
PeterJ
Members-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
PeterJ's Achievements
Newbie (1/14)
0
Reputation
-
This car, at least in the higher trim, looks more than acceptable in person. I was very pleasantly surprised seeing it at the local auto show compared to what I was expecting. It seems to come across quite a bit more awkwardly in photos. The debut photos last September, showing the Versa in its most base trim with wheel covers and ultra-bland beige interior, were perplexing to say the least. What was Nissan thinking there? I see The Car Connection is still using those pictures in today's review. As a commuter car that could double for occasional freeway duty with a weekend full of gear, the Versa passes the eyeball test. I'm a little underwhelmed by the EPA ratings, since initially Nissan was saying 38MPG combined for the CVT based on their testing. Perhaps in real world driving it will in fact be closer to 38MPG...I tend to get 2-4 MPG better than sticker in most every car I've owned. This one is still on my radar screen...good balance of features, performance and price.
-
LMAO! Yeah, you'd expect a German car to hold it's liqour a little better than that wouldn't you? As has was pointed out, nothing there ULSD and advanced emissions technology can't take care of.
-
Just a little further down 169 actually...Clements. They also carry Chevrolet and Nissan as well. I work with their internet/fleet managers (Ralph and Jan) who are superb and very down-to-earth. I've sent several family members and friends there. Most recently my 'bro bought a loaded, manual Jetta TDI which he used to replace a pick-up for a 100/mile round trip commute. Not a week goes by where he doesn't tell me how much he loves that car...he saves something like $170-190/month in fuel costs and has a lifetime average of 49MPG. It's his main ride so he was perfectly fine with spending ~$25.5K for something that has luxury amenities with the fuel efficiency of a motorcycle. If you drive it that distance, the fuel savings essentially subsidize the car payment . Running up the miles (especially 90% interstate) is really inconsequential for a diesel engine. Most of the VW sales people I've come in contact with in the Twin Cities embody what everyone loves-to-hate about VW in general...the whole "yuppier-than-thou-and-you'll-pay-a-premium-for-it" attitude. Actually I spoke out of turn about the Schmelz price...22K is about right for a completely loaded TDI with tiptronic. I forget that transmission is about a $1300 option. But the guy I spoke with yesterday (Schmelz was his last name actually) still had the 'tude thoughout our whole conversation that really turned me off. Still not going to pay retail for a seven year old platform with a soft-serve suspension and the wrong transmission. I love diesels regardless and the prospect of energy independence even more...but to overpay for these things is the equivalent of trading multiple day-one picts to draft a QB that probably would have been there in round 5, if you get my meaning.
-
x3! VW will be back in the diesel game eventually after a little hiatus. We'll probably see a common-rail diesel Rabbit in the 2008 or 2009 model year. By that time, I'm pretty sure VW will have some company in the compact diesel market from D/C (with the Caliber) if not a couple others. There is some scuttlebutt about the EPA regulations being relaxed to the extent they may be able to offer the existing PD TDI a little longer than expected but I'm not counting on it. I'm currently looking into finding one of the last '06 Golf TDIs but so far it looks like the only ones left are automatic and the dealer I've talked to (Schmeltz in the Twin Cities) is quoting me at $22K. Well, they can kiss my rosy red a$$ with that attitude. Fortunately I have an outstate dealer that I've purchased from (and sent four other people to) so we'll see what we can do....$19K is my ceiling for an old model with the wrong kind of transmission.
-
If they were driving the five speed manual, you'd almost have to drive it like a complete idiot (which I have no doubt C&D editors are capable of) to get only 36 mpg combined. I think they now offer either a six-speed tiptronic or DSG as the automatic option now which keeps the numbers even closer to a manual. I know at least a dozen TDI owners and lurk around a lot at TDIclub.com...I don't know a single person who has done that poorly in combined real-world mileage. 36MPG is more like the efficiency floor with this engine. W/ a diesel (manual at least) you short shift and let the immediate and prodigious torque do its thing. You do not wind them out like a V-tech. For what they lack in 0-60 acceleration they MORE than make-up in mid-range pick-up, overall flexibility and a V8 like demeanor at interstate speeds. 0-60 as a key measure is highly overrated if you look at how you use your vehicle in about 98% of real-world situations. On top of all this, the 1.9PD TDI is about as close to the pinnacle of modern diesel technology an early 90's Vulcan V6 from Ford is to the pinnacle of modern V6's today.
