New PT cruiser
Ashton Crusher
for such a versatile vehicle. Only thing I don't like is the lousy
gas mileage for it's power/size. Great ride, very quiet, comfortable,
AC works good and it has a LIGHT color interior instead of the SO
boring medium and dark charcoal that seems to be just about the only
thing available in most vehicles these days. I really didn't think I
was going to like it very much but I've been very pleasantly
surprised.
rob
"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:c0pjd5lb66vc0ol2p...@4ax.com...
Bill Putney
> Just bought a new PT under the cash for clunkers program. Great deal
> for such a versatile vehicle. Only thing I don't like is the lousy
Well I and all the other tax payers must certainly apologize for that.
We were told that the purpose of taking my money to help pay for your
car was to put fuel efficient vehicles out there. If we had know it
wasn't going to get better mileage, we wouldn't have allowed them to
take our money for that.
Oh wait! They never asked our permission in the first place, so our
bad. You're welcome.
The whole thing was a fraud. Guess what the "official" mileage for my
'85 Ford 150 was stated as by the program's sponsored web site. Try 21
mpg (or was it 22? - I forget but doesn't matter). Anyone who ever
owned one will tell you that it wouldn't even get 13 on a good day.
> Great ride, very quiet, comfortable,
> AC works good and it has a LIGHT color interior instead of the SO
> boring medium and dark charcoal that seems to be just about the only
> thing available in most vehicles these days. I really didn't think I
> was going to like it very much but I've been very pleasantly
> surprised.
Again - you're welcome.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> Just bought a new PT under the cash for clunkers program. Great deal
>> for such a versatile vehicle. Only thing I don't like is the lousy
>> gas mileage for it's power/size...
>
>Well I and all the other tax payers must certainly apologize for that.
>We were told that the purpose of taking my money to help pay for your
>car was to put fuel efficient vehicles out there. If we had know it
>wasn't going to get better mileage, we wouldn't have allowed them to
>take our money for that.
>
It does get better, just not a whole lot better.
>Oh wait! They never asked our permission in the first place, so our
>bad. You're welcome.
>
>The whole thing was a fraud. Guess what the "official" mileage for my
>'85 Ford 150 was stated as by the program's sponsored web site. Try 21
>mpg (or was it 22? - I forget but doesn't matter). Anyone who ever
>owned one will tell you that it wouldn't even get 13 on a good day.
>
>> Great ride, very quiet, comfortable,
>> AC works good and it has a LIGHT color interior instead of the SO
>> boring medium and dark charcoal that seems to be just about the only
>> thing available in most vehicles these days. I really didn't think I
>> was going to like it very much but I've been very pleasantly
>> surprised.
>
>Again - you're welcome.
Thanks. If it wasn't me it would have been someone else. Might as
well be me!!! I don't write the laws.
Ashton Crusher
>and your mileage?
>
Looks like I can figure on 22 mpg for my mostly commuting use. If it
was all city it looks like it would be closer to 19. All highway
perhaps 25 on a long trip. Pretty close to what the EPA estimates
are.
Bill Putney
That's what a looter says to himself. :)
Might as
> well be me!!! I don't write the laws.
I know - my comments weren't aimed at you personally.
Pete E. Kruzer
> The whole thing was a fraud. Guess what the "official" mileage for my
> '85 Ford 150 was stated as by the program's sponsored web site. Try 21
> mpg (or was it 22? - I forget but doesn't matter). Anyone who ever
> owned one will tell you that it wouldn't even get 13 on a good day.
Same here Bill. I was thinking of getting rid of my 2001 Cruiser in
the Cash for Clunkers program.
New plugs, wires, KN air filter, still terrible mileage. Feds said
city/highway average mpg is 19.
I filled the Cruiser, took a 90 mile trip on an Interstate, filled the
tank and got 16.9 mpg.
So I'm stuck with my clunker.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
The looter is doing something illegal, I am not.
> Might as
>> well be me!!! I don't write the laws.
>
>I know - my comments weren't aimed at you personally.
understood
Bill Putney
Agreed. I did not say you were doing anything technically illegal - I
only said that that is what the looter says to himself - period.
On a philosophical basis, making something legal does not necessarily
make it moral or ethical - I'm sure we both could come up with our own
examples of that. I would argue those points in a discussion as well as
the Constitutionality. Again - I don't blame you.
