VW Owners

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:59 pm

Threeweight wrote:

nursecosmo wrote:

Most diesel in Europe is now lower in sulfur than in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Low_Sulfur_Diesel

Technically, not until next year. That Wiki notes that 2008 Euro specs are 50 parts per million sulfur, dropping to 10 ppm next year. Current US standards are 15 ppm.

Hopefully the standardization will lead to engine designs that meet the clean air rules on both continents. The new MB and VW stuff is being sold in both markets.

It would be cool to see some of the tinkers out there putting energy into home made plug-in hybrids instead spend some time on small diesel SUV's or pickups capable of towing a decent load. I think our 2.8, in a 3500# chasis, with a six speed manual, 3.73 rear end, and decent aerodynamics could easily hit 35 mpg highway, maybe more.

At present they have to have 10 ppm available at each fuel station even if they also sell the 50ppm stuff

kcfoxie · **Joined:** Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:27 am **Posts:** 113

FWIW, I have seen a full grown horse and trailled pulled on a slightly modified 1.9 VW TDI in a wagon body style, with the roof loaded down and the whole family on board.

However I agree. The Jeep has a real frame, 4x4 standard, and it was rated for 5000lb due to the transmission. We all know it could do better than 5000lb.

The VW TDI, having half the valves, was designed for economy. Anything pre-2005.5 VW lineup is a box on wheels, like the Jeep. Just a smaller, lighter box.

If the engine and tranny management of the Jeep was better, it could get closer to 30/34 city highway with the right driver.

The setup of the engine control just baffles me; I set cruise at 55mph and it runs 1800-2000rpm. It should run 1400-1600rpm.

To get that kind of RPM range, I must accel and set cruise at 64mph, then decel with the button to 56mph. If I drop to 55 it drops out of OD.

Perhaps ours is just goofy. We got it for the cargo space, and the ability to climb out of the flood zone we live in (things that a VW won't do).

However, I find it almost unacceptable that I needed ramps to change the oil on it. I'm only 260LB, that engine drops lower than even I had expected. I can't say I needed to do that with the old Xterra (rest its bit, it handled a 85MPH wrong-way head on with an M3 -- driver walked away). However, the Xterra lacked a hitch, 4x4, and it got 21mpg, the Jeep is outpacing it by 1MPG with AC on, and 4MPG with AC off.

They are two different vehicles designed for two different needs. We could not have fit the African Greys cage into a Golf or Jetta Wagon. A Beetle was out of the question (tho I have put a Honda Motorcycle, full futon, several two-seater "doctor waiting room sofas" and a host of other off-shaped items into the bug. No passengers of course. That car has far more room than it lets on if you are good at Tetris), however it fit right into the Jeep and the tail gate shut.

I am by no means a VW Diesel die hard, I am to a point. I am about the engines; VW is the only company whose really pushed forward with them for so long. MB has had dry spells, but VWs only dryspell was the 2007 and 2008 model years, they have made from from 1977-forward in the USA.

If Hyundai or Honda rolled out a manual vehicle with a diesel, I'd probably not get another VW for my needs.

I also feel the scoffing you get at the pump is due to the fact that your vehicle, despite its abilities, makes 4-cyl diesel engines look less economical than a gasoline counterpart.

What is the gasoline 4-cyl no-tow, 2wd Libby's economy rating in comparison to the 4x4 CRD? That alone will make the case to the scoffing VW owner that your vehicle is not diminishing the appearance of diesel engine economy.

but many vw owners also can't see the need for a large vehicle on a day to day basis.

They obviously don't lug around $5000 bird cages, wood, or other supplies on a weekly (or even monthly) basis.

Don't let them irritate you. You should remind them that you're one less spark-plug driven vehicle on the road.

hatchetman · **Posted:** Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:34 am

KCfoxie: You need ramps to change the oil in the Jeep? I'm 5'11" and weigh 260 and I don't need ramps to change the oil and filter. The fumoto does make it a lot easier though. I'm able to reach it from the passenger side.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

I'm 5'11 and 210, and I need ramps to get at the drain plug on mine with the skid plate in place. Coming from Toyota Tacoma's and 4Runners, I was a little shocked at how little ground clearance the Liberty had in stock form. I went with 235/75 tires (but no lift) to get a little more clearance for fishing and hunting trips.