-
Whah, whah, whah, whahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...... See all the possibilities you get with the change over to Rabbit? Final pricing will be interesting, for sure. I'm basing presumptions on the version that was badged as a Golf on the autoshow circuit...Reg (and CMattson if you're out there) I'm sure you saw the blue Golf in Mpls next to the new GTI. It appeared from the sticker on that one that it essentially had everything the Jetta VE has with some additional flexibility in options (esp. for someone like me who considers a sunroof necessary equipment!) Maybe $16500 out the door is a little optimistic but I'm thinking (hoping?) it will be within a grand of that. I'd be surprised if they decontented in any significant way from the Jetta and/or the Golf on the autoshow circuit...but I could be wrong. I think the awesome pricing comes down to the fact VW isn't currently ready with a Polo-sized vehicle yet along with the perception that hatchbacks = cheap. When they are ready with a B-segment car, they can bump the Rabbit, GTI and Jetta up in price and eventually size as the Passat has now become a $30K+ vehicle for all intents and purposes. It also would present some interesting possibilities for the Rabbit down the line, such as GT or GT Diesel versions when VW is ready with their common rail engines in another couple of years. The Rabbit is actually quite a bit larger than the outgoing Golf. That 2.5 won't challenge the efficiency of a Fit, Yaris or Versa and it won't rev like Mazda's 2.3. But it seems now that a lot of people have broken their new Jettas in I'm seeing "real life" mileage reports of 25ish in the city and up to 34-35 on the highway with the 2.5 which is perfectly acceptable for what is practically a small mid-size car now.
-
As far as I can tell, there are going to be no essential equipment downgrades on the Rabbit versus the Jetta. Same compliment of standard features you'd find on the Jetta Value Edition which starts at nearly $3000 higher. Plus with the Golf, you can get heated seats and a sunroof as options, which I don't believe you can with the Jetta VE. I have not been a really big fan of the new Jetta...not because there's anything essentially wrong with it but rather because it seemed very overpriced...continuing VW's trend of making every car significantly more expensive with each generation. That issue was somewhat mitigated by bringing the VE on the scene, but not enough IMO. A $15K Rabbit, on the other hand, is an ABSURD bargain. Keep in mind that with VW you get all the essentials...including top-notch safety equipment/crashworthiness...as standard features. So because Americans supposedly still hate hatchbacks (despite about a 5 year running trend that demonstrates the opposite), we get an arguably better looking and more useful version of the Jetta in the Rabbit at a $3000 discount. Sounds like a hell of a deal to me! Loaded with standard features plus sunroof, heated seats, stability control and satellite radio, a manual transmission Rabbit should come in around $17K retail (so probably more like $16-16.5K in the real world). Again, an absurd bargain. Despite the more somber look the new Jetta is a vastly improved car over the previous version so I'd fully expect the Rabbit to be the same...they're mechanically twins. It's sort of the alter-ego of the Mazda3 but I have to say these two cars are at the top of my shopping list for this summer. The Rabbit name seems to be getting very mixed reactions out there. Whether this car bears much resemblance to the original "MK1" is beside the point...I think it gives VW a platform from which to actually market the car a little. They sold something like 15,000 Golfs last year vs. over 100K Jettas. When's the last time you saw a Golf commercial on TV, billboard or print? I also think they did a superb job with the badge...no name to be found, just a Rabbit badge on the tail end next to the badge for engine displacement. Nice.
-
I don't know what it was about that power plant in your Prism and Corollas of that generation, but I agree. I had a Corolla as a rental on a couple occasions and that engine was breathless on the highway. My wife used to have a '92 Corolla...I think that had all of 105 HP...and somehow it felt a lot stronger. No hemi mind you but plenty adequate w/ a stick. Goes to show you how thoroughly I looked at the Honda display...missed the Fit on the floor. That was really the only Honda I was interested in looking at so I didn't gravitate too far from the turntable. I'd probably be more interested in the Versa than the Sentra for the same price range...for me, that fifth door is what makes any B or C sized car work But the plus for the Versa is that it should come in anywhere from $2-4000 less than a Sentra comparably equipped and from what you hear it may be as large or larger than the Sentra inside. Everything I've read says about $15,500 loaded. I was surprised with that one...comes across a lot better in person than pictures.
