quality.
> 
> Enjoy your shitbox Black Phantom, your a perfect example of blind love.



Why don't you try a lease, bird brain. I don't and would not drive a Subaru. Where did you draw that conclusion from?

Stick to your inane arguments re: Cannon little man. :evil:


----------



## AdironRider (May 28, 2011)

Your irrational anger is confusing me. 

And if you think anyone should ever lease a car, you definitely are retarded. But Im not really sure what your getting at. Am I supposed to lease a Suzuki, a Subaru? 

If I wanted to throw money away Id go for hookers and blow before I leased a car, especially a Subaru.


----------



## mondeo (May 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Waste of money if you ask me considering the WRX's are almost just as quick for 10k less, and if Im not mistaken now have the widebody kits as well. Why someone would buy STI for anything else other than the name is beyond me.


Better differentials, 6 speeds, lower Cg, stiffer spring/roll rates, faster steering ratio, stickier tires, better brakes, etc. There's more to life than drag races.

If I wanted something that could go fast in a straight line, I'd get a Mustang.


----------



## Geoff (May 29, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> You spend something like a tenth of your life or more commuting or traveling, might as well enjoy the ride.



2 1/2 hours per day in a car?   No wonder you're doing AlpineZone flame wars.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 30, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Nothing is wrong with having reliable, practical transportation,.



That's all I require in a vehicle and is the exact reason I refuse to buy a Subaru  :lol:


----------



## riverc0il (May 30, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> That's all I require in a vehicle and is the exact reason I refuse to buy a Subaru  :lol:


Funny! But the reality is that there are few vehicles on the market today that are not generally reliable. I guess even Kia's are not complete junk boxes any more, I hear? And practicality all depends upon your intended use. As I understand it, the head gasket issue was addressed. Sorry you got burned but I don't think that is any reason to hold a grudge all these years later against Subaru's latest models. Now their moving the Outback into moderately large Crossover territory and the Legacy into large sedan territory (as they look regardless of what is on the books) is a reason to hold a grudge! :lol:

Hey Camp, any latest info on when the 2012 Impreza Hatch will be available for a test drive in the USA? All the press said the Fall as I recall, but that is pretty vague. I was hoping they might be available by August. I'd be buying a new car this very month if that new Impreza were not on the way.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 30, 2011)

My issue is the fact that practically every single person I've met who's driven a Subaru has had to have it fixed.  That should be a recall.  Head Gaskets don't fall under general maintenance in my eyes. 

Someone in this very thread had the Head Gasket issue in their 2005.  So, it's not that long ago.  I'll believe it's been properly addressed when I hear from a number of people driving 2006/7 and newer models year to 150K miles and they don't have a problem.

Given I took very good care of a 2004 and it was practically falling apart by 2009 with 90K, doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the brand's reliability.  The fact that I've driven a 2007 Hyundai to 145K miles now and have had nothing go wrong with it, reduces that confidence even further.


----------



## Edd (May 30, 2011)

My last Subie, over 156,000 miles when I traded it in.  It never left me stranded.  It's a reliable brand in my book.


----------



## campgottagopee (May 31, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Bull. Its Subaru being cheap on a 35k+ vehicle. Im not talking raging engine noise or tuned exhaust. I shouldnt be driving over partitions in pavement and have it sound like someone turned the bass up to 11.



Do you know what a rally car is??? :roll:





riverc0il said:


> Hey Camp, any latest info on when the 2012 Impreza Hatch will be available for a test drive in the USA? All the press said the Fall as I recall, but that is pretty vague. I was hoping they might be available by August. I'd be buying a new car this very month if that new Impreza were not on the way.



Initially it was going to be August but with all that's still going on in Japan I've heard November mentioned.


----------



## AdironRider (May 31, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> That's all I require in a vehicle and is the exact reason I refuse to buy a Subaru  :lol:




I may think they're rattle traps, but Im not going to knock their reliability. Outside of the cats going on her Forester once, in approx 200k of miles between her two Subarus, nothing else has gone wrong outside of replacing some of the longer maintenance interval items like shocks. Im not exactly nice to them either when I drive em given my general disregard for the brand.


----------



## gmcunni (Jun 6, 2011)

Camp, stopped by my local Subaru dealer today to inquire about this offer - 

_*$189/Month Lease*
Lease a 2011 Impreza for $189/Month on a 42-Month Lease (Standard model, code BJA-01)**
Offer Ends July 5, 2011
$189 per month for 42 months with $1,188 due at lease signing. $0 security deposit. Tax, title and registration fees extra. Other leases available on other models. Cannot be combined with any other incentives.
_

got the "that car is really hard to get but we have something a bit more expensive if you are interested" and was wondering your thoughts on availability (manual / 5 door)?


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 6, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> Camp, stopped by my local Subaru dealer today to inquire about this offer -
> 
> _*$189/Month Lease*
> Lease a 2011 Impreza for $189/Month on a 42-Month Lease (Standard model, code BJA-01)**
> ...



Well, they're not trying to "switch" you at all. I ran a locate here, and there are only 8 of those cars available in my entire district of which if I had a customer looking I'd have about 2 shots at getting them that car ( very slim chance at best). Subie inventory is sooooo bad right now and dealers aren't trading with each other....nobody has cars. IMO, it's going to be this way until the first of the year, some claim sooner but we'll see.

FWIW, the national ad on the 5 door you're looking for (bla-01) 220/ mo w/ 1219 down plkus, plus, plus.

Wish I had better news but I don't...good luck


----------



## gmcunni (Jun 6, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Well, they're not trying to "switch" you at all. I ran a locate here, and there are only 8 of those cars available in my entire district of which if I had a customer looking I'd have about 2 shots at getting them that car ( very slim chance at best). Subie inventory is sooooo bad right now and dealers aren't trading with each other....nobody has cars. IMO, it's going to be this way until the first of the year, some claim sooner but we'll see.
> 
> FWIW, the national ad on the 5 door you're looking for (bla-01) 220/ mo w/ 1219 down plkus, plus, plus.
> 
> Wish I had better news but I don't...good luck



thanks for the sanity check, guess my quest continues.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 6, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> thanks for the sanity check, guess my quest continues.



Sanity?? You've come to the wrong place my friend :wink:

Just make a bunch of calls, you'll find one and you should be able to do most everything via phone or email.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 17, 2011)

I decided to hold back pulling the trigger on either the Elantra or Civic so Impreza is still on the table. Really want to make a purchase this summer but the Elantra is seeing poor (relative to its EPA estimates) MPG in the real world and the Civic, which has a lot going for it, just looks bland and lacks dual clutch which I prefer for the mountains. Accent has no sunroof  (in the hatch)and has some space limitations and I think no dual clutch either. Looks like it is finally time to fix my breaks since I'll be waiting a few more months (been pretty scary lately  ).

What looks even better than the Impreza hatch is the Mazda3 (also waiting until the fall). 40mpg for the sedan and I think 38 for the hatch? Good looks (less smiley), best in class performance, and either 38 or 40 mpg? I'm partial to the Mazda3 interior looks, as well. Impreza better be good to top that, AWD ain't worth that much to me (though I'd prefer to go with it if the rest of the car earns the nod).


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 17, 2011)

My wife drives a 2004 Mazda3. Love that car.  The less 'smiley' 2011 is a step in the right direction, though I still think the older generations grill is the best looking.  The 3 will certainly get a look from us again when our current one dies, especially with the improved Fuel Economy.  My 2007 V6 Sonata auto trans bests the 2004 3 hatch MT by a couple MPG.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 17, 2011)

The smiley has not grown on me but it is no longer a deal breaker. I actually think the 2012 images posted online look quite nice, so the newest 2012 version of the grill has grown on me.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I decided to hold back pulling the trigger on either the Elantra or Civic so Impreza is still on the table.


Swinging back and forth again, might not wait after all. :lol: 

Back to considering the WV SportWagen TDI. I think they bumped the price a bit this year, not sure if it is worth $28k+ loaded. You can almost get a bare bones A3 for that price (though a bit too bare bones for my tastes). Also considering Lexus CT200h. Never thought I'd even be considering a Lexus but 43/40/42 MPG and a sticker for the Premium at around $31k with nice options, call me curious. 

After the MPG increase and regular fuel vs diesel, the lifetime savings at 200k miles would make the car much cheaper (probably a $10k savings total vs the TDI). Basically a sporty looking Prius. Less MPG but better handling and far superior looks. No roof racks available for it though... :-x

Thinking about trying the SportWagen, CT200h, and a current gen Mazda3 this weekend for comparison. If the Mazda3 grabs me, I might wait for the 2012 for the 40 MPG highway. If not, at least I'll know.

The all elusive sporty looking wagon/hatch with superior MPG fully loaded at a good price just doesn't quite seem there yet. Too bad Audi didn't put the AWD into the A3 TDI, that might have convinced me to stretch my already stretched budget out even further. Though AWD is simply a nice thing to have and really not even a factor. But it could be a deciding factor between two otherwise equal options.

:smash:

*sigh*


----------



## mrksn (Jul 20, 2011)

How bout a Mini Countryman?  Kinda $ and mileage isn't great but has AWD option and has a sporty drive to it

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/11/2011-mini-countryman-first-drive-road-test-review/


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 20, 2011)

mrksn said:


> How bout a Mini Countryman?  Kinda $ and mileage isn't great but has AWD option and has a sporty drive to it
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/11/2011-mini-countryman-first-drive-road-test-review/


Poor interior space (especially considering this is billed as the MINI "crossover"--most compact sedans likely have more space), looks funky outside (funky bad to my tastes) and looks absolutely horrendous inside. Like... worst interior car design ever.  MPG combined isn't quite what I am looking for.