>> Might as
>>> well be me!!! I don't write the laws.
>> I know - my comments weren't aimed at you personally.
>
> understood
rob
best mileage ratings from the guv-ment seems to be on the stick cars.....
"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:6g3kd5943u0s6cqa9...@4ax.com...
rob
mileage) at 19, thereby making it not a clunker. then re rating it at 18
(one MPG less) then it was eligible.
i think i read somewhere that even though the PT didnt get that much better
MPG than mine, it was still going to be allowed if i wanted it, since the
government web site had the PT designated as a TRUCK and trucks had lower
requirements. maybe that's how so may F150s got bought this summer!
Regardless there is still a 96 LHS in the garage and nothing else.
"Pete E. Kruzer" <tomk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:315b1d5a-c14a-4015...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Steve Stone
> ok i wondered, since i have heard the mileage on these could be better.
> best mileage ratings from the guv-ment seems to be on the stick cars.....
>
My daughter can get a solid 25.5 mpg highway out of our 2006 PT Cruiser
Dori A Schmetterling
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Steve Stone" <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hbddth$oqb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Steve Stone
> What engine size do you (and Ashton Crusher) have?
>
>>>
>
Ashton Crusher
<nob...@spam.co.uk> wrote:
>What engine size do you (and Ashton Crusher) have?
>
It's teh base 2.4 liter.
Ashton Crusher
>ok i wondered, since i have heard the mileage on these could be better.
>best mileage ratings from the guv-ment seems to be on the stick cars.....
>
>
Yeah, the stick shifts are rated for about 2 mpg more.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
I have mixed feelings about the program. Honestly, before I felt it
would benefit me it bothered me a bit. It's part of a long list of
things like the tax breaks for hybrid cars. A friend of mine whose
wife and him both make good money just spent $50K having solar
electric system installed on his house. He said he will get back $24K
from Tax breaks making the thing a break even proposition in around 6
years or so. Many of these things really only are workable if you
have lots of money of your own to put in up front.
The only reason I went for the Clunker thing was that my 89 S-10 was
running progressively worse and losing power. Plus it needed the
transmission rebuilt. Hard to justify putting $2000 plus into it when
that would still make it only worth $2000 and it would still have 190k
miles on it. So it really was like getting the full $4500.
Bill Putney
> I have mixed feelings about the program. Honestly, before I felt it
> would benefit me it bothered me a bit. It's part of a long list of
> things like the tax breaks for hybrid cars. A friend of mine whose
> wife and him both make good money just spent $50K having solar
> electric system installed on his house. He said he will get back $24K
> from Tax breaks making the thing a break even proposition in around 6
> years or so...
One thing that people almost always fail to factor in on these
"break-even" calculations is the "cost of money over time" ("interest").
By literal accounting formulas, the pay back periods are extended
significantly - often beyond the replacement period. So, even ignoring
the government subsidy aspect in the real costs, there usually *is* no
payback. Factor the subsidy in, and there is no payback - just good
feelings.
> Many of these things really only are workable if you
> have lots of money of your own to put in up front.
>
> The only reason I went for the Clunker thing was that my 89 S-10 was
> running progressively worse and losing power. Plus it needed the
> transmission rebuilt. Hard to justify putting $2000 plus into it when
> that would still make it only worth $2000 and it would still have 190k
> miles on it. So it really was like getting the full $4500.
Makes sense. I was curious what you turned in as the clunker. Now I know.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
>Ashton Crusher wrote:
You should have seen the red face on the finance guy when I turned
down the $500 alarm system they had installed and declined adding the
tinted glass. I pulled all the pullable parts off the s-10 and sold
them and made another couple hundred off that. It killed me that I
had to leave a one week old alternator on it. But I did keep the
battery and put in one from a co-worker who otherwise was going to
turn it in for a new one on his car. My custom cable adaptors are
shown here http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2006/clinkerbatterm2.jpg
(ignore the charger clamps) They told me one guy traded in his Dodge
van and he had pulled most of the glass, the headlights, various
bulbs, and even took off one lug nut from each wheel. He had another
van at home just like it.
CF
Drive/241.5ci flathead 6!
Brian Priebe
wrote:
>Looks like I can figure on 22 mpg for my mostly commuting use. If it
>was all city it looks like it would be closer to 19. All highway
>perhaps 25 on a long trip. Pretty close to what the EPA estimates
>are.
