anti Touareg sentiment

Never driven a tdi in typical driving conditions, not the pretend race
track?

(Steve Grauman) wrote:

>>And to be fair, my wife's jetta wagon is a 1.8t. A 2.0 or TDI would've
>>been more practica
>
>Don't feel bad, the 1.8T and 2.0 actually get more or less identicle gas
>mileage, that's one of the reasons the 1.8T is such a great engine. Only the
>TDi would've been more fuel effcient, and it's understandable why you wouldn't
>want that slug to drive everyday.
>Steve Grauman


Jim B.

There are all kinds of cool diesels in Europe. An aquitance drives a 5
series BMW diesel which she describes as fast. 0-62 mph in 6.6 seconds
I would enjoy that.

(Steve Grauman) wrote:

>>0-60 in 9 sec. in a car that also gets 65 MPG (Cdn) gets my heart racing.
>
>There's certainly something said for economy, but that's a little ridiculous.
>The Toureag TDi V10 is amazing, great gas mileage, awesome torque and 0-60 in
>under 8 seconds. But it's also $55k. And no other Deisel I know of can match
>it's performance.
>Steve Grauman


Jim B.

Rob Guenther wrote:
> If you're talking about me specifically, or generalizing me with these
> "young guys who read car buff mags"

JH wrote:
>>0-60 times are only a big deal to young guys that read lots of car buff
>>magazines, but have actually owned few vehicles and have limited driving
>>experience.
>>
>>Lots of talk...little connection to real world driving.

Not you Rob...Stevie Boy is the obvious example here.

--
JH

I bought a new car I could afford the payments on in 2003. The last
new car I bought before that was in 1987 and I still use it. I look
forward to the day when I am done paying on the car so I can buy a 6
year old diesel truck. Why pay new retail on a vehicle that I use for
6,000 miles a year? Currently a 6 year old truck with low miles
(100,000 that is) is about a third of a new truck. A real truck that
can pull 10,000 lbs and haul 6 people and still get 15 mpg or better
when just toting the driver around. Yes I grew up riding in Polaras,
Furys, Grand Furys and such. They did get 13-15 mpg with Magnum
engines. Big as a pickup but low to the ground for better mileage.
Heck back then the pickups were lower to the ground. I bet if they
designed pickups now that had 15" wheels and 8" of ground clearance
they could get another 1-2 mpg. I don't need 400 hp of diesel or
whatever the heck the truck makers are shooting for. I use a truck to
haul stuff, not race.

"Tony Bad" > wrote:

>
>"JH" > wrote in message
...
>> Pete LaFlamme wrote:
>> > I leased one for myself
>>
>> > If you read the messages at this site I don't think many of the posters are
>> > in a position to acquire a $40,000+ vehicle.....yet.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Does anyone else see the extreme humor in those lines.
>>
>> "leased one"
>>
>> The classic way the auto industry gets folks you can't really afford a
>> vehicle into it...
>>
>> Sorta like "rent to own"
>>
>> Amazing how many $40,000+ vehicles are parked outside cheap rental
>> housing...
>>
>
>There is quite a bit of irony in Pete's post. I always thought of leasing the
>way JH indicates. It allows you to drive a car you really can't afford to own.
>Not a bad deal, but it means you are fowever making payments. Most modern cars
>will go a minimum of 100,000 miles with few issues if properly maintained. That
>means after the payments stop, I have 4 or 5 years free from that burden. I like
>that.
>
>If one does a google search, I came up with one offer of $0 down, and $439 a
>month. Not too bad, especially if someone lives at home with mom and dad. I see
>plenty of young people in my area driving fancy cars. They probably have few or
>no other financial obligations, and sink most of their money in a car.
>
>Hey, I bought a 79 Rabbit with my life savings in 1979, the year I finished high
>school...so I understand the pursuit of luxury! (;^P) Of course, I didn't have
>to give it back after 3 years, and drove it daily for the next 20.


Jim B.

>There are all kinds of cool diesels in Europe. An aquitance drives a 5
>series BMW diesel which she describes as fast. 0-62 mph in 6.6 seconds
>I would enjoy that.

CAR magazine tested out the new 530D at 7.3, but that's still quite quick. I'd
like to drive one too, but Audi, MB and BMW have long since made the decision
to stop offering powerful diesels in the U.S.
Steve Grauman

>Not you Rob...Stevie Boy is the obvious example here.
>

If you guys are happy driving a car that can't break 10 seconds to 60, that's
fine. But I'm used to driving cars that do it in under 7, and any small or
medium sized sedan that can't feels VERY slow to me. I've driven more cars in
the last 5 years than the vast majority of adults drive in their entire lives,
and nobody goes from something quick to something not (like a TDi) without
missing the power at least a little. So, J.H., you can kiss my ass. =)
Steve Grauman

>I don't need 400 hp of diesel or
>whatever the heck the truck makers are shooting for. I use a truck to
>haul stuff, not race.

Ford's Powerstroke equipped F-250 and F-250 series trucks move REALLY well, are
quite (as far as diesel trucks go), have amazing torque, get good gas mileage
(by truck standards) and last. They can had on the used market for a steal,
even fully equipped Lariat models can be had for under $20k. This is the type
of Diesel vehicle that truly lives up to realisitic expectations of both
performance and economy.
Steve Grauman

>Ford's Powerstroke equipped F-250 and F-250

Sorry, that should be F-250 and F-350.