-
Hey Reg, I went to the Minneapolis Autoshow...twice. The only Fit at the show was up on a rotating platform with all the doors closed. So I'm curious how you were able to form such a STRONG impression about it without being able to actually sit in it or touch anything. My $.02 about the cars in this segment...I was actually pleasantly surprised at how the Fit came across in person. Didn't care at all for the color they showed it in, but other than that, it looked far better than I expected it to based on pictures. It is definitely narrow, but other than that the height and hatch area make it look like something you could carry four people and a decent amount of luggage in. I'm not a Honda-guy by any stretch but the Fit went from something I had zero interest in to a car I'll probably test-drive, based on a 15 foot away view of it. Since we're also talking about competitors in this segment, I was likewise pleasantly surprised by how the Nissan Versa looked. Like the Fit, this was also up on a platform but at least they had the driver and passenger door open. Compared to the Fit, it looks more like a C segment car and is definitely playing to a more mature audience. It looks to be the size of a Golf III from the outside but looked very roomy in the interior. They had two Yaris' on the floor, the hatch and the sedan. I'd agree with Reg that these are very well-executed, like the Scions...but they just aren't my thing. Center instruments are a deal-killer for me on anything but a Mini. Stupid deal-killer maybe, but it is what it is. Also, I'm looking for a five-door hatch and the Yaris offers nothing there. Personally, I thought the Yaris and new Hyundai Accent felt very comparable...in fact I'd get the Accent between the two based on styling and a normal instrument panel, alone. Agreed on the exterior and interior (especially) of the new Aveo. Very well done. Can't wait to see the 5-door and wish it were available for me to check out this summer. No thanks to the current one. As for C-segment cars that you might cross-shop w/ the Fit and others...the Caliber fell off my list based on the auto show experience. In many ways its a great piece and has a lot of nice touches. I think it will do very, very well for Dodge. But for me, the styling doesn't do it (totally subjective) and I also thought the interior was very cramped. The fastback styling takes away a lot of headroom and cargo space...even the leg room was really tight in the back. I thought they did a pretty mediocre job of packaging for a brand new design. I'd bet $100 the Fit will feel more comfortable just sitting in it on a much smaller footprint. I really liked the Golf V and was already sold on the Mazda 3. It's gonna be fun shopping in June! Final thought...ya all have to remember that these C-segment cars run about 2500 lbs. or less. 110 or so HP is going to be plenty to motivate these cars for their purpose, which is to serve as a commuter car for one or two adults or an an adult/child...in the city about 90% of the time. As another poster said, all those people in the 90's (and the 80's) survived just fine in cars with far less safety equipment and in many cases about 20-30 ft lbs less of HP and torque. Not every 4 cylinder engine is as lifeless as the Toyota unit in Reg's old Prism. Plus, there's more to driving fun than straight-line acceleration. My family had an Omni GLH back in the 80s w/ about 100 hp...never found that to be anything other than fun.
-
I saw one at a local dealer last night and was overall impressed. Surprisingly, I was quite a bit more impressed with the interior than I expected to be and somewhat less impressed with the exterior. First of all on the outside, I thought the Caliber had sort of a retro PT Cruiser/HHR feel to it, where in photos I thought it looked modern. As for the interior, which a lot of people have voiced problems with, I thought it was actually very good. If you have no problems with the Magnum/Charger and 300 (like I do) you're going to like the Caliber just fine...the feel is very, very similar to the larger Dodges. The example I saw was an SXT with the color inserts on the interior...not perfectly executed IMO, but a nice upgrade none the less. For the time I got to sit in it, the interior seemed a little more tight than I expected. I'd definitely echo Reg's comments that the cargo space isn't outstanding for a hatch but that's the price you pay for the fastback look as with the Magnum. Fortunately for me, this is exactly in the class of vehicles I'll be looking at when shopping this spring/summer. Not sure if it will be at the top of the list when it's said & done, but regardless this is bound to be a very big hit for Dodge and will help to solidify the resurgence of hatchbacks. I have yet to read a review of this car that isn't either positive or glowingly positive.
-
Well the article and thread are gone now so there's no way to refute your take objectively, whether the interest is there or not. But I stand 100% by everything I've said in this thread. And there are many ways to be sensationalist. Again, if you can't see that then you're simply more interested in being right than in being accurate.
-
I don't know what's more lame. The red herring of an article or the people lining up to make excuses for it. Clearly the whole tone and tenor of both the article and the discussion which ensued for four pages created the impression that the Outlook was in serious jeapordy. And Josh took absolutely zero responsibility for putting that conversation back on track until he was told to by GM...or perhaps he just realized what an embarassment this had become for him, since we're all about speculation here. If you can't see that for cheap sensationalism then you have no sense of judgement.
-
Josh, I'd think long and hard about standing by your decisions and actions today if I were you. Because frankly this has been a very bad day for this web-site and you've got a serious credibility/maturity gap to make up. Even your retraction is lacking.
-
Just like its absurd to presume hybrids will save the world, it's going too far to say the concept is useless. I'm very interested to see what the new Camry hybrid and VUE greenline do in the real world. In both cases, you're taking an already efficient (but powerful enough for a real car) 4-cylinder engine and augmenting it to be more efficient in city/suburban rush hour situations that a lot of vehicles spend the majority time operating in. In the case of the BAS system GM is using, I'm especially hopeful, b/c this is far less expensive and complex. So called performance hybrids like this Accord (and the Lexus RX, Toyota Highlander, etc...) are a complete ruse. I'm worried the hybrid system in the upcoming GM trucks is going to fall in this category too. This type of application should immediately be disqualified for any tax incentives too. In fact, I think this is an area where they ought to just let the market do its thing entirely. The most frustrating thing to me is that the discussion seems to be all or nothing with any of these approaches, whether it's hybrids, E85, diesel or some combination. If you live in Minnesota, E85 is viable b/c it's relatively cheap and available. If you need to tow or drive a lot of highway miles, nothing makes more sense than a modern diesel engine. If you're 80% or more in city traffic, an effective hybrid set-up would be perfect. Here's hoping govt., consumers and the manufacturers aren't so myopic that the right mix of approaches fails to evolve.