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:29 pm

Threeweight wrote:

I'm 5'11 and 210, and I need ramps to get at the drain plug on mine with the skid plate in place. Coming from Toyota Tacoma's and 4Runners, I was a little shocked at how little ground clearance the Liberty had in stock form. I went with 235/75 tires (but no lift) to get a little more clearance for fishing and hunting trips.

Now it's time to get a CRD Frankenlift, you will love it!

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

dieselenthusiast wrote:

Threeweight wrote:

I'm 5'11 and 210, and I need ramps to get at the drain plug on mine with the skid plate in place. Coming from Toyota Tacoma's and 4Runners, I was a little shocked at how little ground clearance the Liberty had in stock form. I went with 235/75 tires (but no lift) to get a little more clearance for fishing and hunting trips.

Now it's time to get a CRD Frankenlift, you will love it!

I've thought about it, going with either the Frankenlift or the 2.5" pucks and beefier springs. My front skid is missing some paint already, but I can't quite bring myself to shell out the $$ and dealing with the lost MPG's with fuel prices where they are. I put 15-20,000 miles a year on my vehicles, but only 500 or so of that is off pavement.

geordi · **Posted:** Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:19 am

Pretend I'm stupid please. Explain to me why simply raising the vehicle 2 inches and not changing anything else will lower the fuel mileage? Its not like there is an air dam on the front keeping the truck 1/2" off the pavement... There are already oceans of air passing under the thing at speed.

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:48 am

geordi wrote:

Pretend I'm stupid please. Explain to me why simply raising the vehicle 2 inches and not changing anything else will lower the fuel mileage? Its not like there is an air dam on the front keeping the truck 1/2" off the pavement... There are already oceans of air passing under the thing at speed.

The liberty's frontal area is 29.74 Square feet. By raising the vehicle 2 inches approximately 1 more square foot is added thus adding aprox 3% more resistance to push against. As the vehicle is raised it also increases the flow detachment (vacuum) at the rear of the vehicle. A funny thing about flow detachment is that the force that it creates increases by the square of the area (you do the math). More space under the body also increases the ground effect low pressure area which adds to the pull on the vehicle. When all these things are combined it is surprising that even more MPG is not lost with a two inch lift.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

Though I'd likely stick with my Firestones, most folks should factor in the increased weight of larger tires, the increased wind drag that goes along with wider tires, the increased load on the engine to accelerate with taller tires (though offset by lower cruising RPM's), and the increased rolling resistance of a more agressive tread.

kcfoxie · **Joined:** Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:27 am **Posts:** 113

hatchetman and others:

Yeah, I can't fit my fat booty under it without ramps. Sad, but true.

I'm not dismissing it as a flaw of the Jeep and after seeing the great explanation of how a 2" lift can reduce economy from nursecosmo, I don't know if I want to lift it or not. I had thought about it (along with a 1" lift on the VW, those things are too darn low to the ground), but we can't take much more of an economy hit!

An old Liberty CRDer is giving me a fumoto valve for the Jeep. He ordered it but traded the Libby in for a Grand Cherokee CRD before he could install it.

Oddly, our new oil pan has a normal drain plug... like a 24mm bolt, not an allen-headed bolt live I've read about online.

I will say that it is probably the single most convenient vehicle I have ever changed the oil on!

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

Sounds like your dealer may have re-threaded your old pan with a new bolt. That, or re-threaded a new one to avoid the annoyance of the allen head.

The most convenient vehicles I've ever had to change the oil in are Toyota's with the 4.0 V6. They tend to have huge ground clearance from the factory, and come with a remote oil filter placement set up stock (the filter is on the top of the engine bay on the right, by the air box, with a little lip around it to catch spilled oil).

geordi · **Posted:** Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:55 pm

Ok, I know a little about fluid dynamics, and I agree that more air passing under the truck will change the structure of the vacuum at the back. But I would be more inclined to believe that it would help REDUCE the drag some, as the vacuum pool will now have more air flowing into it. Adding those airtabs to 3 of the 4 sides of our trailing edges would seem to me to exacerbate the problem, by isolating those pathways so ONLY the underside is providing "fill" to the vacuum.

