What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cars: 2015

G

goldy_331

Registered User
Kep, I had a 2016 Forrester loaner when I took my '14 Impreza in for service. They have gotten VERY big, it is taller than our 2013 Outback. No longer the little SUV they used to be. Had good acceleration and was quite roomy, mileage was worse than my Impreza for driving the same route. Still over 30 for average of city/freeway driving (where my Impreza gets 35+).

It had sensors that drove me nuts with "lane departure warnings." Yes I am on a solid line, but it's on an empty curvy road and I cut those curves dammit.:mad:
 
Re: Cars: 2015

goldy_331 said:
It had sensors that drove me nuts with "lane departure warnings."
Click to expand...
I believe those warnings are all customizable.

I've had my '14 Crosstrek for just shy of 18 months and absolutely love it. Other than being a bit underpowered with only a 2.0, the 33+ mpg and sporty styling more than make up for it. I chose it over the Forester due to the size difference and better looks.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

MarkEagleUSA said:
I believe those warnings are all customizable.

I've had my '14 Crosstrek for just shy of 18 months and absolutely love it. Other than being a bit underpowered with only a 2.0, the 33+ mpg and sporty styling more than make up for it. I chose it over the Forester due to the size difference and better looks.
Click to expand...

You're getting better MPG out of yours than I am out of mine. I must drive mine harder than you do yours. And I agree, the lack of power is irritating. I can't decide if it's the torque or the design of the CVT.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

goldy_331 said:
Kep, I had a 2016 Forrester loaner when I took my '14 Impreza in for service. They have gotten VERY big, it is taller than our 2013 Outback. No longer the little SUV they used to be.
Click to expand...
Yep - pretty much a Subaru CR-V / RAV-4 at this point.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

St. Clown said:
You're getting better MPG out of yours than I am out of mine. I must drive mine harder than you do yours. And I agree, the lack of power is irritating. I can't decide if it's the torque or the design of the CVT.
Click to expand...
Around town it's only 26-28, combined is right around 30, and all highway I can get 33-34 if I don't push it.

The CVT took getting used to for sure. It's not so much a lack of power, but you can't baby the CVT at slow speeds... you need to roll into the throttle and keep the RPM's up until it upshifts to 3rd gear. Still infinitely better than the 14-15 mpg I was getting out of my old Dakota pickup.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

I'd buy a Rav before a Subaru if you are at all tall. The last Subaru I got in I needed a shoe horn to get into. My wife gets 28 with hers, 4 cylinder auto. Has plenty of get and go also
 
Re: Cars: 2015

I heartily recommend the Mini Cooper. I have the 2008 and it gets ~37 miles to the gallon (mostly highway and a stickshift). It is surprisingly good in the snow d/t it's weight. I would recommend it if you're overly tall, but my hubs drives it and he's 6'ish 300ish. I will get the S model next time, though the base model comes with "sport" mode.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

MarkEagleUSA said:
Around town it's only 26-28, combined is right around 30, and all highway I can get 33-34 if I don't push it.

The CVT took getting used to for sure. It's not so much a lack of power, but you can't baby the CVT at slow speeds... you need to roll into the throttle and keep the RPM's up until it upshifts to 3rd gear. Still infinitely better than the 14-15 mpg I was getting out of my old Dakota pickup.
Click to expand...

All right, that sounds much more like the numbers I'm getting. I usually come in around 29-30 during the summer, around 27 in the winter, always mixed driving.
 
bostonewe said:
I heartily recoemmer Dnd the Mini Cooper. I have the 2008 and it gets ~37 miles to the gallon (mostly highway and a stickshift). It is surprisingly good in the snow d/t it's weight. I would recommend it if you're overly tall, but my hubs drives it and he's 6'ish 300ish. I will get the S model next time, though the base model comes with "sport" mode.
Click to expand...
I tried a Cooper but stayed with Volvo, getting a C30 T5 R Design. Much more comfortable for me than the Mini so I'll sacrifice the gas mileage. I get about 27-29 mpg even with my lead foot! :)
 
Re: Cars: 2015

Anyone here own a car with a ZF 9HP nine-speed transmission? Just curious on your insights. Especially if it's in an Acura.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

Those Krazy Krauts, you just can't stay made at 'em.

EPA Finds 10,000 Additional Audi, Porsche And VW Diesels Faked Emissions

Federal regulators said today they had found 10,000 additional diesel engines in Volkswagen Group vehicles—including Audi sedans and Porsche SUVs—that fake their emissions under testing through software, adding another layer to the scandal engulfing the German automaker.

But Volkswagen denied the accusation, saying it had no software in those engines that did what U.S. regulators claimed.

If upheld, the test results would belie VW’s statements six weeks ago that a software program which could sense whether a vehicle was being tested by authorities was only installed in four-cylinder turbodiesels. VW has said 11 million vehicles worldwide were affected by that software, and has pledged to spend billions of dollars bringing them into compliance. The scandal has led to the ouster of VW’s CEO and investigations around the world.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said its testing uncovered similar software in seven new models equipped with 3-liter V-6 diesels: the 2014 Volkswagen Touareg, 2015 models of the Porsche Cayenne and 2016 models of the Audi A6 Quattro, Audi A7 Quattro, Audi A8 and Audi Q5.