That's frankly awful when a 3.5L AWD Pacifica weighing 4,675lb before
I sit in the driver's seat gets 21MPG (US) on the highway in real
world driving. And that's with nearly 110,000miles on the odometer.
Ashton Crusher
I agree with you. It's offset by the low price, they almost give them
away. My Crown Vic gets 25 mpg on highway trips. My Mustang GT often
gets 20 for my commute if I baby it, otherwise 18. The saving grace
of the PT is that in town it looks like I can count on between 18 and
21 depending on how heavy traffic is. I got 21 tonight on a 15 mile
in town trip with light traffic.
CF
it two years ago!
Bill Putney
> You should have seen the red face on the finance guy when I turned
> down the $500 alarm system they had installed and declined adding the
> tinted glass. I pulled all the pullable parts off the s-10 and sold
> them and made another couple hundred off that. It killed me that I
> had to leave a one week old alternator on it. But I did keep the
> battery and put in one from a co-worker who otherwise was going to
> turn it in for a new one on his car. My custom cable adaptors are
> shown here http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2006/clinkerbatterm2.jpg
> (ignore the charger clamps) They told me one guy traded in his Dodge
> van and he had pulled most of the glass, the headlights, various
> bulbs, and even took off one lug nut from each wheel. He had another
> van at home just like it.
Hey Ashton - you're just a piker compared to these guys - golf carts
legally qualifying as "electric vehicles" if they are shown to be "road
worthy":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473724099542430.html
"...Golf Cart Man is referring to his offer in which you can buy the
cart for $8,000, get a $5,300 tax credit off your 2009 income tax, lease
it back for $100 a month for 27 months, at which point Golf Cart Man
will buy back the cart for $2,000. "This means you own a free Golf Cart
or made $2,000 cash doing absolutely nothing!!!..."
Ashton Crusher
It's been living on borrowed time for the last several years. I think
the Caliber (which I believe has CVT) was supposed to replace it but
people kept buying the PT. I'm pretty sure 2010 will be it's last
year but who knows. If they can keep making money on them and people
keep buying them due to the low price and they don't need the factory
for something else maybe it will go longer. Originally I think 08 was
supposed to be the last year.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
>Ashton Crusher wrote:
You're too late. I did that here in AZ over a decade ago with a NEV
(Neighborhood Electric Vehicle).
Bill Putney
Seriously?
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
Yup. Paid 8,000 for the NEV, got 10,000 tax credit, sold the NEV for
$2000. It was the political scam of the day. Followed a decade later
by the Alt-fuel scam where you could get about half the cost of your
F-150 paid by the state if you bought one that could run on propane as
well as gas. Most of them had 8 gallon propane tanks.. about enough
to make a trip to the grocery store. It was pushed by a Mormon who
apparently though no one but other Mormon's was going to hear about
it. It put a huge hole in the state budget once word got out. They
had to repeal it pronto before the state went bankrupt buying everyone
half of a truck.
Steve Stone
> It's been living on borrowed time for the last several years. I think
> the Caliber (which I believe has CVT) was supposed to replace it but
> people kept buying the PT.
In 2006 the sales droids at one dealer were pushing me to buy the
Caliber instead of a PT Cruiser.
Their reasoning was a college kid wouldn't be caught dead in an stodgy
PT Cruiser, and look at all the extra
cup holders, the built in AC inverter, the drop down rear tailgate
speakers, the glove box that doubled as a cooler!
I stuck with the Cruiser because it seemed to be better able to handle
the load of "stuff" my daughter stuffed into her college dorm, and she
liked the slightly higher seating position.
Brian Priebe
wrote:
>I stuck with the Cruiser because it seemed to be better able to handle
>the load of "stuff" my daughter stuffed into her college dorm, and she
>liked the slightly higher seating position.
I've had occasion to rent both the PT and the Caliber over the years
as the PAC was in the shop. The early Caliber CVT you couldn't pay me
to own. Floor it and it took eons to rev the engine. I've heard it's
improved a lot since. But the PT was peppy even without the turbo,
comfortable, as as you note has relatively cavernous cargo area. But
gas mileage has always sucked.