But where I have issue is the increase of frontal area. The only thing that changes, to my mind, is the visibility of the tires to the wind. The front of the truck simply rises, so marginally ~2" x the width of your tires is now exposed. But I would counter that the difference is limited to only the front tires, and the increase in resistance is minimal at best. Carry one less dead body in the car, and you probably could make up the energy difference. I do think that the people that run on-road with uber-wide tires are doing themselves a disservice however. I run highway tread 215/85 pizza knives for tires, so the forward profile is narrower than stock, and the tire is 60 rev-per-mile slower b/c of the height difference. My next set will be 235/85 in the same brand, and will add a full 1.5 inches over the stock height, and take off close to 200 rev-per-mile (IIRC) which I think will greatly increase my overall mileage. But I will need to at least pound the pinch weld for those. They touched plastic in the front at full lock, which is why I got the 215 size. I wasn't about to start banging on a truck I had only had for a week.

It would be interesting to see some real-world reports on the benefits of those airtabs on our Jeeps. I'm toying with the idea of getting a bunch for my drive home to Florida, as I will be dragging 4000 lbs of 6x12x6' high enclosed box behind me. Thats a lot of frontal area that I would like to shield from the airstream if possible.

CATCRD · **Posted:** Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:49 pm

I don't think a lift in itself makes much of a difference in fuel mileage. Your suspension components are hanging down a little more in the wind, but that's it. I also have the 215/85 tires and a 2.5" lift, and I can still get over 30mpg at 65 mph.

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:01 am

geordi wrote:

Ok, I know a little about fluid dynamics, and I agree that more air passing under the truck will change the structure of the vacuum at the back. But I would be more inclined to believe that it would help REDUCE the drag some, as the vacuum pool will now have more air flowing into it. Adding those airtabs to 3 of the 4 sides of our trailing edges would seem to me to exacerbate the problem, by isolating those pathways so ONLY the underside is providing "fill" to the vacuum.

But where I have issue is the increase of frontal area. The only thing that changes, to my mind, is the visibility of the tires to the wind. The front of the truck simply rises, so marginally ~2" x the width of your tires is now exposed. But I would counter that the difference is limited to only the front tires, and the increase in resistance is minimal at best. Carry one less dead body in the car, and you probably could make up the energy difference. I do think that the people that run on-road with uber-wide tires are doing themselves a disservice however. I run highway tread 215/85 pizza knives for tires, so the forward profile is narrower than stock, and the tire is 60 rev-per-mile slower b/c of the height difference. My next set will be 235/85 in the same brand, and will add a full 1.5 inches over the stock height, and take off close to 200 rev-per-mile (IIRC) which I think will greatly increase my overall mileage. But I will need to at least pound the pinch weld for those. They touched plastic in the front at full lock, which is why I got the 215 size. I wasn't about to start banging on a truck I had only had for a week.

It would be interesting to see some real-world reports on the benefits of those airtabs on our Jeeps. I'm toying with the idea of getting a bunch for my drive home to Florida, as I will be dragging 4000 lbs of 6x12x6' high enclosed box behind me. Thats a lot of frontal area that I would like to shield from the airstream if possible.

Usually ride height goes into the equation when flow dynamics calculations are being performed although I don't know what the formula is. I think that shear stress induced by all the protrusions under a vehicle may be part of the TFA equation. I don't fully understand the mathematics myself but I do know that the Liberty's height was dropped in either 04 or 05 in order to meet EPA MPG requirements. The Ground effect turbulence in a vehicle like the liberty with a very rough underbody is also significant. Studies show that all vehicles have an optimum height where they have lower drag and that smooth underbodied cars have a higher sweet spot but the rougher the undercarriage is the lower the sweet spot is. In buses and semis altering the ride height and undercarriage can affect MPG as much as 50% Here is some reading material on the very complicated subject of road vehicle aerodynamics. http://aerodyn.org/aero.html Here is a pretty good discussion with citations http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.p ... -1783.html
www.ara.bme.hu/oktatas/letolt/Vehicleae ... erodyn.pdf - Regardless of whether it is caused by TFA, Flow interruption or Gremlins nearly everyone who has ever lifted their truck has noticed a definite and sometimes considerable decrease in MPG.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

Since this is a VW thread, I'll mention this... two things VW does with their TDI's are to run a giant plastic "skid plate" over the engine and transmission components to block wind drag, and to run their vehicles from the factory with extremely low ground clearance.