>are
>quite

And that should be *quiet*.
Steve Grauman

Well just for fun, how about you list every car you have driven and
why in the last 5 years. Also list every car you have owned in your
life. I personally drive cars as a neccesity. It used to be fun but I
drive over 35,000 miles a year so it is just another job.

My list:

66 Beetle 1977-78 Neighbor lady dropped valve. new head and piston.
First car. Flapping running boards and all.

67 Beetle. 1978-85 California car 2 years in Ohio does a lot of damage
but still solid. No seat back and noisy tranny. $350 Painted

70 Nova. 1978 Stayed in Family for another 10 years. Would not idle.
Mechanic said it was messed up. Turn idle screw in the whole way and
out 2 turns. Purrs like a kitten. Great beater for $100.

66 Squareback 1981-86 Georgia car my buddy bought. Got it after it was
rear ended. Straightened back end and painted. Scary to drive with
extreme oversteer. Painted

80 Rabbit 1984-94. Death by telephone pole.

78 Toyota pickup. 85-97 Traded 67 Beetle for it. Fixed caved in
drivers side. Used as a manure truck after I got a new Toyota. Rusted
away.

87 Toyota One Ton. First new vehicle. Still in service.

84 GTI. 94-04 Replaced dead 80 Rabbit. Stripped from junkyard.
Replaced interior, painted, general repairs. 2L Audi engine and other
performance work.

2003 Jetta TDI wagon.

Most of the cars saw a 100,000 miles or more of additional driving. 87
Toyota has 257k, 84 had 287k, 80 had over 200k, 78 had 160k, 67 had
over 200k, 03 has 60k I have driven over 700,000 miles that I can
easily account for. It is a job of sorts, both the time doing it and
the time keeping up vehicles.

No I cannot brag I have owned a lot of cars or a lot of fast cars. The
67 Beetle and the 84 GTI used to get a lot of positive comments. The
Jetta wagon even get positive comments. I just dirve them a lot till I
get tired of them. I spend my money on other things like buying tools
or fixing up the homestead. Land is a much better investment that
daily driver new cars.

Oh, cars I have driven.
78 Fox, a few 944s, 914, 67 Karmen Ghia Convertable, Mustang GT
convertible, 68 Camero, 67 Fury, 75 Gran Fury, K cars, omni/horizon,
78 Rabbit diesel, M series, C series, 72 Polara CHP with 440 and
manual steering. Civic csi,
Focus, Cavalier, other rental cars. Dump trucks, box vans, GMC public
transportation busses,

Ok that was an effort in futility trying to remember cars driven. I
have been driving for 27 years. The fast V8s like the M series, the
Mustang, the Camero, the Polara are the coolest. The roar of a 4
barrel for the old cars (Mustang and M are FI) is far more fun than a
turbo spooling up. Power is just there.

If you had to know, the diesel dump truck and the public
transportation busses are not all that quick accelerating.

So what are all these cars that you drive that are sub 7 second and
where are you going in 7 seconds?

(Steve Grauman) wrote:

>>Not you Rob...Stevie Boy is the obvious example here.
>>
>
>If you guys are happy driving a car that can't break 10 seconds to 60, that's
>fine. But I'm used to driving cars that do it in under 7, and any small or
>medium sized sedan that can't feels VERY slow to me. I've driven more cars in
>the last 5 years than the vast majority of adults drive in their entire lives,
>and nobody goes from something quick to something not (like a TDi) without
>missing the power at least a little. So, J.H., you can kiss my ass. =)
>Steve Grauman


Jim B.

> Add into the frey the number of older sedans on the road, and the
> SUVs start to look even more competant.

Again you on with the angle of trying to justify that an SUV doesn't suck
because it's "less worse" than old vehicles. They're still miserable on all
fronts when compared to other current automobiles.

> While this is true (on average), it has nothing to do with how safe they
are.
> If you're going to argue with me, at least argue the correct topic.

As I weighed in initially the horrible fuel consumption on the Touareg was
THE deciding factor against purchasing one.

> >have
> >greater risk of rollover caused by their inherent instability due to
height,
>
> This is something that gets to be less of a problem as time goes by.

What? How about just not driving vehicles that are rididculously unstable?
There's no need to over-engineer anything if the problem doesn't exist in
the first place.

> You can't ever make an SUV completely roll-over proof

> The XC90, for instance, has a really amazing roll-over protection system
> that works quite well.

Given it's a essentially a 4WD station wagon and it's from volvo that's not
a surpise.

> >greatly risk the lives of other motorists in accidents
>
> My GTi got nailed by a Chrysler, and as a result was sent flying sideways
at
> 60+ MPH into a big-rig. Not only did I not have a scratch on me, the car
was in
> repariable condition. And even her 6 year old Chrysler, which went UNDER
the
> truck, was safe enough to keep her alive. Modern cars are VERY safe,
especially VWs.

And your point? The GTi is a fine auto but that it's from the same mfg
doesn't mean the Touareg is anywhere near as safe for it's occupants or
other drivers.

> I don't ever find it difficult to drive behind or next to SUVs. If you
give
> them the extra room they need,

Why should efforts be taken to given them anything? They waste fuel and
cause visibility problems for other more responsible motorists. If they're
not on the road they're not a problem.