----------



## MR. evil (Jul 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I decided to hold back pulling the trigger on either the Elantra or Civic so Impreza is still on the table. Really want to make a purchase this summer but the Elantra is seeing poor (relative to its EPA estimates) MPG in the real world and the Civic, which has a lot going for it, just looks bland and lacks dual clutch which I prefer for the mountains. Accent has no sunroof  (in the hatch)and has some space limitations and I think no dual clutch either. Looks like it is finally time to fix my breaks since I'll be waiting a few more months (been pretty scary lately  ).
> 
> What looks even better than the Impreza hatch is the Mazda3 (also waiting until the fall). 40mpg for the sedan and I think 38 for the hatch? Good looks (less smiley), best in class performance, and either 38 or 40 mpg? I'm partial to the Mazda3 interior looks, as well. Impreza better be good to top that, AWD ain't worth that much to me (though I'd prefer to go with it if the rest of the car earns the nod).



We are also in the market for a new car and the Mazda 3 hatch is on the top of the list at the moment. Checked out the Impreza but didn't car for it that much. Really liked the VW Golf TDI but it pretty pricy.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 20, 2011)

MR. evil said:


> We are also in the market for a new car and the Mazda 3 hatch is on the top of the list at the moment. Checked out the Impreza but didn't car for it that much. Really liked the VW Golf TDI but it pretty pricy.


The TDIs prices aren't too bad by themselves because you'll get it back at the pump even with diesel being more expensive. The problem is adding any options. WV really kills you with optioning a car. Golf looks a little small for my cargo needs. I gotta wonder if my 186 Atuas would even fit. Otherwise, I would add that to the list. Mazda3 with 40 MPG is going to be a massive hit... it fixes what many might consider the only problem with that car.


----------



## MR. evil (Jul 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> The TDIs prices aren't too bad by themselves because you'll get it back at the pump even with diesel being more expensive. The problem is adding any options. WV really kills you with optioning a car. Golf looks a little small for my cargo needs. I gotta wonder if my 186 Atuas would even fit. Otherwise, I would add that to the list. Mazda3 with 40 MPG is going to be a massive hit... it fixes what many might consider the only problem with that car.



Ya, to get the TDI equipped similar to the Mazda 3 was too expensive. Where have you seen 40mph for the hatch back? I thought it gets low 30's on the highway. I have been told there will be a turbo diesel version in the US by 2013. Wish I could wait that long. If the Speed3 got better milage and didn't take premium gas I would love to get that car.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 20, 2011)

MR. evil said:


> Ya, to get the TDI equipped similar to the Mazda 3 was too expensive. Where have you seen 40mph for the hatch back? I thought it gets low 30's on the highway. I have been told there will be a turbo diesel version in the US by 2013. Wish I could wait that long. If the Speed3 got better milage and didn't take premium gas I would love to get that car.


2012 sedan will get 40 MPG highway, hatch maybe 1-2 less. At least for the lower HP versions. Gotta wait though... probably good deals on 2011s right now though. Who wants to buy a 2011 when MPG is going to get boasted by like 10 in two months? I bet Subie is having the same problem with 2011 Imprezas. At least the Mazda3 you have a reason to sacrifice low MPG.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 20, 2011)

Is the cargo space in the 12 Mazda3 hatch significantly improved over the 04-08 addition (basically pre-smiley face)?   

I ask because the cargo space in our generation 3 hatch (04) kinda sucks.  I can pack way more crap in my 07 Hyundai Sonata and still see clear out my back window than I can in our 3 packed clear to the ceiling with the seats down.

There's no comparison driving wise, our Mazda3 blows away the Sonata in 'fun factor', but it's definitely not a better 'cargo/utility' vehicle at all (unless you need to move a large appliance).  

If I were to go for a 12 Mazda3 with the 40mpg highway rating, I'd do so with the intentions of also getting a roof box, which probably brings the MPG down to the top end of the economy Sedan range.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 20, 2011)

Roof rack would be a given no matter what but I was going to snag a box for camping and trips only. There shouldn't be any comparison between a compact hatch and a mid-sized sedan, mid-sized sedan should always have more room than a compact hatch. For me, I am stepping up from a sub-compact coup so its all bigger for me.  2012 Mazda3 is the same physically as the current model, just a new engine offering.


----------



## hammer (Jul 21, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Also considering Lexus CT200h. Never thought I'd even be considering a Lexus but 43/40/42 MPG and a sticker for the Premium at around $31k with nice options, call me curious.
> 
> After the MPG increase and regular fuel vs diesel, the lifetime savings at 200k miles would make the car much cheaper (probably a $10k savings total vs the TDI). Basically a sporty looking Prius. Less MPG but better handling and far superior looks. No roof racks available for it though... :-x


I saw the review of the CT200h on Motorweek...you may be OK with it but over 10 seconds for 0-60 is a bit slow for me. My Jeep Grand Cherokee with the V6 (which is reported by many as underpowered but I'm OK with) does better than that.

Does anyone drive a Prius for skiing? How does it handle with snow tires? I looked at one at an auto show a few years ago and a person I talked to there said that they were pretty bad in the snow.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 21, 2011)

hammer said:


> Does anyone drive a Prius for skiing? How does it handle with snow tires? I looked at one at an auto show a few years ago and a person I talked to there said that they were pretty bad in the snow.



I see them now and again. I'd highly recomend getting snows. They come with a low rolling resistance tire; they're a farily hard rubber compound and it only gets worse in the cold weather. I've been behind one with the OEM tires and it was an interesting sight. This dude was spinning his wheels and couldn't get up a mild hill that was plowed, but snow covered.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 21, 2011)

Glenn said:


> I see them now and again. I'd highly recomend getting snows. They come with a low rolling resistance tire; they're a farily hard rubber compound and it only gets worse in the cold weather. I've been behind one with the OEM tires and it was an interesting sight. This dude was spinning his wheels and couldn't get up a mild hill that was plowed, but snow covered.



I moved a Prius that a renter had gotten stuck in front of my KMart condo.   It is a very mild uphill and usually isn't a problem if you keep any kind of momentum.   She didn't have a clue how to snow-drive.   It took me 3 tries backing it down to the flats to get a running start.   I'm sure the car is great with good snow tires but those high MPG rock-hard stock tires are the worst snow performers I've ever encountered.

My VW GTI came with 18" wheels and performance summer tires.   That's challenging to back out of the parking spot in a November snow storm.   With Nokians, it's a better snow car than my AWD SUV until it bottoms out.

As everybody knows, I recommend people put modern snows with good black ice performance on any car.   It's foolish not to pick up the extra safety margin braking and cornering.   I put studded snows on my SUV in the winter.   The thing is dangerous otherwise on black ice.


----------



## hammer (Jul 21, 2011)

Geoff said:


> As everybody knows, I recommend people put modern snows with good black ice performance on any car.   It's foolish not to pick up the extra safety margin braking and cornering.   I put studded snows on my SUV in the winter.   The thing is dangerous otherwise on black ice.


This topic has been addressed before I think...

I agree with the concept of putting snows on but when the cost is over $1000 for a set of wheels and snows (and TPMS sensors) I usually don't bother.  AWD with all season tires isn't ideal but is better than nothing, and I have yet to get stuck or have significant traction issues.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 21, 2011)

hammer said:


> I saw the review of the CT200h on Motorweek...you may be OK with it but over 10 seconds for 0-60 is a bit slow for me. My Jeep Grand Cherokee with the V6 (which is reported by many as underpowered but I'm OK with) does better than that.


Blah blah blah. All the reviews online slam the CT200h for one of the slowest 0-60 speeds. But who in their right mind is buying this car for going fast? Some folks think they can have their cake and eat it too... but you don't buy a hybrid for 0-60 no more than someone buys a Mustang for fuel efficiency. If the CT200h had faster 0-60, it wouldn't get the good fuel economy. And what do you really need 0-60 for? Maybe if I lived in the city and had to frequently merge into difficult traffic. But then again, the city for commuting is a parking lot. No one is getting up to 60 during rush hour any ways. It is the same speed as the Prius and I doubt Prius reviews knock it as harshly. The CT200h is basically for someone that wants great MPG and style and wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius. I don't think I have ever gone 0-60 faster than 10 seconds in any car.

Might be a none issue any ways. Due to the Japan thing, dealers ain't got em' and there are already preorders (hello MSRP!). I'm checking out a SportWagen this weekend.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 21, 2011)

Very interested to hear what you think about the SportWagen


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 21, 2011)

bvibert said:


> Very interested to hear what you think about the SportWagen


I am interested to hear what I think about it. I still feel dirty for even looking at a VW. I hate the brand, I hate their image, I hate their prices. The SportWagen is also much too big for what I need but the Golf is way too small. It basically is the only option of the market that has everything of what I want and nothing of what I don't. I've actually already searched around to see if I could change out the WV badges to something generic if I did buy it. :lol: WV is doing what Subie should be doing... making an irresistible package to those that prefer function over form. Subie went the other way.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 21, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I am interested to hear what I think about it. I still feel dirty for even looking at a VW. I hate the brand, I hate their image, I hate their prices. The SportWagen is also much too big for what I need but the Golf is way too small. It basically is the only option of the market that has everything of what I want and nothing of what I don't. I've actually already searched around to see if I could change out the WV badges to something generic if I did buy it. :lol: WV is doing what Subie should be doing... making an irresistible package to those that prefer function over form. Subie went the other way.



That's why I want to hear your opinion, because you're not a VW guy...  Quite the opposite, actually.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 21, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I am interested to hear what I think about it. I still feel dirty for even looking at a VW. I hate the brand, I hate their image, I hate their prices. The SportWagen is also much too big for what I need but the Golf is way too small. It basically is the only option of the market that has everything of what I want and nothing of what I don't. I've actually already searched around to see if I could change out the WV badges to something generic if I did buy it. :lol: WV is doing what Subie should be doing... making an irresistible package to those that prefer function over form. Subie went the other way.



I don't get the Golf "way too small" vs Wagon "way too big".

