The Car Thread ... !

[Alphazoid]

Turns out my wheels were intrinsically damaged but was covered up with paint when Lexus sold my car to me. (so much for approved used). Anyway, after investigation, they apologised and agreed to do a complete refurb of the wheels.

They referred me to an Aston Martin dealership who gave me a Jaguar XE for the week whilst it gets done.

Seems like the 2.0L Diesel (180hp) in Portfolio trim...so around 37k

Not a bad car, i can see why people like it here. Driving dynamic is pretty good. Grippy RWD and driving position is excellent. Interior whilst nice could be nicer. Also needs Apple CarPlay. The new diesel engine is probably one of the best out there, minimal tractor noise and silent when cruising. Gets about 44-51mpg depending on how heavy footed you are. Petrol is still the way to go though if buying one imho

It is my first time driving a Jag (granted a baby Jag), and i was more impressed than i thought i’d be.

 

[A.Goldberg]

How do manufacturer's lease specials work? They are typically for stripped base models which I don't want. If I get a loaded version, is the new lease payment proportionally higher, based on the increased retail price? (Or are the special terms off the table)

That tends to be the case. Typicallly the resale on options isn’t as great and they can market a car with an enticing price that no one really wants to buy.

 

[Huntn]

Turns out my wheels were intrinsically damaged but was covered up with paint when Lexus sold my car to me. (so much for approved used). Anyway, after investigation, they apologised and agreed to do a complete refurb of the wheels.

They referred me to an Aston Martin dealership who gave me a Jaguar XE for the week whilst it gets done.

Seems like the 2.0L Diesel (180hp) in Portfolio trim...so around 37k

Not a bad car, i can see why people like it here. Driving dynamic is pretty good. Grippy RWD and driving position is excellent. Interior whilst nice could be nicer. Also needs Apple CarPlay. The new diesel engine is probably one of the best out there, minimal tractor noise and silent when cruising. Gets about 44-51mpg depending on how heavy footed you are. Petrol is still the way to go though if buying one imho

It is my first time driving a Jag (granted a baby Jag), and i was more impressed than i thought i’d be.

View attachment 746036

44-51 mpg sounds incredible good. Is this a hybrid?

 

[D.T.]

That tends to be the case. Typically the resale on options isn’t as great and they can market a car with an enticing price that no one really wants to buy.

Had the exact thing happen back when we leased our X5, they had a "special" running, we wanted an additional package, assumed the $3500 or so would just calculate into the same lease offer, but nope. It was $100/month higher (we did eventually get a much better deal).

44-51 mpg sounds incredible good. Is this a hybrid?

The model he mentioned this this:

• 20d AWD
  Ingenium 2.0 Liter 4 Cylinder 180HP Turbocharged Diesel AWD - All Wheel Drive

• Top Speed: 120mph³
• 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds
• Highway Fuel Economy: 40 mpg²

So estimates 40MPG on the highway, pushing 50 seems a little optimistic though

 

[A.Goldberg]

I believe Mercedes-Benz has shown a preview of the new G-Class SUV just a few days ago. It's probably still based quite a bit on the old model but there may be accommodations to eventually support an all-electric drivetrain (per M-B's practice now with new and future models).

There’s been interior pics floating around for some time now, the exterior pics just recently revealed. I’m glad they’ve stuck with the traditional styling. Considering the amount of driving I do and the insane resale they have, I’ve considered the G550 option. The current models resale is insane.

I doubt we’ll see an e-G-Wagon. It’s not really fitting with the heritage of the vehicle, which is rather basic, utilitarian, and certainly not a class leader in technology. Besides, I’m not sure if you’ve ever looked under the hood, but there’s not a lot of room (its amazing they can fit a V8 in there considering how tight it is and the original engines were 4cyl military vehicles with no features (ac, power steering), etc. I suppose it could be possible with with a small 6-cyl engine and the trunk shrunk to accommodate some batteries.

If anyone one could figure it out, I’m sure it would be Mercedes. But there’s really not a lot of space in those things. Despite their large appearance they’re actually not very big. In fact their width is literally the same as a Ford Focus. I assume the G-class is a cash for Mercedes. It’s been around for decades, received essentially few updates, and most of the updates are just recycled parts and technology for older, low end Mercedes. I doubt they’d make an electric version anytime before they can offer a mainstream electric car and SUV. The G-remains a niche vehicle and their price tag correlates more to exclusivity more than anything. There are much better cars out there that excel in just sbout every category (features, luxury quality, performance, practicality, comfort, technology, etc). The only thing it reslly has going for it is resale, asthetics (assumfing you like it), and stock front/rear locking diffs.