Now what they really need is that Nissan 2.5L with their CVT that I
drove in an Altima over the weekend. Miserly on gas (32MPG EPA on the
highway) and when "required" embarrasses just about anything else on
4 wheels that isn't a sports sedan. Nissan could learn a great deal
from Chrysler about how to set up suspensions though. (And the tires
were garbage.)
Ashton Crusher
I read a lot of complaints about the CVT like you mentioned. I was
originally going to buy a Patriot instead of the PT but there were
none left. Anyway, I rented a Patriot to see how I liked them and the
2009 models seemed to have had the CVT problems ironed out IMHO. It
worked very well and I would love to have the Patriot
engine/transmission setup in the PT. But the transmission in the PT
shifts very nicely. For FWD the PT feels pretty good, I generally
hate FWD vehicles because of how they "feel".
Steve Stone
was rear ended last week.
I'm wondering if I should replace it with a 2010 PT Cruiser or the Dodge
Journey.
The Journey doesn't have the same personality of the Cruiser but may do
a better job carrying "stuff"
and pulling out on the interstates with a V6 engine.
AWD might be a better choice for coping with winter in New York.
Negatives I've read about the Journey are mushy handling and feeling
like it will roll over.
Any one here know more about the Dodge Journey or can compare one to the
PT Cruiser?
Steve
CF
got lousy mileage! I wish that the CVT transmission would have been
available. We now have a 2007 Caliber and get around 27-30 around town,
and 31-35 on the highway. Never saw anymore than 26 with my two PTs.
CF
agree, I like the body style of the PT, it is like my 1941 Windsor!
CF
more than the base 2003 sedan and as much as her former 2005 Turbo PT
Convertible. You are right about the lousy mileage. The Nissan Murano
has the CVT as well as the Caliber. Chryslers have always handled
better, going back to the torsion bar days. Hell, my 1941 Windsor as a
front and a rear anti-roll bar, all standard from the factory, it is all
original, 23K miles! The Fluid Drive does move off slowly, but who
cares, gives me more time to smell the old car interior!
CF
the new one. However, after looking at the payments, we decided to
stick with the Caliber for a while longer. The Journey rode very
smoothly and had good pickup.
Some O
Steve Stone <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Journey is a very good value vehicle.
I'm 5'-11" and I found it a bit high for easy entry.
IMO the Journey is actually a small van. Not surprising Chrysler dropped
their short Van when the Journey came out.
Some O
Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:
> Looks like I can figure on 22 mpg for my mostly commuting use. If it
> was all city it looks like it would be closer to 19. All highway
> perhaps 25 on a long trip. Pretty close to what the EPA estimates
> are.
The urban/city mileage is reasonable.
That 25 mpg highway mileage is poor.
My 300M (3.5LV6, 250HP) gets a consistent 28 mpg (US gal) on the highway
at 60 to 70 mph on regular fuel. I'm quoting actual measured fuel &
distance for a long trip, although the digital mpg read out shows about
the same.
It's likely the the poor body side streamlining that causes the low
highway fuel mileage. The VW New Beetle has the same problem.
Steve
> Just bought a new PT under the cash for clunkers program. Great deal
> for such a versatile vehicle. Only thing I don't like is the lousy
> AC works good and it has a LIGHT color interior instead of the SO
> boring medium and dark charcoal that seems to be just about the only
> thing available in most vehicles these days. I really didn't think I
> was going to like it very much but I've been very pleasantly
> surprised.
We've owned my wife's 05 for about a year now (bought used with 35k
miles). Love everything about it except, as you said, the gas mileage.
Power isn't bad for a 4-holer, actually, but you'd expect 30+ MPG
instead of 25.
If they'd put the World Engine with varible valve timing and the
continuously-variable transmission from the Caliber/Patriot in it,
that's what they'd have. But I imagine they'll keep costs to a bare
minimum and build it for one more year with the 2.4/41TE combo that's
already certified (smog, crash, etc.) and proven.
Steve
> Now what they really need is that Nissan 2.5L with their CVT that I
> drove in an Altima over the weekend. Miserly on gas (32MPG EPA on the
> highway) and when "required" embarrasses just about anything else on
> 4 wheels that isn't a sports sedan. Nissan could learn a great deal
> from Chrysler about how to set up suspensions though. (And the tires
> were garbage.)
The World Engine is already as good or better than the Nissan 2.5, and
the CVT in the Caliber/Patriot is the same one (JATCO) as Nissan uses.