You do know that a Golf and a Jetta wagon are identical from the rear wheels-forwards?  They both have a 101.5" wheelbase.  Other than extending the body 13" aft of the rear wheels, the cars are mechanically identical.


Personally, I'd like to have a GTI R wagon.   I don't care for the option package on the Jetta wagon.   I want the extra foot to hold stuff but I also want Xenons, nice seats, Haldex, and a 2Lgasoline turbo.   You  can buy that in Europe but they don't import it.


----------



## mrksn (Jul 21, 2011)

hammer said:


> Does anyone drive a Prius for skiing? How does it handle with snow tires? I looked at one at an auto show a few years ago and a person I talked to there said that they were pretty bad in the snow.



I got a ride up Loveland Pass in a Prius with all-season tires in some bad slushy May snow this year.. it was a little hairy but we made it to the top and over!


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 21, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I don't get the Golf "way too small" vs Wagon "way too big".
> 
> You do know that a Golf and a Jetta wagon are identical from the rear wheels-forwards?  They both have a 101.5" wheelbase.  Other than extending the body 13" aft of the rear wheels, the cars are mechanically identical..


Looks are deceiving then! The SportWagen just looks to my eye bigger than it needs to be, as say compared to a previous generation Outback which has some of the best wagon proportions ever, IMO. I also count the rear seats not folding flat in the Golf as a major faux pas.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 21, 2011)

Speaking of wagons.......CTS-V.  Hotness.


----------



## hammer (Jul 21, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Blah blah blah. All the reviews online slam the CT200h for one of the slowest 0-60 speeds. But who in their right mind is buying this car for going fast? Some folks think they can have their cake and eat it too... but you don't buy a hybrid for 0-60 no more than someone buys a Mustang for fuel efficiency. If the CT200h had faster 0-60, it wouldn't get the good fuel economy. And what do you really need 0-60 for? Maybe if I lived in the city and had to frequently merge into difficult traffic. But then again, the city for commuting is a parking lot. No one is getting up to 60 during rush hour any ways. It is the same speed as the Prius and I doubt Prius reviews knock it as harshly. The CT200h is basically for someone that wants great MPG and style and wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius. I don't think I have ever gone 0-60 faster than 10 seconds in any car.
> 
> Might be a none issue any ways. Due to the Japan thing, dealers ain't got em' and there are already preorders (hello MSRP!). I'm checking out a SportWagen this weekend.



Depends on what you like I guess...I've had the slow but practical car, and with my 25 mile commutes I now enjoy having a car that has more oomph to it.  Also, unless I was dead set on a vehicle I would not consider paying MSRP either.

I drive on MA roads during rush hour and when traffic frees up you need to do 65-70 to keep getting run over.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 22, 2011)

hammer said:


> I drive on MA roads during rush hour and when traffic frees up you need to do 65-70 to keep getting run over.


I used to commute in MA on 495, 93, 95, and 128 in my 124 HP econobox and never had a problem keeping up. Actually, I used to get a little testy myself when things freed up. That had a 0-60 of a little more than 9 seconds.

It is all about personal preferences. If you want HP and you want a car that moves when you hit the gas, that is cool. But I don't think it is dangerous. A car with less get up and go might be frustrating to someone used to a faster car. But it doesn't make the car any less useful as a daily driver on the highway. It just means the car requires different driving habits.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 24, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I don't get the Golf "way too small" vs Wagon "way too big".
> 
> You do know that a Golf and a Jetta wagon are identical from the rear wheels-forwards?  They both have a 101.5" wheelbase.  Other than extending the body 13" aft of the rear wheels, the cars are mechanically identical.


Based on the specs I found, there is a bigger difference than you suggest. 67 vs 46 cubic feet of cargo (45% increase vs Golf). 14" longer may not seem like much, but splitting the difference between the two would be perfect both for my eyes and space requirements. Obviously, I am in the minority. Lack of fold flat seats definitely hurts the Golf as a cargo hauler.



bvibert said:


> That's why I want to hear your opinion, because you're not a VW guy...  Quite the opposite, actually.


I'll post full reviews after we make a purchase. Currently, the JSW TDI is our first choice out of what we test drove. Mazda3 2012 is the runner up (though I drove the lower MPG 2011), very tough choice. Personally, I would love to have both but we can only trade in one car right now. Impreza Hatch is no longer in the running.


----------



## o3jeff (Jul 25, 2011)

My brother just picked up a Hundai Elantra, they don't even give you a spare tire anymore, just a can of fix a flat. I guess that is how they can sell the cars so inexpensively and get the high fuel mileage(less weight). Kind of sucks if you have a blow out though....


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 25, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Based on the specs I found, there is a bigger difference than you suggest. 67 vs 46 cubic feet of cargo (45% increase vs Golf). 14" longer may not seem like much, but splitting the difference between the two would be perfect both for my eyes and space requirements. Obviously, I am in the minority. Lack of fold flat seats definitely hurts the Golf as a cargo hauler.
> 
> 
> I'll post full reviews after we make a purchase. Currently, the JSW TDI is our first choice out of what we test drove. Mazda3 2012 is the runner up (though I drove the lower MPG 2011), very tough choice. Personally, I would love to have both but we can only trade in one car right now. Impreza Hatch is no longer in the running.



Was reading on a German website the Golf VII coming out in 2013 is going to bigger continuing the size creep in all cars. Might be the right size for you then ...

Also noticed they now have a diesel version of the GTI in Germany, the GTD. Would love to have one of those as my commuting car.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 25, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> My brother just picked up a Hundai Elantra, they don't even give you a spare tire anymore, just a can of fix a flat. I guess that is how they can sell the cars so inexpensively and get the high fuel mileage(less weight). Kind of sucks if you have a blow out though....


There were many other issues I had with the Elantra but this was a deal breaker for sure. For city driving, no problem. You can quickly get a tow to a nearby station and there will likely even be someplace open on a Sunday. For a skier driving in the middle of no where on Saturday and Sunday where stations are never open on the weekend? Very bad. Don't trust fix a flat for 200 miles, thank you very little.



wa-loaf said:


> Was reading on a German website the Golf VII coming out in 2013 is going to bigger continuing the size creep in all cars. Might be the right size for you then ...


No time to wait, the time is now. I could keep saying next year every year for the rest of my life. I will re-evaluate in three years when S is due for her car to flip. By then, my car will be paid off and have good equity for a decent trade. Until then, JSW TDI is the best option.

Given what happened to the latest Jetta, I am not sure I'd want to wait for the new Golf...


----------



## Geoff (Jul 25, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Based on the specs I found, there is a bigger difference than you suggest. 67 vs 46 cubic feet of cargo (45% increase vs Golf). 14" longer may not seem like much, but splitting the difference between the two would be perfect both for my eyes and space requirements. Obviously, I am in the minority. Lack of fold flat seats definitely hurts the Golf as a cargo hauler.
> 
> 
> I'll post full reviews after we make a purchase. Currently, the JSW TDI is our first choice out of what we test drove. Mazda3 2012 is the runner up (though I drove the lower MPG 2011), very tough choice. Personally, I would love to have both but we can only trade in one car right now. Impreza Hatch is no longer in the running.



The other way of looking at this:

A Golf has 105 cubic feet of interior space.   The Jetta wagon adds 19 cubic feet.    You're just tacking 14" on the back of a Golf without changing anything forward of the rear wheels.   It shouldn't add much weight or change the balance of the car.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 26, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I'll post full reviews after we make a purchase. Currently, the JSW TDI is our first choice out of what we test drove. Mazda3 2012 is the runner up (though I drove the lower MPG 2011), very tough choice. Personally, I would love to have both but we can only trade in one car right now. Impreza Hatch is no longer in the running.


Dealer wouldn't let me pry a 2011 out of their cold dead hands for anything less than I would have paid for a 2012. Good luck to them finding a buyer for that 2011 for that price with 2012s hitting showrooms in just over a month. Fine by me, I kinda wanted a totally brand new, never driven car any ways.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 27, 2011)

Get used to it with a "high value niche" car like the Jetta Diesel. Those sell for over MSRP in some locations. They hold their value pretty well as well, so you make it up on the tail end. 

Just saying you shouldnt be expecting summer firesale prices like you would on a civics, trucks, etc that are more mainstream.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Get used to it with a "high value niche" car like the Jetta Diesel. Those sell for over MSRP in some locations. They hold their value pretty well as well, so you make it up on the tail end.
> 
> Just saying you shouldnt be expecting summer firesale prices like you would on a civics, trucks, etc that are more mainstream.


On VW forums, most people seem to report at least $1k under MSRP and many folks reported $2k under MSRP. Some folks got even better but those were outliers. These were early year and late year sales mind you. I ain't "expecting" anything. But even in demand cars in this price range loose $1000 or more in resale 2011 compared to 2012 during this time of year for the same mileage driven. If other folks are willing to sacrifice potential $1k plus in resale and pay MSRP or over, they can have at it. I'll be making a very reasonable OTD offer on a 2012 and shopping it around in a month. I can wait and get the car I want for the price I want. If a car is ever that much in demand that I can't... then I will find a different car.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 27, 2011)

Agree with Adironrider.  I believe the Jetta TDI's have had wait lists from time to time.  Unless the car you were bargaining for had significant test drive mileage, I'd imagine the dealer would probably get full price for it, even if it is pretty close to the time the 2012 comes out.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 27, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Agree with Adironrider.  I believe the Jetta TDI's have had wait lists from time to time.  Unless the car you were bargaining for had significant test drive mileage, I'd imagine the dealer would probably get full price for it, even if it is pretty close to the time the 2012 comes out.