 

[Huntn]

Had the exact thing happen back when we leased our X5, they had a "special" running, we wanted an additional package, assumed the $3500 or so would just calculate into the same lease offer, but nope. It was $100/month higher (we did eventually get a much better deal).



The model he mentioned this this:

• 20d AWD
  Ingenium 2.0 Liter 4 Cylinder 180HP Turbocharged Diesel AWD - All Wheel Drive

• Top Speed: 120mph³
• 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds
• Highway Fuel Economy: 40 mpg²

So estimates 40MPG on the highway, pushing 50 seems a little optimistic though

My Fiat 500 (a small car) gets 43mpg on highway when conditions are right.

 

[Alphazoid]

44-51 mpg sounds incredible good. Is this a hybrid?

The model he mentioned this this:

• 20d AWD
  Ingenium 2.0 Liter 4 Cylinder 180HP Turbocharged Diesel AWD - All Wheel Drive

• Top Speed: 120mph³
• 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds
• Highway Fuel Economy: 40 mpg²

which seSo estimates 40MPG on the highway, pushing 50 seems a little optimistic though

Diesel. Currently, i'm getting 43.7mpg Combined with Dynamic Mode always on and Start/Stop off. Would get more in Normal or even Eco mode. But i like having a responsive drivetrain.

 

[senseless]

That tends to be the case. Typicallly the resale on options isn’t as great and they can market a car with an enticing price that no one really wants to buy.

Well then, leasing doesn't appeal to me. Especially with an additional 3% lease sales tax in Pennsylvania and then the "acquisition fee" and "disposition fee" and whatever else there is!

 

[Huntn]

Diesel. Currently, i'm getting 43.7mpg Combined with Dynamic Mode always on and Start/Stop off. Would get more in Normal or even Eco mode. But i like having a responsive drivetrain.

View attachment 746276

Is it turbocharged for fuel economy? My son has a Chevy Cruz like that and he was getting over 30mpg which I thought was good for a 4 door mid size car.

 

[A.Goldberg]

Well then, leasing doesn't appeal to me. Especially with an additional 3% lease sales tax in Pennsylvania and then the "acquisition fee" and "disposition fee" and whatever else there is!

I think it generally depends on how much you’re driving, if you have the need to drive a new car every few years, and the model car your shopping for. Some brands do much better lease deals than others.

Generally speaking I think you’re better off buying CPO.

 

[Alphazoid]

Is it turbocharged for fuel economy? My son has a Chevy Cruz like that and he was getting over 30mpg which I thought was good for a 4 door mid size car.

Its does have a turbo

 

[senseless]

I think it generally depends on how much you’re driving, if you have the need to drive a new car every few years, and the model car your shopping for. Some brands do much better lease deals than others.

Generally speaking I think you’re better off buying CPO.

I think people delude themselves that they’re getting a better deal by leasing. Or they think it’s 1985 and cars still fall apart at 50,000 miles.

 

[D.T.]

Well then, leasing doesn't appeal to me.

Well, you can still shop a deal on the car itself (it's still a "purchase" mechanism, you can still get your $6K discount, etc.), and also shopping a rate on the lease. In my scenario above, while the "lease deal" wasn't applicable, and a simple current lease rates + price was $100 more, we wound up shopping vehicles/rates and our preferred car wound up being $22 more a month (vs. the special on the model without the sport package).

I think people delude themselves that they’re getting a better deal by leasing. Or they think it’s 1985 and cars still fall apart at 50,000 miles.

There's not really anything delusion if you're shopping smart and you value certain things - a lease can make a ton of sense.

Here's my scenario/perks/drivers for considering a lease:

- The current model (i.e., MY18/new) as it has a couple of major technical advantages
- Can order specific model/color/options
- Usage is low miles
- All service/maintenance to be covered
- No hassle end-of-use process, hand over keys, done
- Fixed costs

Even though some of those are applicable to CPO cars, that status varies a decent amount across brands (making it a little trickier to cross shop vs. the more-or-less consistent warranties within a normal lease duration), and if you've resigned yourself that part of your "living costs" are car related, a lease is just a different mechanism.

 

[Huntn]

Its does have a turbo

I think I had the mis-impression that turbochargers could be designed for power or for fuel economy. Turbocharging increases power, so that a smaller, more fuel efficient engine can be used with the same performance. So I was wondering if they can be tuned for one or the other? This article seems to say it can be either.
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos

So if you drive normally you’ll get the better gas mileage, but if you stomp the gas, you’ll get performance with a loss of economy, but that is how it is with all cars, turbo chargers or not.