Given the flat frontal area of the Liberty, I can't imagine how you can raise the bumper height enough to have air pass undisturbed under the car. Ever notice the later model semi's run front fascia that makes their nose more aerodynamic, and reduces the ground clearance beneath the bumper? Same principle as the VWs.

kcfoxie · **Joined:** Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:27 am **Posts:** 113

So thats why the car is so low to the ground. I never really got a good answer on that from dealers or VW themself. Thanks!

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:03 am

I had a guy who works on TDI’s tell me that the engine is great but the car is a piece of crap. Basically the money you save in fuel you have to spend on other parts that break. I’m sure he was over exaggerating his comments, although I’m sure there might be a seed of truth to it. For example, you have power windows still working in a 1969 Cadillac but you are replacing window regulators every 20,000 miles in a TDI. Okay, that might be an exaggeration as well, but you get my point. As auto manufactures focus on fuel economy, they also have to make parts lightweight which usually equates to some form of plastic. Sure, titanium and other metals are just as light as plastic and stronger, but unfortunately the material is also more costly. If I had to commute to work, lets say 30 miles or more round trip, then I would buy a TDI just for fuel savings. With the current price of fuel and depending on the miles driven, I think the fuel savings alone would pay for the payments and insurance and still put money in your pocket. Not to mention, it’s bio compatible which is always a good thing!

kcfoxie · **Joined:** Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:27 am **Posts:** 113

Just to defend. I have 60k on my car. I was a smoker, who smoked in it. I roll my windows up and down 20 times a day.

I am on the factory regulators. They fixed them 2003+.

The new models are not approved for anything over B5, mostly due to the DPF in the emissions system.

I do drive over 30mi/day; the fuel savings over my last VW (02 bug, 2 CELs that were not my fault, 110k miles, cracked the oil pan twice -- to say this car was solid is an understatement) is astronomical. 200 to 300 miles more per tank, still putting up to 14 gallons in the tank at fill time.

Again, the little issues (poor cup holder designs, interior plastics peeling, glovebox latches) are annoying.

Comparing my MkV TDI to the Jeep wouldn't be fair. The MkV was quite refined, it's also about as rare as a Liberty CRD.

The MkIV (What you normally see) could be ranked along side the Jeep for quality.

Think of the MkV as the Cherokee (or should I say that? The two owners I know with Cherokee CRDs aren't complaining about them, but that does not mean its solid).

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:04 am

kcfoxie wrote:

Just to defend. I have 60k on my car. I was a smoker, who smoked in it. I roll my windows up and down 20 times a day.

I am on the factory regulators. They fixed them 2003+.

The new models are not approved for anything over B5, mostly due to the DPF in the emissions system.

I do drive over 30mi/day; the fuel savings over my last VW (02 bug, 2 CELs that were not my fault, 110k miles, cracked the oil pan twice -- to say this car was solid is an understatement) is astronomical. 200 to 300 miles more per tank, still putting up to 14 gallons in the tank at fill time.

Again, the little issues (poor cup holder designs, interior plastics peeling, glovebox latches) are annoying.

Comparing my MkV TDI to the Jeep wouldn't be fair. The MkV was quite refined, it's also about as rare as a Liberty CRD.

The MkIV (What you normally see) could be ranked along side the Jeep for quality.

Think of the MkV as the Cherokee (or should I say that? The two owners I know with Cherokee CRDs aren't complaining about them, but that does not mean its solid).

Point well taken.

MTB_TDI · **Posted:** Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:11 pm

I own both a TDI and a CRD. My TDI is great and have averaged 46 mpg over 120K+ miles. I have replaced a wheel bearing, door lock mechanism. The window regulators were made of plastic pre 2003. They replaced mine for free and put in the new metal ones about 4 years ago and they are still working great. My MAF was replaced once under warranty as well.

I can only hope my jeep is as reliable. I have already had to have my rear window fixed in the jeep within the first month of owning it. The jeep is great and works for what it was bought for. Each has it's own purpose. That is it. I will agree the VW is more refined, but the Jeep is supposed to be a jeep. That is part of its charm!

VW Owners

Who is online