I didn't mention the full story. The car had $1500 worth of options that I didn't want and it wasn't my preferred color. They made an offer that would have been acceptable if the specs were my preference and 2012s weren't coming out next month. My research shows that $1k under MSRP for this car is a typical negotiated price, even when the new year models get here.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 27, 2011)

I guess things have changed a bit.  I only really researched the car about a year ago when I was thinking long term towards a low mileage used vehicle to eventually replace my Hyundai with.  At the time, dealers couldn't keep the Jetta TDI wagon on the lot.

Sounds like a great ride.  Just wish diesel costs weren't so much higher than regular gas.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 27, 2011)

In my searches, I found lots of TDIs out there right now (considering the time of the year). What is scarce right now are the option models (Sunroof, Sunroof & Wheels, Sunroof/Wheels/Nav). I think WV is responding to that with 2012s by not having options and just doing three trims. Given WVs desire to grow sales big time, I bet there will be plenty of stock for 2012. 



deadheadskier said:


> Sounds like a great ride.  Just wish diesel costs weren't so much higher than regular gas.


Diesel is 40 cents higher in my area right now. And combined mileage of 38 MPG is very typical, many do better on mostly highway. Let's do the math:

30 MPG Combined at 200k miles = 6666 Gallons * $4.00/Gallon = $26,664
38 MPG Combined at 200k miles = 5263 Gallons * $4.50/Gallon = $23,683

Lots of assumptions there but I think it illustrates the key points. It is difficult to find gas vehicles that get better than 30 MPG combined excepting hybrids (which have their own issues). The new 40 MPG highway crowd typically gets low 30s combined so they might be more competitive or even equal to TDIs. If diesel remains relative to gas as they both get more expensive, the advantage continues to grow towards diesel (i.e. the higher the price of gas, the less expensive diesel seems relatively). Many TDI owners get better than 38 MPG and as a skier with a 3.5 mile commute without any lights or traffic, I expect I would get better than 40 MPG total. You also get the performance benefits and functionality of a car. Basically, I think being concerned about gas being more expensive in diesel shouldn't be a concern unless you are also looking at hybrids.

So when is Subie going to smarten up and give the USA an AWD Diesel Wagon?


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Get used to it with a "high value niche" car like the Jetta Diesel. Those sell for over MSRP in some locations. They hold their value pretty well as well, so you make it up on the tail end.
> 
> Just saying you shouldnt be expecting summer firesale prices like you would on a civics, trucks, etc that are more mainstream.





deadheadskier said:


> At the time, dealers couldn't keep the Jetta TDI wagon on the lot.


Just for some perspective on the availability of this car and late season deals, these guys have 21 JSW TDIs on their web site and are running a $1500 off MSRP sale right now. Nothing with a Sunroof, though, otherwise I'd be calling with an offer and going for a drive.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 28, 2011)

I think your being a little more picky with options, as opposed to the dealers being unreasonable. That being said, it does seem that the mania has died down a bit. My boss took a year to find his for anything under MSRP. 

And you neglect that diesels cost more to maintain, which Im sure will eat up that 3k difference over 200k, plus you are paying a several thousand dollar premium just for the diesel to begin with.Outside of the rare few, noone keeps a car and drives 200K. If you have to go that far to see a difference pretty much means you arent going to see savings. 

I would buy the base model wagon with the gas motor. 

Either way, the VDub will be much better in terms of overall driving experience that the Mazda, Civic, or anything else really in that competive set.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> I think your being a little more picky with options, as opposed to the dealers being unreasonable. That being said, it does seem that the mania has died down a bit. My boss took a year to find his for anything under MSRP.
> 
> And you neglect that diesels cost more to maintain, which Im sure will eat up that 3k difference over 200k, plus you are paying a several thousand dollar premium just for the diesel to begin with.Outside of the rare few, noone keeps a car and drives 200K. If you have to go that far to see a difference pretty much means you arent going to see savings.
> 
> ...


My first car? 204k. My second and current car? 178k. Could go to 200k and beyond easy. As long as I don't start traveling for work, my next car will be going to 200k and beyond. 

As far as cost, from what I understand diesels cost less to maintain, not more. You do pay more up front, but you get it back in the long run. Besides, the DSG is awesome and there is nothing out there that gets this type of MPG that is as fun to drive. Mazda3 is better than the TDI on back roads and turns (big part of me still wants the Mazda3) but TDI gets the nod on straight aways and highways. And the pano roof is a thing of beauty. I ain't just looking to buy because of the diesel. It is the total package, here, so the getting my money back in MPG is not critical. 

I am being picky. But if I was being that picky, I would not have even considered the one they had, no? I still don't think the dealership is going to move the car for what they offered me. I can afford to be picky considering the options I want will be at a variety of dealers in a month's time. It is all good, I don't hold anything against the dealership. I just don't think they are being realistic.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 28, 2011)

Diesels cost more to maintain. They are compression engines, as a result everything cost more as they are built to higher standards than gas engines (engine compression fires diesels, not spark plugs). Oil changes usually cost more for one. Tradeoff is that they usually go further, and sometimes longer between service intervals depending on the vehicle make and model, but not enough to offset the increased maintenance costs. 

Just because you drove a car 204k (did you put every last mile on yourself or did you buy used?) doesnt mean thats the average time most people hold onto vehicles. Id be suprised if 10% of the population drives and holds onto cars as long as you do. 

You are already paying a premium for the diesel, and if its going to take 200k to see a three thousand dollar difference, you will have already lost it in the maintenance costs and premium for the diesel. This is offset with the higher resale value somewhat, but its still a net loss. 10 years is a longgg time to see the 1k or so you might save if you are lucky and get a super reliable car. The truck world has a major hard on for diesels, but they all realize its not a money saver. Its up to you, is the extra 5mpg and boatloads of torque worth the premium? 

Just get this, the diesel is going to be more expensive than your old American made Saturn.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Its up to you, is the extra 5mpg and boatloads of torque worth the premium?
> 
> Just get this, the diesel is going to be more expensive than your old American made Saturn.


Did you even bother to read my last post? It ain't all about the diesel! It is the right car. I don't know why I even bother sometimes.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 28, 2011)

You said diesels are cheaper to maintain in your last post. My whole post referenced that comment.

Do I need to provide you a line item receipt and tell you how to relate back to comments? Your not that dumb, or maybe you are if you think gas costs are all that goes into a vehicle over 200k that could affect your bottom line. 

Dealers are not retarded. They will sell that car. Just because you didnt like the color doesnt mean the dealer was being unreasonable.


----------



## hammer (Jul 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Just because you drove a car 204k (did you put every last mile on yourself or did you buy used?) doesnt mean thats the average time most people hold onto vehicles. Id be suprised if 10% of the population drives and holds onto cars as long as you do.





riverc0il said:


> My first car? 204k. My second and current car? 178k. Could go to 200k and beyond easy. As long as I don't start traveling for work, my next car will be going to 200k and beyond.



My last 2 vehicles lasted me 178K and 190K, and one of them is doing OK as a beater car with almost 194K.  My latest vehicle purchases were made with less emphasis on reliability reputations but if they both do OK I would like to see each of them to 10 years/200K miles as well.

I have at least a few coworkers who have also kept vehicles well over 100K miles...one had his last car over 250K miles and I think he also handed it down to one of his kids.

We might still be in minority but I think you will find that more and more people will be holding onto their cars longer.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 28, 2011)

1st car was a 1988 Acura Legend I purchased off my mom in 94 with 120K miles.  I drove it to 160K miles and the transmission died. Wasn't worth the 3K repair, so sold it for nothing.

2nd car was a 1988 VW Fox, bought with 82K miles for cheap as a broke college student.  Drove it until 120K miles and I only sold it as my older brother was selling an 87 Accord to get a new car and it rode better than the VW.

So, 3rd car was that Honda.  Got it with 130K miles, drove it to 201K miles.  

Bought a 95 Ford Explorer after that with 82K miles and drove it to 199K miles.

Bought a 2000 Audi A6 after that with 78K miles, drove it to 120K miles and sold it because it was paid for, but required 3K in repairs.  I just felt it was going to start costing me more to maintain than a new car payment would be, so I got rid of it.

Bought my 2007 Sonata new after that.  I have 149K miles on it.  Car is paid for.  Unless the maintenance costs start exceeding $300/month, which was the payment, I intend on keeping it as long as she goes. 

Maybe my approach would be a bit different if I were in a different income bracket, but by everything I've read, I make above average wages.  Unless you really get great pleasure out of driving a new car, I think the smart money move is to keep the cars you buy as long as possible, provided they're still safe for the road.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 28, 2011)

My last two cars were Civics and went to 299k and 210k. Thet both treated me so well and will be missed. Three weeks ago I bought a brand new little 4wd Tacoma. I miss getting 40 plus mpg but it is so nice to drive a truck again. I'm also feeling 100 percent confident about driving through western passes during big storms.....it's pretty fun off road too!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 28, 2011)

Nice!!!

Tacoma is a great rig.  If I were in the market for a small pick up, that's exactly what I'd choose.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 28, 2011)

snoseek said:


> My last two cars were Civics and went to 299k and 210k. Thet both treated me so well and will be missed. Three weeks ago I bought a brand new little 4wd Tacoma. I miss getting 40 plus mpg but it is so nice to drive a truck again. I'm also feeling 100 percent confident about driving through western passes during big storms.....it's pretty fun off road too!





deadheadskier said:


> Nice!!!
> 
> Tacoma is a great rig.  If I were in the market for a small pick up, that's exactly what I'd choose.



I had a 98 Tacoma. Sure miss it, but just doesn't work for my family needs right now.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Nice!!!
> 
> Tacoma is a great rig.  If I were in the market for a small pick up, that's exactly what I'd choose.



It works only because It's just just enough towing capacity that I will never ever pay storage again. I travel pretty light but still fill a small storage space. Right now my shit is sitting in Denver and I'm all set with paying that bill. I'm hoping to get ten or so years unless my needs change. I slapped a healthy payment down, it will be done in less than three. 