I’m still wondering if turbocharger placed on the smaller engine for fuel economy functions any differently than a turbocharger put on a larger engine with the emphasis on power?

 

[D.T.]

I’m still wondering if turbocharger placed on the smaller engine for fuel economy functions any differently than a turbocharger put on a larger engine with the emphasis on power?

It's not really to "add economy" it's to provide "economic power"

It's more of a dramatic on-demand power design. It also allows for a performance vs. non-performance variation of the same displacement engine, improve EOS for manufacturers.

 

[Strelok]

I think I had the mis-impression that turbochargers could be designed for power or for fuel economy. Turbocharging increases power, so that a smaller, more fuel efficient engine can be used with the same performance. So I was wondering if they can be tuned for one or the other? This article seems to say it can be either.
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos

So if you drive normally you’ll get the better gas mileage, but if you stomp the gas, you’ll get performance with a loss of economy, but that is how it is with all cars, turbo chargers or not.

I’m still wondering if turbocharger placed on the smaller engine for fuel economy functions any differently than a turbocharger put on a larger engine with the emphasis on power?

The thing with turbochargers is that they get much higher ratings in EPA and other tests, so it isn't uncommon to find that your turbocharged car gets worse fuel economy than advertised. I've generally been close to the ratings since I usually drive in a normal way, but every now and then when I stomp on the gas a bit more it gets pretty bad.

 

[D.T.]

An interesting thing about economy/MPG is where the lack of power can negatively impact effective MPG. For example: high weights, towing, etc., I've seen lower MPG engine options actually equal, and in a few cases exceed the higher MPG option because the former, has to work less, as loads increase.

 

[BarracksSi]

An interesting thing about economy/MPG is where the lack of power can negatively impact effective MPG. For example: high weights, towing, etc., I've seen lower MPG engine options actually equal, and in a few cases exceed the higher MPG option because the former, has to work less, as loads increase.

Video proof of this in action, produced by the always scientifically-rigorous Top Gear:

[doublepost=1515688018][/doublepost](skimmed back a few pages now that I'm in this thread, too)

I feel like 100 pages or so ago we had a guy on here talking about how great Tesla is. I still contend once the major auto makers build all electric versions of their popular models (Electric BMW 3 series, Electric VW Golf), Tesla is going to have their hands full.

Absolutely.

Tesla's problems at the moment are in correctly fabricating everything besides the battery and motors. Panel misalignments, dumb things like malfunctioning mirror housings, etc. Longtime manufacturers have known how to take care of these parts of the car.

There's no doubt that Tesla was a kick in the pants and helped get things going towards all-electric vehicles (and with great thanks to the designer who made the Model S look futuristic, familiar, and beautiful, all at the same time). But the other manufacturers have a lot of institutional knowledge that'll prove to be valuable for the rest of the chassis.

 

[44267547]

The thing with turbochargers is that they get much higher ratings in EPA and other tests, so it isn't uncommon to find that your turbocharged car gets worse fuel economy than advertised. I've generally been close to the ratings since I usually drive in a normal way, but every now and then when I stomp on the gas a bit more it gets pretty bad.

You're correct. My 2017 ford SHO surprisingly has abysmal gas mileage. I wouldn't say I am a heavy accelerator at all times, but it's hard not to want to drive this car Fast, because it's intoxicatingly to hear the Turbo blow offs as it is. (And its Livernois tuned.) And its a reminder the gas mileage isn't good when I only put 91 octane inside my vehicle and I see the receipt for it. But I also have to add, I drive in Sport mode a lot, which does likely have an affect on the gas mileage.

Out of curiosity, do you have a turbo-charged vehicle or what vehicle are you referring to in your post?

 

[Strelok]

You're correct. My 2017 ford SHO surprisingly has abysmal gas mileage. I wouldn't say I am a heavy accelerator at all times, but it's hard not to want to drive this car, because it's fast as it is. (And its Livernois tuned.) And its a reminder the gas mileage isn't good when I only put 91 octane inside my vehicle and I see the receipt for it. But I also have to add, I drive in Sport mode a lot, which does likely have an affect on the gas mileage.

Out of curiosity, do you have a turbo-charged vehicle or what vehicle are you referring to in your post?