“VW has once again failed its obligation to comply with the law that protects the air for all Americans,” said Cynthia Giles, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Cars: 2015

dxmnkd316 said:
This clusterfark is now expanded to gasoline cars...

VW may not survive this when it's all said and done...
Click to expand...

That's mostly a European issue. And while one will fully expect that their fuel economy will drop, the penalties for that in the US are less.

Also- it mentioned a small amount of gas cars.

I would not jump to too many conclusions based on this article.

Also- about the fines and recovery. It will be massively painful, but they won't go away. VW will be saved by the German government, and instead of massive fines, people will go to jail. But it will be very painful.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

dxmnkd316 said:
This clusterfark is now expanded to gasoline cars...

VW may not survive this when it's all said and done...
Click to expand...

Thinking about it a little more- this recent "revelation" is a diversion. The NEDC cycle used in Europe as well as the standards for setting a car up to test pretty much ensures that it's not close to the real world- so not only are the gas emissions higher, but the fuel economy is worse. By bringing this up, IMHO, VW is basically trying to drag all of the European OEM's down with them, as the off cycle is so different. The problem is- VW actually is admitting that they do something beyond having poor off cycle correlation. Nobody else is.

This side of the controversy will likely result in some accelerated changes to the laws in the EU. First- the test needs to be more realistic- so that when you buy a Fiat 500 that claims that it's getting 45mpg, you won't be angry that you only get 35 (that happened). Second- it needs to be more realistic- so that the data generated by EU states will correlate to air quality- the EU has been tightening their standards pretty nicely, but it has not resulted in better air- whereas similar work in the US has (significantly). Third- they need to re-think the idea of giving diesel an advantage- which they already have been doing- as the Euro VII and later proposed standards bring the gas and diesels much closer. There are some things in place in Europe to go from a lab tested car to a random drive cycle test measured live on the road. Either that will be massively accelerated or a more global drive cycle will be used soon.

FWIW- the EU had good intentions when they did this- it was all about the Kyoto agreement, and they projected diesel technology will progress faster than it has. But as time went on, I think the EU started to notice that they were missing key agreements, so they adjusted the set up of the test. Which has now resulted in a BIG difference in off cycle emissions and fuel economy compared to the certified tests.

(and the US system is a lot different)
 
Re: Cars: 2015

alfablue said:
Thinking about it a little more- this recent "revelation" is a diversion. The NEDC cycle used in Europe as well as the standards for setting a car up to test pretty much ensures that it's not close to the real world- so not only are the gas emissions higher, but the fuel economy is worse. By bringing this up, IMHO, VW is basically trying to drag all of the European OEM's down with them, as the off cycle is so different. The problem is- VW actually is admitting that they do something beyond having poor off cycle correlation. Nobody else is.

This side of the controversy will likely result in some accelerated changes to the laws in the EU. First- the test needs to be more realistic- so that when you buy a Fiat 500 that claims that it's getting 45mpg, you won't be angry that you only get 35 (that happened). Second- it needs to be more realistic- so that the data generated by EU states will correlate to air quality- the EU has been tightening their standards pretty nicely, but it has not resulted in better air- whereas similar work in the US has (significantly). Third- they need to re-think the idea of giving diesel an advantage- which they already have been doing- as the Euro VII and later proposed standards bring the gas and diesels much closer. There are some things in place in Europe to go from a lab tested car to a random drive cycle test measured live on the road. Either that will be massively accelerated or a more global drive cycle will be used soon.

FWIW- the EU had good intentions when they did this- it was all about the Kyoto agreement, and they projected diesel technology will progress faster than it has. But as time went on, I think the EU started to notice that they were missing key agreements, so they adjusted the set up of the test. Which has now resulted in a BIG difference in off cycle emissions and fuel economy compared to the certified tests.

(and the US system is a lot different)
Click to expand...

I don't buy for a second this is a diversion. This is still going to cost them an assload of money.

Carbon dioxide is not an immediate health hazard but is one of the main causes of global warming. One of the advantages of diesel is that it burns more efficiently, and thus produces less carbon dioxide and better fuel economy. Volkswagen said it had overstated the fuel economy and underestimated the carbon dioxide emissions of the 800,000 cars.

The €2 billion would be in addition to the €6.7 billion the company has already set aside to begin covering the cost of repairing the diesel cars it rigged to cheat on emissions tests.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/b...issions-problem-involving-carbon-dioxide.html

They are probably just cleaning house and getting all of the bad news out in one news cycle so they can recover, if possible. It's better to have a single cycle that is much worse than prolonged coverage about how you continually **** up.

It's also probably cheaper in the long run to get a single large fine than two medium to medium-large fines. Had they released this information say a year or two after the fines were levied and the news had died down, you can be sure that second fine would be much larger than it would have normally been.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

My point is that relative to Europe, people are going to find that all cars don't meet the CO2 emissions they get on their NEDC test. Yea, this is going to cost them a lot. But I see them trying to drag more into this mess.
 
Re: Cars: 2015

Just bought a 2016 Mazda 6 Touring and I love it. Getting great mileage (32-34), Deep crystal blue with parchment/sand interior. I'll be immodest here, but it is a great looking car. I'll be interested to see how it handles a Boston winter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top