My crappy little Civic that was completely beat to shit still got 2k at 205k! My last one @ 300k got 1000 cash! Civics seem to hold value well. I will remember that in the future...


----------



## snoseek (Jul 28, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> I had a 98 Tacoma. Sure miss it, but just doesn't work for my family needs right now.



Dude....Just tie the kids off in the back:razz:

Now driving time is quiet time


----------



## roark (Jul 28, 2011)

snoseek said:


> It works only because It's just just enough towing capacity that I will never ever pay storage again. I travel pretty light but still fill a small storage space. Right now my shit is sitting in Denver and I'm all set with paying that bill. I'm hoping to get ten or so years unless my needs change. I slapped a healthy payment down, it will be done in less than three.
> 
> My crappy little Civic that was completely beat to shit still got 2k at 205k! My last one @ 300k got 1000 cash! Civics seem to hold value well. I will remember that in the future...



my uncle sold his 89 civic for a 2K PROFIT around 96 with ~60k


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 29, 2011)

Have you arrived in Colorado Roark?

if so, how was the journey


----------



## o3jeff (Jul 29, 2011)

Do repair/parts costs vary much between american, german and asian cars?


----------



## Edd (Jul 29, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> Do repair/parts costs vary much between american, german and asian cars?



I would say my girlfriend's Audi costs more to repair than my Subaru because the repair bills were breathtaking.  However, the only thing that ever broke on the Subie in 8.5 years was the alternator belt....and the cat converter which I never repaired because I traded it in.

Her Audi had far, far, more problems.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 29, 2011)

Audis are like the red headed step child of the German marks. They wow you with styling and awesome interiors when new, then the electrics go to shit. They are 100k tops milage cars. After that sell it some early 20 something who wants to look like hes made it and can foot all the repair bills. BMW's have theyre own electrical gremlins, but are pretty minor things like the window switch doesnt operate anymore, where with an Audi the entire NAV system will short out). 

Which brings up another point. The german cars are definitely going to be the most expensive to repair, but if your willing to do most of the work yourself, the maintenance costs will be relatively comparable to the Asian and American brands. Most shops assume youve got some dough if your driving a new Bimmer around, so they gouge you. Same thing with women. I never let my girl bring a vehicle to the shop. I sent the Subaru in for new pads and she got conned into new pads, rotors, lines, and oh for some reason the catalytic converter was 'missing'. The first, last, and only time I will let her take car of automotive stuff. 

Brakes are brakes, and while there might be small premium when buying the parts for a German car, they are usually better quality Bosch stuff or what have you. People get scared about working on vehicles, but its really incredibly simple. Theres a reason the retard you knew in high school is now the local mechanic, its not difficult at all. 

(Ive built up and restored four e30 series BMW's, 2x Golf GTI's, and more time that I would care to admit under my buddies 90's Mercedes Turbo Diesel ... needless to say Im a bit of a gearhead)


----------



## JimG. (Jul 30, 2011)

Just picked up my brand new 2011 Legacy 2.5i premium with the all weather package.

And a 6-speed.

It's nice.


----------



## andrec10 (Jul 30, 2011)

JimG. said:


> Just picked up my brand new 2011 Legacy 2.5i premium with the all weather package.
> 
> And a 6-speed.
> 
> It's nice.



How do you like it? I am getting a 2011 Outback Premium CVT with AWP in a few weeks. Did you get it at Mid-Hudson or Ruges?


----------



## roark (Jul 30, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Have you arrived in Colorado Roark?
> 
> if so, how was the journey



In Lincoln NE tonight, Denver tomorrow. Nice to eat in a decent restaurant and not some damn chain. Wow do I hate the turnpikes. IL>IA>NE is marginally better. Looking forward to leaving the car parked for a month.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 31, 2011)

having to eat at chain restaurants is my one major gripe about long distance trips.  I've never gone west long distance outside of New England to Columbus, OH.  I've done the New England to Florida trip about ten times though.  Typically end up eating garbage.   Though the last few times I've made the trip, I broke it into 3 days instead of 2.  I stop in Richmond, VA on the way down and hang for a night in Shockoe Bottom. Then 2nd day go as far as Charleston or Savannah for a night.  Leaves a short 5-6 hours on the for day 3 to get to my folks place in Sarasota.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 31, 2011)

roark said:


> In Lincoln NE tonight, Denver tomorrow. Nice to eat in a decent restaurant and not some damn chain. Wow do I hate the turnpikes. IL>IA>NE is marginally better. Looking forward to leaving the car parked for a month.



Right about now you're probably catching that first view of the mountains over the plains. After that drive those are the most beautiful mountains ever!


----------



## JimG. (Aug 1, 2011)

andrec10 said:


> How do you like it? I am getting a 2011 Outback Premium CVT with AWP in a few weeks. Did you get it at Mid-Hudson or Ruges?



Got it at mid-Hudson.

I love the new car...deliberately got the 2.5 4 cyl and 6-speed to get good mileage. Didn't even realize that the PZEV technology is standard on Subarus now. 

Picked the car up last Thursday and I've been driving it all over the place and I'm still at 1/3 tank from the dealership fill up. Close to 400 miles on the first tank and still counting.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 1, 2011)

Unless you drive a 1/4 of the way across the country ... IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!!! 

That John Denver is full of shit.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 7, 2011)

Just signed on the line for a 2012 JSW TDI w/DSG, Sunroof, and Protection Package.

Turns out 2011s are really not as scarce as the first dealership would have had me believe. I found two other 2011s in New England (limited to my color preferences, I am sure there are more) including one with sunroof and one with nav. On the one with Nav, I got an offer of about $1000 less than the original dealership that I originally wrote about trying to take me. Still didn't bite at that very good offer as I didn't want to pay extra for the nav. Almost went one for another 2011'er but the dealer was being flaky with trade in values and I didn't care for the run around. Dealership today were straight shooters. Good deal for both parties and I get the exact spec and color I want fresh off the truck with barely more than a mile on it. Gotta wait a month though. Would have been cheaper for a 2011 but not enough to justify the instant deprecation of 11 vs 12 and not getting my top color preference. I'm very happy with how things played out.

New vs Used: we've always had used before. I've been lucky, S not so much. New is a little less of a gamble than used. Both are a gamble but at least with new, you know that you are only gambling on the factory rather than factory plus previous ownership.

But that really isn't worth the premium. New is a massive premium and you need to justify it in terms of wanting to pay more for the novelty. New only pays off if you trade up in 2.5 years and keeping upping (continuous payment but never complete depreciation) or driving it into the ground. I'll do one of the two.


----------



## o3jeff (Aug 8, 2011)

Congrats, can't wait to to see your review after you've put some miles on it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 8, 2011)

congrats Steve.

Curious

Why the DSG instead of the Manual?


----------



## Edd (Aug 8, 2011)

Sick ride.  Congrats and good luck with it.


----------



## o3jeff (Aug 8, 2011)

I really don't see why a lot of you insist on a manual trans, I have a 5 speed sequential shift in the Acura and got to really play with it some on some twisty back roads the other weekend and the paddle shifts were quick and precise and then the plus was sitting in traffic on 95 I didn't have to worry about shifting and clutching thru a half hour of traffic.

I can see it being helpful on underpowered cars, but any car with some power I don't see a need if it has a good sequential/DSG/etc. auto.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 8, 2011)

just personal preference

The only car with paddle shifters I've driven is my mother's Lexus IS 350.  I still prefer the standard manual of our Mazda3 over it.  

I had thought I had read rivercoil preferring manual transmissions, but I could be mistaken.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> just personal preference
> 
> The only car with paddle shifters I've driven is my mother's Lexus IS 350.  I still prefer the standard manual of our Mazda3 over it.
> 
> I had thought I had read rivercoil preferring manual transmissions, but I could be mistaken.



I have DSG on my VW GTI.   I had owned manual transmission cars exclusively from 1974 to 1998 and my first 2001 GTI had a 6-speed.   DSG is way faster than I can ever shift.   That's why the F1 cars have it.

I also used to have cars that didn't have:   Air conditioning, power windows, remote power locks, power sunroof, power rear tailgate/hatch release, power assisted disc brakes, power steering, Xenon headlights, LED turn signal indicators in the side mirrors, tilt/telescopic steering wheel, heated seats, heated mirrors, turbocharger...

I supposed I could go back to my 1972 Ford Maverick with a 3-on-the-tree manual transmission, drum brakes, manual everything, and mighty 87 horsepower 200" inline 6 engine but why would I want to?


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 8, 2011)

Did I say it had anything to do with shifting speed or performance? No.  I said it had to do with personal preference.  I find the standard manual transmission on our Mazda3 more fun to drive than I do driving the Lexus that I've driven with the paddle shifters. 

Fact is that 95% of the market prefers a slushbox automatic over a manual as it is. 

There are people out there that would prefer to drive a 68 Mustang over 2012 Porche 911.  Technology isn't embraced the same by everyone.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why the DSG instead of the Manual?


I don't drive stick. My room mate in college showed me once. I couldn't be bothered. The DSG is pretty sick. Better than the manual mode on the Mazda3 and Elantra I tried.


----------



## Nick (Aug 8, 2011)

I hate,  hate,  hate automatic transmission.  I will never buy one.  That said I could see a paddle shifter being ok on the right vehicle,  but that is the exception.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 8, 2011)

I test drove a 2011 Outback with the paddle shifters. On top of the fact that I think Subaru made a BIG mistake making the Outback less car and more SUV, I didn't like the paddles. To me, that's a version of manual shifting for dummies. Sorry, just my opinion. 

Sure it's quicker since there is no clutch. So, it's not a manual tranny. Now if my car was an F1 machine, I might think differently.

All I know is that after 10 years of driving automatics to cater to my wife's occasional need to drive my car, I am one smiling and happy driver using my left foot again and changing gears with a real shifter.