Yeah I have an MK6 Golf GTI. My mpg has generally been in the mid 20’s, although I hit low 30’s when I drove from California to Florida last summer. The worst I’ve personally gotten was around 20mpg, these are all averages over an entire gas tank. So it’s been pretty good for me, but my parents have turbo charged cars as well and they never really get great gas mileage.

 

[44267547]

Yeah I have an MK6 Golf GTI. My mpg has generally been in the mid 20’s, although I hit low 30’s when I drove from California to Florida last summer. The worst I’ve personally gotten was around 20mpg, these are all averages over an entire gas tank. So it’s been pretty good for me, but my parents have turbo charged cars as well and they never really get great gas mileage.

I like where turbocharged vehicles are today in the sense of how much power they produce in these four/six-cylinder engines, which is fairly impressive compared to where vehicles were 10 years ago.

In Comparison, the 2017 Mustang eco-boost turbo charged 2.4-cylinder produces 310 hp compared to a 2007 4.0 V6 Mustang that produces 210 hp.

 

[D.T.]

The thing with turbochargers is that they get much higher ratings in EPA and other tests, so it isn't uncommon to find that your turbocharged car gets worse fuel economy than advertised. I've generally been close to the ratings since I usually drive in a normal way, but every now and then when I stomp on the gas a bit more it gets pretty bad.

Yep, turbo designs tend to have more radical extremes between driving in "eco mode" vs. all out performance.

There are/were a few countries where fees/tax were based on displacement - Japan comes to mind - and engines above a certain size were just not made, so they were operating on max performance from X liters.


@Relentless Power Ecoboosts are actually 2.3L (even more impressive)
[doublepost=1515702990][/doublepost]

Yeah I have an MK6 Golf GTI. My mpg has generally been in the mid 20’s, although I hit low 30’s when I drove from California to Florida last summer. The worst I’ve personally gotten was around 20mpg, these are all averages over an entire gas tank. So it’s been pretty good for me, but my parents have turbo charged cars as well and they never really get great gas mileage.

I had a couple of RX7s, the 3rd gen (rotary TT) got _bad_ gas mileage, especially factoring in 1.3L (though it wasn't really equivalent to a reciprocating design in terms of displacement)

My GT is currently showing 15.8MPG average, that's pretty much zero highway miles, lot of driving around in high RPMs, a heavy right foot

Today headed up to a workout, I had a guy in a RV window down on me

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yeah I have an MK6 Golf GTI. My mpg has generally been in the mid 20’s, although I hit low 30’s when I drove from California to Florida last summer. The worst I’ve personally gotten was around 20mpg, these are all averages over an entire gas tank. So it’s been pretty good for me, but my parents have turbo charged cars as well and they never really get great gas mileage.

Have you tried sticking it in echo mode? Makes a bit of a difference. I got about an extra 30 miles out of a tank.

You'll also need to drive sensibly of course

 

[0388631]

I don't see small engines being charged to I6 or V6 levels of power lasting long. One of our cars has a Biturbo V8 in it. Sometimes it gets worse than rated MPG, sometimes it outperforms. Rarely, it'll outperform the rated MPG. Which really leaves me scratching my head.

 

[senseless]

Well, you can still shop a deal on the car itself (it's still a "purchase" mechanism, you can still get your $6K discount, etc.), and also shopping a rate on the lease. In my scenario above, while the "lease deal" wasn't applicable, and a simple current lease rates + price was $100 more, we wound up shopping vehicles/rates and our preferred car wound up being $22 more a month (vs. the special on the model without the sport package).




There's not really anything delusion if you're shopping smart and you value certain things - a lease can make a ton of sense.

Here's my scenario/perks/drivers for considering a lease:

- The current model (i.e., MY18/new) as it has a couple of major technical advantages
- Can order specific model/color/options
- Usage is low miles
- All service/maintenance to be covered
- No hassle end-of-use process, hand over keys, done
- Fixed costs

Even though some of those are applicable to CPO cars, that status varies a decent amount across brands (making it a little trickier to cross shop vs. the more-or-less consistent warranties within a normal lease duration), and if you've resigned yourself that part of your "living costs" are car related, a lease is just a different mechanism.

I understand the convenience factor, but I'm pushing back at the notion that leasing is cheaper than buying. Many dealers have said that to me, that leasing is the smarter, less expensive way to go. "Why put your money into a depreciating asset", blah blah. Now, if you're going to get a new car every 3 years, that's fine. But it's not going to cost less than buying new and trading in. And it will cost a lot more than buying new and holding on for 4 or 5 years. Modern cars do not require expensive maintenance until nearly 100,000 miles.