All they need to do is put Iit in the PT Cruiser in place of the 1995
tech (and very good for 1995) 2.4/41TE.
I haven't had an Altima rental yet, but I've had a Sentra and was very
impressed with the Jatco CVT. The engine (a 1.6 or 1.8 IIRC) was only
decent- not amazing- but it did have VVT and combined with the CVT it
always managed to be pretty much able to deliver optimum torque. The
only time it suckered me was when I used about 60% of the accelerator
pedal merging onto an interstate, and then went for the remaining 40% to
keep a safe distance ahead of an approaching truck.... and it had
NOTHING left to give. That's part of how the drivetrain controllers in
VVT/CVT cars work- the percentage of the total available power they're
giving doesn't always correspond to your right-foot position, which
makes them seem peppier than they should in casual driving and you only
discover what's going on when you ask for the rest of the power that
isn't really there.
Steve
IMO, Dodge should be advertising the bloody HELL out of the Journey. Its
a very un-recognized, under-the-radar vehicle and a real little gem that
nobody seems to know about. A real bright spot in the pretty dismal
lineup at the moment.
Steve
> It's likely the the poor body side streamlining that causes the low
> highway fuel mileage. The VW New Beetle has the same problem.
Actually I think its more to do with the length-to-girth ratio (aka
"fineness" ratio). For a given cross section, there's a fairly large
range of lengths where drag coefficient goes *down* or stays the same as
you increase length, then goes up again because of "wetted area" drag
(surface area). I suspect this is exactly the same reason Smart car
highway fuel efficiency is so much worse than it should be for its
weight and engine.
Also the 41TE transmission is a power soak, and its software is tailored
to the EPA tests more than to the real world. Always has been, although
it's much better than when it first came out. That's why the manual PTs
got SO much better mileage in the real world, even though they were
only EPA rated at a couple more MPG.
Steve
> Same here Bill. I was thinking of getting rid of my 2001 Cruiser in
> the Cash for Clunkers program.
> New plugs, wires, KN air filter, still terrible mileage. Feds said
> city/highway average mpg is 19.
> I filled the Cruiser, took a 90 mile trip on an Interstate, filled the
> tank and got 16.9 mpg.
> So I'm stuck with my clunker.
Now THAT is ridiculous. Something has got to be mechanically wrong- more
seriously so than bad plugs or wires. Timing belt off a tooth? Dragging
brake? Binding transmission? Leaking injector? Are you basing that on
the computer mileage or by checking the fill quantity against the odometer?
I agree that the PT's 25 highway (we've gotten a max of 27) is
surprisingly low given that our old '93 LH car would get 29-30 in its
prime and had a 215 HP v6... but I honestly don't think I could *force*
our PT to get below 20 on the highway without dragging the brake or
disconnecting a spark plug. Heck, we get 21 in commuter traffic.
Josh S
Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> I haven't had an Altima rental yet, but I've had a Sentra and was very
> impressed with the Jatco CVT. The engine (a 1.6 or 1.8 IIRC) was only
> decent- not amazing- but it did have VVT and combined with the CVT it
> always managed to be pretty much able to deliver optimum torque. The
> only time it suckered me was when I used about 60% of the accelerator
> pedal merging onto an interstate, and then went for the remaining 40% to
> keep a safe distance ahead of an approaching truck.... and it had
> NOTHING left to give. That's part of how the drivetrain controllers in
> VVT/CVT cars work- the percentage of the total available power they're
> giving doesn't always correspond to your right-foot position, which
> makes them seem peppier than they should in casual driving and you only
> discover what's going on when you ask for the rest of the power that
> isn't really there.
That lack of higher end power has a lot to do with the engine setup as
well.
Comparing my '95 Concorde 3.3L and my 300M 3.5L, there isn't much
difference below 40mph, but above that speed is where the 300M's higher
RPM torque really shows up. No comparison then, the 300M just keeps on
accelerating strongly to the max speeds I want to go. The transmission
is the same and the RPMs in each gear are very similar.
You would need to try the Altima to get a more realistic comparison, the
Sentra is more of an urban car.
Josh S
>
> > Same here Bill. I was thinking of getting rid of my 2001 Cruiser in
> > the Cash for Clunkers program.