----------



## o3jeff (Aug 18, 2011)

Chevy getting in the diesel car game.

http://www.torquenews.com/106/gm-shooting-50mpg-chevy-cruze-diesel


----------



## Glenn (Aug 19, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> Chevy getting in the diesel car game.
> 
> http://www.torquenews.com/106/gm-shooting-50mpg-chevy-cruze-diesel



I think it's cool that Chevy is putting a diesel in one of their smaller cars. It'll be interesting to see how that shakes out with mileage. The Cruze Eco already gets about 40mpg with the gasoline engine.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 19, 2011)

Interesting- I just ran quick numbers to compare a gas to a diesel engine- which is "better" depends entirely on why you're buying it- if it's for environmental purposes or to reduce dependence on foreign oil, then gasoline is better. If it's to save money, then diesel is better. So, you have to ask yourself, are you a selfish terrorist-supporting anti-nature greedy bastard? If so, buy a diesel. Are you a peace, love, and happiness tree hugging new age hipster doofus? If so, buy a gas engine.

Based on the EPA's calcs of 19.4 lbs of CO2/gal of gas and 22.2 lbs/gal for diesel, and average monthly prices since January 2009 of midgrade reformulated retail gasoline of $3.02 and US No 2 Ultra Low Sulfur retail diesel of $2.98 (both #s from the EIA), I calculated the table below- read as "If you have a diesel engine that gets 30 mpg, you produce the same CO2 as a 26.2 mpg gas engine, or the same cost as a 20.26 mpg engine." 
MPG Equivalents		
Diesel	Gas CO2	Gas Cost
20	17.5	20.26
30	26.2	30.4
40	35	40.5
50	43.7	50.67
60	52.8	60.8

Also, based on the Texas Oil and Gas Association's review of average refinery outputs, you get 19.5 gallons of gas and 9.2 gallons of diesel (which also includes heating oil) from a barrel of oil. So not only are you diesel drivers killing the planet and supporting terrorists, you're also using up Grandma's heating oil in the winter. I hope you're happy when she suffocates on smog. At least she won't be killed by an IED, and she won't freeze again this winter.


/portions of this posting represent editorial comments not intended to reflect the actual positions of the author. All rights reserved. All math errors are the result of a public school education and a lack of parental support early in life.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 19, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Interesting- I just ran quick numbers to compare a gas to a diesel engine- which is "better" depends entirely on why you're buying it- if it's for environmental purposes or to reduce dependence on foreign oil, then gasoline is better. If it's to save money, then diesel is better. So, you have to ask yourself, are you a selfish terrorist-supporting anti-nature greedy bastard? If so, buy a diesel. Are you a peace, love, and happiness tree hugging new age hipster doofus? If so, buy a gas engine.
> 
> Based on the EPA's calcs of 19.4 lbs of CO2/gal of gas and 22.2 lbs/gal for diesel, and average monthly prices since January 2009 of midgrade reformulated retail gasoline of $3.02 and US No 2 Ultra Low Sulfur retail diesel of $2.98 (both #s from the EIA), I calculated the table below- read as "If you have a diesel engine that gets 30 mpg, you produce the same CO2 as a 26.2 mpg gas engine, or the same cost as a 20.26 mpg engine."
> MPG Equivalents
> ...



Your numbers are inappropriate.   Diesel fuel contains 30% more energy than gasoline.   More or less, you get 30% better MPG with diesel than gasoline.   The polution numbers and consumption numbers you care about need to be measured in units per mile, not units per gallon.   If you drive a mile on diesel, you produce less CO2 than driving a mile in the same car with a gasoline engine.

If most cars were diesel and we converted all our homes from home heating oil to natural gas (where we have near-infinite domestic supply), we'd import far less oil.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 19, 2011)

Geoff said:


> Your numbers are inappropriate.   Diesel fuel contains 30% more energy than gasoline.   More or less, you get 30% better MPG with diesel than gasoline.   The polution numbers and consumption numbers you care about need to be measured in units per mile, not units per gallon.   If you drive a mile on diesel, you produce less CO2 than driving a mile in the same car with a gasoline engine.
> 
> If most cars were diesel and we converted all our homes from home heating oil to natural gas (where we have near-infinite domestic supply), we'd import far less oil.



You're wrong. If you have a 50 MPG gas engine and a 50 MPG diesel engine, you will produce 0.444 pounds of CO2 per mile with the diesel engine, and 0.388 pounds per mile with the gas engine. The diesel engine produces more CO2 per mile than an equivalently rated gas engine. Diesel produces 14% more CO2 per gallon burned than gas (not to mention particulates).

It is true that a diesel engine produces more power (or at least torque) than an equivalently sized gas engine, but if you're trying to decide between two cars with equivalent MPG ratings and you're interested in reducing your carbon footprint, the gas engine appears to be the way to go.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 19, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> You're wrong. If you have a 50 MPG gas engine and a 50 MPG diesel engine, you will produce 0.444 pounds of CO2 per mile with the diesel engine, and 0.388 pounds per mile with the gas engine. The diesel engine produces more CO2 per mile than an equivalently rated gas engine. Diesel produces 14% more CO2 per gallon burned than gas (not to mention particulates).
> 
> It is true that a diesel engine produces more power (or at least torque) than an equivalently sized gas engine, but if you're trying to decide between two cars with equivalent MPG ratings and you're interested in reducing your carbon footprint, the gas engine appears to be the way to go.



Please explain how you can put a 50 mpg gasoline engine in the same car that sees 50 mpg with a diesel engine.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 19, 2011)

Geoff said:


> Please explain how you can put a 50 mpg gasoline engine in the same car that sees 50 mpg with a diesel engine.



You can have two similar cars with the same mileage but different engines- go to the EPA's website and compare for yourself- http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm

A 34 MPG Passat with a diesel engine produces 0.652 pounds of CO2/mile, while a 33 MPG Elantra with a gas engine produces 0.588 pounds per mile. The 33 MPG gas powered Elantra is better from a CO2 standpoint.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 19, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> You can have two similar cars with the same mileage but different engines- go to the EPA's website and compare for yourself- http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm
> 
> A 34 MPG Passat with a diesel engine produces 0.652 pounds of CO2/mile, while a 33 MPG Elantra with a gas engine produces 0.588 pounds per mile. The 33 MPG gas powered Elantra is better from a CO2 standpoint.



You  didn't answer the question.

Take the SAME car.   Power it with a diesel engine.   Then power it with a gasoline engine.   What is the different in MPG?


----------



## Geoff (Aug 19, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> You can have two similar cars with the same mileage but different engines- go to the EPA's website and compare for yourself- http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm
> 
> A 34 MPG Passat with a diesel engine produces 0.652 pounds of CO2/mile, while a 33 MPG Elantra with a gas engine produces 0.588 pounds per mile. The 33 MPG gas powered Elantra is better from a CO2 standpoint.



Also, this is a completely rediculous comparison.   An Elantra weighs 2661 pounds.   A Passat weighs 3200 pounds.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 19, 2011)

Geoff said:


> You  didn't answer the question.
> 
> Take the SAME car.   Power it with a diesel engine.   Then power it with a gasoline engine.   What is the different in MPG?



That's not the question I posed. My assertion is that for two cars with similar MPG ratings, the gas engine is a better environmental choice. Period.

To your point, sure, if you have the same car with two different engines (now hold on, I know this may come as a major surprise), they get different MPG ratings. For, say, a 2012 VW Jetta, the diesel shows as 34 MPG, and the gas engine as 27. Not surprisingly, at that spread, the diesel is better. Shocking, I know. However, though there's a 26% difference in MPG, there's only a 9% difference in CO2.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 19, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> That's not the question I posed. My assertion is that for two cars with similar MPG ratings, the gas engine is a better environmental choice. Period.
> 
> To your point, sure, if you have the same car with two different engines (now hold on, I know this may come as a major surprise), they get different MPG ratings. For, say, a 2012 VW Jetta, the diesel shows as 34 MPG, and the gas engine as 27. Not surprisingly, at that spread, the diesel is better. Shocking, I know. However, though there's a 26% difference in MPG, there's only a 9% difference in CO2.


And they don't have the same power or weight. The 2.5L has 30HP up on the diesel and 150lbs down. The 2.0L is old, and not really a good comparison. Heck, it's still a SOHC.

The gas engine is VW's performance engine, the diesel the economy engine. Apples and oranges.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 19, 2011)

Cten is correct, diesels by the gallon pollute more than gas. But diesels use less gallons so therefore have less total pollution.

Don't forget that when comparing diesel to gas that the gas EPA estimates for 40 MPG cars are often ceilings or even over estimates and city MPG is dramatically worse. Diesel EPA estimates are often lower than real world and combined is much higher as well. At least this is true for TDI engines. Same car but gas vs diesel is going to be a lot less pollution in comparison than Ctens 9% calculation based on EPA est.

Interesting that both GM and Mazda are going with diesel options. Diesel has the benefit of power over hybrids and comparable gas engines. Seems like a no brainer to offer diesel for folks interested in a combo of both good MPG and performance (and good performance as defined as "good" not great or excellent but certainly better than average or poor in most econoboxes and without sacrificing top fuel performance. That clarification is for mondeo  ).


----------



## mondeo (Aug 19, 2011)

The VW TDI has a compression ratio of 16.5:1. This gives  a cycle efficiency of 55%. A gas engine with a compression ratio has a cycle efficiency of 48%, a 14% benefit.

This is the only benefit diesel inherently has over gas. Additional weight for the TDI Jetta is 5% of the total vehicle weight compared to the more powerful 2.5L I5, and 11% compared to the old 2.0L I5, with automatics. The difference is larger with manuals.  Just with weight, you've eliminated all but 3% of the benefit. So you get what would be a 40 mpg car and up it to 41.5mpg equivalent. For a $4K increase on base vehicle cost. Anything other difference in efficiency is due to different design philosophy or technology insertion. For the state of the art, gas engines are in a better position with the adoption of direct injection, which took away diesel's remaining advantage in terms of throttling losses. Diesels would need to catch up to variable valve timing to level the playing field.

