Optimal Trade-In Time?

[mosh00]

Very impressed with the Jetta's economy and ride thus far.  Ran back and forth between two local KC suburbs last night, 60 mile round trip, and computer indicated over 42mpg!  And that was navigating to residences on both ends of the commute as well.

 

Walt is going to like those numbers!! 

[enigma-2]

Very impressed with the Jetta's economy and ride thus far. Ran back and forth between two local KC suburbs last night, 60 mile round trip, and computer indicated over 42mpg! And that was navigating to residences on both ends of the commute as well.

That's well over EPA's 40 rating, nice going! Do you miss setting up higher?

[VisionPilot]

That's well over EPA's 40 rating, nice going! Do you miss setting up higher?

 

Not at all.  To be honest, the MKX wasn't all that tall of an SUV compared to many others, especially compared to today's pickup trucks. There was always a bigger vehicle in front of me, so going lower wasn't going to make much difference in that regard.  That being said, and having just turned 54, it was easier getting in and out of the MKX.

Edited June 7, 2018 by VisionPilot

[walkabout]

Walt is going to like those numbers!! 

 

 

Why? Walt can get the same numbers in his MKX - once he swaps in a new engine.

[akirby]

Why? Walt can get the same numbers in his MKX - once he swaps in a new engine.

 

And drives 46.8 mph

[waltcmusic]

Edited June 11, 2018 by waltcmusic

[waltcmusic]

Edited June 11, 2018 by waltcmusic

[akirby]

[walkabout]

Why just 60, Walt?  I would have figured you'd get 70 or 80. 

 

You shouldn't drive with such a heavy foot.  

 

Weren't you the one who assured us that a FI engine would always get more crappy MPG than a NA counterpart?  

 

The Jetta has roughly 185 pounds of torque.You probably would have the same issue there that keeps the Ford Ecoboost engines from having much of a "eco" component.  That much power is still going to burn fuel.  Its a zero sum game, more power means more energy consumed (although smaller turbo engines are likely to be more efficient when you're not pulling for power).  So, no, you would not be able to get 60 MPG out of the vehicle. 

 

The numbers VisionPilot is describing above are quite believable though and exactly what I would expect. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by walkabout

[waltcmusic]

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by waltcmusic

[walkabout]

First of all, those photos prove nothing. Nobody knows what conditions you got those numbers under.

 

Second, the meters on the dashboard are notoriously inaccurate. There is only one real way to determine mpg: fill the car up, drive, fill the car up again, divide mikes driven by gallons added.

 

I don't think you're a liar but I also don't think you're all the glued into reality if you seriously believe a chevy cruze can get close to 70 mpg.

[walkabout]

First of all, those photos prove nothing. Nobody knows what conditions you got those numbers under.

 

Second, the meters on the dashboard are notoriously inaccurate. There is only one real way to determine mpg: fill the car up, drive, fill the car up again, divide mikes driven by gallons added.

 

I don't think you're a liar but I also don't think you're all the glued into reality if you seriously believe a chevy cruze and/or Jetta can get close to 70 mpg.

[walkabout]

See? That post was so important I repeated it.

[waltcmusic]

Edited June 11, 2018 by waltcmusic

[walkabout]

Walt, I hope you are satisfied with your new car regardless of the mpg.

[akirby]

Just let it go guys.  He's going to believe whatever he wants to believe.

[MKXMark]

Who in the world drives for 50 straight miles at 41MPH? Why would anyone do that?

[akirby]

Who in the world drives for 50 straight miles at 41MPH? Why would anyone do that?

 

Please see post #66. 

[waltcmusic]

Edited June 11, 2018 by waltcmusic

[Adam]

I had to convert as I have no sense of imperial speed, but holy cow! 45 mph / 72 km/h on the freeway? I suspect you represent a serious hazard when traveling on the freeway.

[waltcmusic]

Edited June 11, 2018 by waltcmusic

[Cosmos36]

walter chan...re: post 69, where did you get the idea that the speed limit on ALL roads in Washington State was 50 mph prior to 1995?

 

I've lived in Washington State since 1955...by 1995, I was four years into retirement when you were about 12 years old. I think my recall of WA speed limits excels yours or your source info is out of context.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Cosmos36

[waltcmusic]

Edited June 11, 2018 by waltcmusic

[waltcmusic]

.

Edited June 11, 2018 by waltcmusic

[Cosmos36]

Your first statement ^ is common knowledge to millions of current U.S. drivers in every state over the age of 20.

 

Your second statement ^ as it applies to the greater portion of the Interstate System in Washington state is not correct. During the '70s gas crises, for example, a speed limit of 50 mph was imposed on I-5. In 1987, the state legislature authorized an increase from 60 mph to 65 mph on designated sections of the interstate system. Since May 2016, speeds are capped at 70 mph on the Washington interstate system after repeated attempts seeking 75 mph speed limits on rural sections. Most of I-5 is currently posted at the 70 mph cap.

 

In your post #73, you contradict yourself with "Well, I'm not saying all roads." when in post #69 you declared "...all roads". The rest of your post #73 is irrelevant retro "time-machine" (sic) nonsense.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Cosmos36