> > New plugs, wires, KN air filter, still terrible mileage. Feds said
> > city/highway average mpg is 19.
> > I filled the Cruiser, took a 90 mile trip on an Interstate, filled the
> > tank and got 16.9 mpg.
> > So I'm stuck with my clunker.
I doubt the PT consumes enough fuel to qualify.
To my surprise my '95 Concorde doesn't, it's just below the cut off for
fuel consumption.
There must be something wrong with your PT, unless you drive at 90 mph!
Steve Stone
> IMO, Dodge should be advertising the bloody HELL out of the Journey. Its
> a very un-recognized, under-the-radar vehicle and a real little gem that
> nobody seems to know about. A real bright spot in the pretty dismal
> lineup at the moment.
I tried to check a Journey out at the local Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Hundyi
dealer.
He was pushing the Hundyi and a bunch of 09 Sebrings.
There was one Journey, already sold, on the lot.
Did not get a chance to road test anything.
Guess I will check out the 3 other Chrysler dealers in my area
after they get more than 2010 300's and minivans on the lot.
Joe Pfeiffer
I've noticed that with my Dakota, simply with fly-by-wire throttle. I'm
pretty well convinced that the engine controller wants to set the
airflow based on pedal position, regardless of engine RPM (meaning a
given pedal position has a radically wider open throttle at low RPM than
high). I've been suckered an embarrassing number of times now, driving
along in sixth gear with my foot barely on the throttle, only to
discover that the engine must have actually been near full throttle
since giving it more gas did *nothing*.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Bill Putney
I'm moving a little off topic here, but 2 things move power into the
lower speeds on the 300M:
(1) Changeout the tranny-to-diff. chain sprockets to the higher ratio
ones used in the 2.7L 2nd gen. LH cars (also used in the 300M Special),
(2) Install an intake spacer that someone on the LH car forums
(dodgeintrepid.net and lhforums.net) recently developed and currently sells.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
>I think the insurance company will total our 2006 PT Cruiser after it
Best thing is to drive one and decide for yourself. I read a ton of
reviews on the PT and most of the owner reviews are reasonably useful.
Most of the professional reviews are actually less useful as
"impressions" although they may be more useful if they have actual
test data. The pro's are using $50,000 cars as a baseline and they
criticize the most minor faults in less expensive cars.
Brian Priebe
>The World Engine is already as good or better than the Nissan 2.5, and
>the CVT in the Caliber/Patriot is the same one (JATCO) as Nissan uses.
Did they change CVT's since it first came out? My indelible
recollection of the original year was that it sat there and did
nothing much while the pedal was carpeted.
>only time it suckered me was when I used about 60% of theaccelerator
>pedal merging onto an interstate, and then went for the remaining 40%
to
>keep a safe distance ahead of an approaching truck.... and it had
>NOTHING left to give. That's part of how the drivetrain controllers in
>VVT/CVT cars work- the percentage of the total available power they're
>giving doesn't always correspond to your right-foot position, which
>makes them seem peppier than they should in casual driving and you only
>discover what's going on when you ask for the rest of the power that
>isn't really there.
Had you done that with the 2.5L, you would not only be a safe distance
ahead of that truck, you would be most of the way out of the state and
wondering where those flashing lights came from.
Ashton Crusher
Yes, it's very rare to keep a body style for more then a decade so I
don't think there is ever going to be any mechanical updates to the PT
at this point in time. I will repeat that I've been shocked at how
well I actually like the little puddle jumper - Chrysler really did an
outstanding job tuning the suspension and designing the interior to
make it look a lot more expensive then it sells for. The overall
build quality seems excellent, all the gaps are straight, no funny
noises anywhere, seats are comfortable and actually provide good lower
back support, I never feel cramped, and even though it's not a hot rod
it moves ok if you are willing to rev the engine.
Brian Priebe
>IMO, Dodge should be advertising the bloody HELL out of the Journey. Its
>a very un-recognized, under-the-radar vehicle and a real little gem that
>nobody seems to know about.
They must be using the same team that handled marketing of the
Pacifica.
CF
in on a Journey. Does it come with a four cylinder, or only a six?
Steve Stone
> Agree, wholeheartedly! We are even thinking about trading our Caliber
> in on a Journey. Does it come with a four cylinder, or only a six?
Either is an option, depending on the trim level.