Most people should go back to having about 1hp/30lb. People tend to get scared when they accelerate at faster than 0.1g, which takes about 50hp at 60mph in a 3000lb car. I have no clue how someone justifys buying a V6 Camry. The power race in plebian cars is absolutely insane. People always say they want decent performance, but they never use it.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 19, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I have no clue how someone justifys buying a V6 Camry. The power race in plebian cars is absolutely insane. People always say they want decent performance, but they never use it.


We can certainly agree on this. The amount of family cars that will never likely get driven barely more than the speed limit with massive high HP engines has boggled my mind for some time.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2011)

:lol:

you guys are pickin' on me. :lol:

Substitute Sonata for Camery and that's me.  I test drove the 4 Cylander and then 6 Cylander when I bought my car.  It was a no brainer to get the V6.  Do I use that extra horsepower often? Not super often, but definitely everyday. I want my car to have the most usable HP possible for a number reasons.

My 65 year old father and mother are the same way.  My mom test drove the Lexus IS 250  with the 206HP engine and then the 350 with the 306 HP engine and it was a no brainer for her to buy the car with the greater HP.  My dad test drove his Hyundai Genesis V6 at 333 HP and the V8 at 385 and it was a no brainer for him to buy the V8. 

I, and my folks aren't 'performance car' people, but we do want the version of the car we drive to be able to perform at it's maximum stock capability.  and be reliable

Question at Mike.  You say the gas engine in the VW is the performance engine and the diesel is the Economy.  In what way?  The greater horsepower and lighter weight gas engine generates far less torque, but pretty much the same acceleratoin numbers as the heavier, lesser horsepower diesel.  

Also, if the diesel engine is the Econo engine, then why does the diesel model cost 4 grand more to buy?


----------



## mondeo (Aug 20, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Question at Mike. You say the gas engine in the VW is the performance engine and the diesel is the Economy. In what way? The greater horsepower and lighter weight gas engine generates far less torque, but pretty much the same acceleratoin numbers as the heavier, lesser horsepower diesel.
> 
> Also, if the diesel engine is the Econo engine, then why does the diesel model cost 4 grand more to buy?


At least it's a Hyundai. I think Toyotas temporarily castrate anyone who gets in the driver's seat. There are 3 cars I dread seeing in front of me entering a highway ramp more than all others: minivans (count 'em all as one, they're all the same,) Outbacks, and Camrys.

I'm not sure what's going on with the acceleration figures, but they can be misleading. For example, the current WRX has a quicker 0-60 time than the STI. Reason being the STI shifts into 3rd at around 55mph, the WRX only has a 5 speed. Fundamentally, when you actually go through the physics, torque doesn't matter in acceleration. It's power that matters. The only reason people talk about torque is that it's an indicator of low-end power. I'd certainly expect there to be more than 0.5s difference to 60, but I really don't pay much attention to VWs because I consider them to be crap in general. Come to think of it, VW's the only compny I know of that hasn't produced an engine held in high regard. Dodge-Hemi, Ford - Coyote/Ecotec/Ecoboost, Chevy - small block V8, Nissan - VQ, BMW - any I6, Subaru - EJ257, Toyota - 2ZZ-GE, etc. VW - nothing.

At the 34mpg vs 27mpg levels, the TDI would pay itself off in about 9 years at 15K/year. Plus it allows VW to market it as a fuel efficient choice, and lure in people that don't do the math and figure out that they'd be better off with the 2L.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> At the 34mpg vs 27mpg levels, the TDI would pay itself off in about 9 years at 15K/year. Plus it allows VW to market it as a fuel efficient choice, and lure in people that don't do the math and figure out that they'd be better off with the 2L.


But the problem with your reasoning is most people get 34 MPG combined at a bare minimum and most do much much better (also the Golf). The only people getting 34 MPG combined with TDI engines are folks driving mostly in cities who would have been better off getting a hybrid for all the stop and go. Those that report driving mostly highways usually have real world combined in the high 30s at least, many report the EPA highway as their actual real world combined. A lot depends on how you drive it but EPA estimates on the TDIs are notoriously lower than real world from my readings online.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Come to think of it, VW's the only compny I know of that hasn't produced an engine held in high regard. Dodge-Hemi, Ford - Coyote/Ecotec/Ecoboost, Chevy - small block V8, Nissan - VQ, BMW - any I6, Subaru - EJ257, Toyota - 2ZZ-GE, etc. VW - nothing.
> .




http://paultan.org/2007/05/10/international-engine-of-the-year-2007-results/

I see 2 VW engines on this list from 2007.   I have the 2007 2.0L turbo in my car:
1. BMW 3-litre Twin Turbo (335i) 395
2. Volkswagen 1.4-litre FSI (TSI) (VW Golf, Touran, Jetta) 259
3. Porsche 3.6-litre Turbo (911 Turbo) 252
4. BMW 5-litre V10 (M5, M6) 241
5. Volkswagen/Audi 2-litre Turbo FSI 154
6. BMW-PSA 1.6-litre Turbo (Cooper S, Peugeot 207) 135
7. BMW 2.5-litre 6-cylinder (325, 525, Z4, X3) 58
8. Toyota 1-litre 3-cylinder (Aygo, Yaris/Echo/Vitz, Citroen C1, Peugeot 107) 56


Here's Ward's.   Lots of VW-Audi engines here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward's_10_Best_Engines


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> There are 3 cars I dread seeing in front of me entering a highway ramp more than all others: minivans (count 'em all as one, they're all the same,) *Outbacks*, and Camrys.



Hey, I'm going as fast as I can push my 4cyl! It's that damn minivan in front of me ...


----------



## mondeo (Aug 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> But the problem with your reasoning is most people get 34 MPG combined at a bare minimum and most do much much better (also the Golf). The only people getting 34 MPG combined with TDI engines are folks driving mostly in cities who would have been better off getting a hybrid for all the stop and go. Those that report driving mostly highways usually have real world combined in the high 30s at least, many report the EPA highway as their actual real world combined. A lot depends on how you drive it but EPA estimates on the TDIs are notoriously lower than real world from my readings online.


The 2.5L gets better than EPA estimates, too. And those drivers aren't trying as hard to get good mileage like those that get a diesel are. The EPA estimates for any car where someone is reporting mileage are lower than actually achieved, because the people actually tracking mileage are the ones driving in such a way that they overachieve.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> The 2.5L gets better than EPA estimates, too. And those drivers aren't trying as hard to get good mileage like those that get a diesel are. The EPA estimates for any car where someone is reporting mileage are lower than actually achieved, because the people actually tracking mileage are the ones driving in such a way that they overachieve.



There's a lot to this.   People who buy diesels and hybrids are far more likely to be hypermilers.

I saw 21 mpg out of my V8 SUV on a KMart trip last fall.   My tire pressure gauge was screwed up and I'd overinflated the tires by accident.   The air temp was about 50F which is probably about optimal for the mix of wind resistance and engine performance.   I had the cruise control set at the speed limit the whole way and didn't hit any traffic.   My more typical mileage is 17 mpg and 16 mpg when it's subzero.

I usually do my part by running red lights and stop signs.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> The EPA estimates for any car where someone is reporting mileage are lower than actually achieved,


Not true. While researching the Elantra, I found the overwhelming majority of drivers were not getting 40 MPG highway (by significant variances). Online publications (independent resources that removes the self selection issues regarding MPG reporting online) that beat highway EPA on TDI models reported getting less than EPA on the Elantra. This is just one example, I am sure there are many others.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Not true. While researching the Elantra, I found the overwhelming majority of drivers were not getting 40 MPG highway (by significant variances). Online publications (independent resources that removes the self selection issues regarding MPG reporting online) that beat highway EPA on TDI models reported getting less than EPA on the Elantra. This is just one example, I am sure there are many others.


 True. Because Mustangs and Corvettes are the opposite, often higher than EPA. So my two anecdotes beat your one anecdote.

The EPA has a set means for testing mileage. Variance from EPA is solely due to driving style and specific use case.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 20, 2011)

mondeo said:


> True. Because Mustangs and Corvettes are the opposite, often higher than EPA. So my two anecdotes beat your one anecdote.
> 
> The EPA has a set means for testing mileage. Variance from EPA is solely due to driving style and specific use case.


You are a piss ant, lol. You proposed an absolute truth. I did not rebut by proposing an opposing opposite absolute truth but merely only evidence that your absolute position was false. 

EPA tests are conducted by the manufacturers with very small percentages verified officially (less than 10% as I understand). Perhaps the methodology is standardized but it is hard to believe it is a perfect system. Variances both significantly above and below EPA estimates are reported on a wide range of cars. 

What the F? It needs to snow.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> You are a piss ant, lol. You proposed an absolute truth. I did not rebut by proposing an opposing opposite absolute truth but merely only evidence that your absolute position was false.
> 
> EPA tests are conducted by the manufacturers with very small percentages verified officially (less than 10% as I understand). Perhaps the methodology is standardized but it is hard to believe it is a perfect system. Variances both significantly above and below EPA estimates are reported on a wide range of cars.
> 
> What the F? It needs to snow.


Sorry, forgot what I'd written. But the Elantra seems to be the exception, not the rule. Even STIs, 'Vettes, Mustangs, etc. seem to get better than EPA mileage when it's reported by owners, and they'll typically get driven harder than the EPA guidlines. I know that, except for the phases where I just drove the thing hard, my old Cougar got upper 20s combined and 33 when it was in heavy highway driving mode, significantly better than EPA estimates which would now be lower. My STI, when I've paid attention to it, gets around the EPA estimate, and I drive it hard.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 21, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Sorry, forgot what I'd written. But the Elantra seems to be the exception, not the rule. Even STIs, 'Vettes, Mustangs, etc. seem to get better than EPA mileage when it's reported by owners, and they'll typically get driven harder than the EPA guidlines. I know that, except for the phases where I just drove the thing hard, my old Cougar got upper 20s combined and 33 when it was in heavy highway driving mode, significantly better than EPA estimates which would now be lower. My STI, when I've paid attention to it, gets around the EPA estimate, and I drive it hard.