ALLPAR.com has an interesting review of the Journey R/T with a video.
The video makes a point of showing us the v6 R/T getting 12MPG city.
CF
the "biggest" everything!
What about the economy models that most people buy!
Steve
I think the computer scientist has nailed what I'm talking about! :-)
These TBW systems are tailored to make a very appealing throttle
response, and sometimes it leaves you with nothing left in the bank when
you *think* there should be based on where your right foot is sitting.
Throwing CVT and VVT into the mix really lets the software do a lot of
different things for a given right foot position, depending on road
speed, engine temp, atmospheric pressure, and even your previous driving
habits.
I'm not saying its bad, just different and something that I'm acutely
aware of when I step into a modern car after driving my steam-age
big-block cars, where right-foot position is DIRECTLY correlated to how
hard you're backside is getting shoved forward.
Steve
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:33:22 -0500, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>> The World Engine is already as good or better than the Nissan 2.5, and
>> the CVT in the Caliber/Patriot is the same one (JATCO) as Nissan uses.
>
> Did they change CVT's since it first came out? My indelible
> recollection of the original year was that it sat there and did
> nothing much while the pedal was carpeted.
Same JATCO transmission, much better software now.
>
> >only time it suckered me was when I used about 60% of theaccelerator
>> pedal merging onto an interstate, and then went for the remaining 40%
> to
>> keep a safe distance ahead of an approaching truck.... and it had
>> NOTHING left to give. That's part of how the drivetrain controllers in
>> VVT/CVT cars work- the percentage of the total available power they're
>> giving doesn't always correspond to your right-foot position, which
>> makes them seem peppier than they should in casual driving and you only
>> discover what's going on when you ask for the rest of the power that
>> isn't really there.
>
> Had you done that with the 2.5L, you would not only be a safe distance
> ahead of that truck, you would be most of the way out of the state and
> wondering where those flashing lights came from.
Maybe with a THREE point 5, but I doubt the 2.5 in an Altima is
substantially different than the 1.8 in a Sentra. But anyway, the point
is that digitally controlled TBW/CVT/VVT does things behind the scenes
that don't directly correlate with how hard you're mashing on the "loud"
pedal. The net result with a bigger engine would have been faster
acceleration, but perhaps still no difference before/after adding that
last little bit of right foot.
Steve
Another bloody waste. The 4.0 Pacifica was *so* much better than its
competition (stuff like the Murano) that it was no contest. Yet, they
never even advertised the fact that the 4.0 had been introduced and that
it solved the low-end torque shortage with the 3.5.
rob
sensors and transfer cases on the AWD model
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:SZ-dnfeMk5V_SXjX...@texas.net...
Brian Priebe
>> Had you done that with the 2.5L, you would not only be a safe distance
>> ahead of that truck, you would be most of the way out of the state and
>> wondering where those flashing lights came from.
>Maybe with a THREE point 5, but I doubt the 2.5 in an Altima is
>substantially different than the 1.8 in a Sentra.
Go rent one. You are in for a very big shock.
Brian Priebe
>yeah i liked the Pacifica but i hear interesting stories about wheel speed
>sensors and transfer cases on the AWD model
There are many stories in the online forums. It's hard to know how
general a problem it is since people tend to be there to complain
about something :).
My 2004 transfer case has given me no problems except for a minor seal
leak that they fixed under warranty. But if you asked about
electrical problems and the front suspension links, that would be
another matter. I will shortly be starting in on my third set of tie
rods in the front at only 110,000 miles.
rob
others will go out shortly there after.might as well change them all at once
and end the headaches even at 80 bucks a piece or something around that
price. If they fixed your seal leak that's good as i was told they cant get
parts for the xfer case. i always wondered about that, but as one Chrysler
dealer tech told me "if you don't cuss at your Pacifica while fixing it,
you'll pay us to do the same thing".
surprisingly haven't seen any evap core issues on them, but seen lots of
those on the Cherokees and mini vans.
"Brian Priebe" <'> wrote in message
news:ugpce5h3hs81kv5n4...@4ax.com...
Bill Putney
> ...surprisingly haven't seen any evap core issues on them, but seen lots of
> those on the Cherokees and mini vans...
I would have thought you'd seen it on LH cars.
rob
"Bill Putney" <bp...@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:7l6p32F...@mid.individual.net...