The revised EPA numbers take into account things like driving in cold temperatures, the fact that just about all drivers exceed the speed limit, and rapid accelleration.   For most cars, if you're driving the speed limit in warm temperatures and take it easy with the throttle, you're going to beat the EPA estimate.

I'll bet that few cars going skiing when it's -10F see anything like the EPA number.   It's cold.   You're speeding.   You're probably driving aggressively.   You have extra weight in the car.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 23, 2011)

Geoff said:


> The revised EPA numbers take into account things like driving in cold temperatures, the fact that just about all drivers exceed the speed limit, and rapid accelleration.   For most cars, if you're driving the speed limit in warm temperatures and take it easy with the throttle, you're going to beat the EPA estimate.
> 
> I'll bet that few cars going skiing when it's -10F see anything like the EPA number.   It's cold.   You're speeding.   You're probably driving aggressively.   You have extra weight in the car.




I get exactly in the middle of my city and highway ratings in my Nissan Frontier in the winter time here in Wyoming when it averages 5 degrees for our average low temps. I get right at 18 with daily use of 4x4. Summer time it ups to 22-24 which is substantially over the ratings of 15/19 respectively. These are my combined figures averaged out over 40+k miles that Ive driven the truck so far. Lifetime average is 21.1, and keep in mind the average low even in July in August out here is barely above 40 degrees, so Im pretty much commuting to work every day in the sumemr time in your average temps for the entire winter. Worse in the winter. Higher elevation though so the wind resistance is less. 

I will admit the natural driving tendencies of most of the population out here is to drive the speed limit so that helps, but I wouldnt say that most people are getting below their combined figure even in the winter time, especially back east where most driving to ski areas is highway or county highway (45-55mph speed limits).

If anything its that damn ethanol gas. My mpg drops by at least 1 mpg, more like 2 or 3 when I fill up with that crap. Luckily the local gas station is still one of the few holdouts nationwide that doesnt put any ethanol in their fuel. So that helps my milage as well.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 23, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> I get exactly in the middle of my city and highway ratings in my Nissan Frontier in the winter time here in Wyoming when it averages 5 degrees for our average low temps. I get right at 18 with daily use of 4x4. Summer time it ups to 22-24 which is substantially over the ratings of 15/19 respectively. These are my combined figures averaged out over 40+k miles that Ive driven the truck so far. Lifetime average is 21.1, and keep in mind the average low even in July in August out here is barely above 40 degrees, so Im pretty much commuting to work every day in the sumemr time in your average temps for the entire winter. Worse in the winter. Higher elevation though so the wind resistance is less.
> 
> I will admit the natural driving tendencies of most of the population out here is to drive the speed limit so that helps, but I wouldnt say that most people are getting below their combined figure even in the winter time, especially back east where most driving to ski areas is highway or county highway (45-55mph speed limits).
> 
> If anything its that damn ethanol gas. My mpg drops by at least 1 mpg, more like 2 or 3 when I fill up with that crap. Luckily the local gas station is still one of the few holdouts nationwide that doesnt put any ethanol in their fuel. So that helps my milage as well.



The rest of us have to burn that crap ethanol fuel all the time.   As you say, it causes a substantial MPG hit and is also part of the revised EPA numbers.

You also don't drive in traffic.   I'll bet many of the cubicle dwellers here face a lot of stop & go.

I live in Killington in the winter.   The average temps in the winter aren't anything like 40F.


As they say, YMMV


----------



## hammer (Aug 23, 2011)

What's the difference between summer and winter gas?  I'm getting a few MPG better right now than I usually do in the winter...don't remember the reasons why.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 23, 2011)

Geoff said:


> The rest of us have to burn that crap ethanol fuel all the time.   As you say, it causes a substantial MPG hit and is also part of the revised EPA numbers.
> 
> You also don't drive in traffic.   I'll bet many of the cubicle dwellers here face a lot of stop & go.
> 
> ...




Ask anyone who has driven through Jackson WY and they will tell you I deal with plenty of stop and go, just as much if not more so than when I lived back east. 4 million people drive through here yearly as tourists. My town has a population of 12-14k year round residents and has 1 multi lane road going through the county. Stop and Go is a nightmare out here. It takes me 30 minutes to drive 8 miles into town. 

As for temps, sure Killington proper comes close, but the average Killington skier isnt starting and stopping their vehicles from Killington most of the time (you are definitely above average with a ski house, and a Porsche and a Merc as your daily rides, so hold the hogwash for me). Heres the avg temps for JAckson, Killington, and lets use my old hometown of Exeter (inland suburban Northeast, typical NE skier abode town) as another variable. See where the average temps lie and where you do most of your driving. 

Killington - http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/05751

Jackson - http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/vacationplanner/vacationclimatology/monthly/USWY0088

Exeter - http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/vacationplanner/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/03833

Needless to say, my drive is in substantially lower temps, even compared to Killington, let along the typical place the average NE skier lives consistently year round. 

So yeah Geoff, I think my point stands. I average 2mpg over the highway rating (under the new rules) and have never gotten below 18 combined, in much colder temps, in plenty of stop and go. Whats YMMV mean again?


----------



## Geoff (Aug 23, 2011)

hammer said:


> What's the difference between summer and winter gas?  I'm getting a few MPG better right now than I usually do in the winter...don't remember the reasons why.



Air density and the impact of aerodynamic drag is the main reason your mileage goes to hell in the winter.   The warmer it is and the more humid it is, the less dense the air.   The change in aerodynamic drag is about 2% for every 10 degrees F.

Summer fuel has most of the butane removed so doesn't vaporize as well as winter fuel.   The idea is to prevent gasoline from evaporating out of your tank on a hot summer day.   The difference in energy in the fuel is only about 2%.    

The bigger deal in engine efficiency is that at cold temperatures and a cold engine, the fuel doesn't vaporize as well so it burns less efficiently in the engine.  If you do a lot of short drives where the car doesn't fully warm up, your MPG will get much worse in the winter.   On long drives where the engine is warmed up, you won't see it as much.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 23, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> ...the average Killington skier isnt starting and stopping their vehicles from Killington most of the time (you are definitely above average with a ski house, and a Porsche and a Merc as your daily rides, so hold the hogwash for me).




Those are my rides. I don't have a ski house


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 23, 2011)

Woops my bad. Disregard.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 23, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Woops my bad. Disregard.



I have a Merc but that would be a "Mercury" version of an Exploder.   I also have a back Porsche built out of pressure treated pine.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 23, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I have a Merc but that would be a "Mercury" version of an Exploder.   I also have a back Porsche built out of pressure treated pine.



I laughed. Took me a second to get "back Porsche."

Well played, sir. Well played, indeed.


----------



## hammer (Aug 23, 2011)

Geoff said:


> Air density and the impact of aerodynamic drag is the main reason your mileage goes to hell in the winter.   The warmer it is and the more humid it is, the less dense the air.   The change in aerodynamic drag is about 2% for every 10 degrees F.
> 
> Summer fuel has most of the butane removed so doesn't vaporize as well as winter fuel.   The idea is to prevent gasoline from evaporating out of your tank on a hot summer day.   The difference in energy in the fuel is only about 2%.
> 
> The bigger deal in engine efficiency is that at cold temperatures and a cold engine, the fuel doesn't vaporize as well so it burns less efficiently in the engine.  If you do a lot of short drives where the car doesn't fully warm up, your MPG will get much worse in the winter.   On long drives where the engine is warmed up, you won't see it as much.


Thanks for the info...forgot about the impact of air density.

If I remember my physics correctly the amount of drag is proportional to the square of the velocity, so I'd think that keeping the speed down also has a lot to do with mileage.  Good thing I don't care too much about MPGs...;-)


----------



## mondeo (Aug 24, 2011)

hammer said:


> Thanks for the info...forgot about the impact of air density.
> 
> If I remember my physics correctly the amount of drag is proportional to the square of the velocity, so I'd think that keeping the speed down also has a lot to do with mileage. Good thing I don't care too much about MPGs...;-)


D=Cd*A*1/2*rho*V^2, rho=P/(Rbar*T)

Offsetting the drag is engine efficiency. The engine is more efficient at moderate-high power outputs and decent speeds, so there's a sweet spot where drag isn't huge but the engine has become decently efficient. Usually around 60mph. Either side of that speed for a bit won't be that bad, but once you start hitting 80 it's gonna get ugly. Obviously varies from car to car.


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 1, 2011)

Oops: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111201/CARNEWS/111209995


----------



## mlctvt (Dec 1, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Oops: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111201/CARNEWS/111209995



Word on the Subaru forums is Subaru switched suppliers for the Brake Master Cylinder after the Japan earthquake/flood.


----------



## hammer (Dec 2, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Oops: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111201/CARNEWS/111209995


My biggest complaint on my 1998 Subaru was the brake pedal travel.  Thought they would have fixed that by now.


----------



## bobbutts (Dec 2, 2011)

I'm driving a '11 Legacy.. Brake pedal travel is not an issue, it actually surprised me recently how responsive it is after driving some other cars and coming back to it.  Also fixed is the low MPG and road/engine noise.  Performance is only mediocre, but the pleasant drive/ride makes up for it.


----------



## o3jeff (Dec 2, 2011)

My 09 Wranglers pedal could be pushed to the floor pretty easily, especially noticed it when at a light. When I brought it in to the dealer that said it was normal and showed me a couple brand new Wranglers on the lot and they all did it. I found it odd, almost felt like air in the lines to me.


----------

