V6 or V4 for general Mt driving? (Leadville: sales, transfer)

[Umbria]

Originally Posted by ajmac10

Turbo is the way to go.

I'll remember this. Wonder why the Outback discontinued it? I see the design has improved, the interior is much more substantial than the Forester, but the Forester is "cuter".

[Ziasforever]

If you're not going off-road or rugged road, go with the Jetta Turbo Diesel. Like JL advises impervious to altitiude and great on fuel economy.
The RP that advised the 4cyl Rav is a dog is correct. Some friends of mine in LA Jr, brought theirs down to the SLV and when he went up a steep road he had to go in to low and even slipped a little.
Jetta Diesel is the way to go.

[jazzlover]

I can't speak about the RAV4 4-cylinder, but where I used to work had a few Ford Escape AWD 4-cylinders in their vehicle fleet. They were no rocket, but would do OK in the mountains and got close to 30 mpg on the highway. I hear the newer 4-cylinder Escapes are even a little better.

I agree with Zia about the VW diesel being a good choice for an economical car, with one caveat: if you live in rural Colorado, dealers and mechanics who know how to work on them are scarce. The other issue is that the Colorado VW dealers that I've tried to deal with have been pretty awful--otherwise I might own a VW diesel.

There are actually scads of great diesel cars and 4WD's made, some even by the American manufacturers, but--thanks to our moribund EPA--they can not be sold in the US.

Unless one is trying to find a vehicle for backcountry driving, or unless someone is going to be doing a whole lot of adverse-condition winter driving, a good front-wheel-drive car with traction control and decent winter tires will do nearly as well as an AWD "cute-ute" in winter driving conditions--at a lower acquisition cost with better fuel economy. Nearly all new front-wheel-drive cars have traction control of some type these days (one has to check the spec's to make sure), so any number of good 4-cylinder cars are available that could meet the need. I drive a 4-cylinder sedan most of the time. It does fine in the mountains and gets near 40 mpg on the highway. I do keep wishing that Subaru would bring their 2.0 turbodiesel Forester that they sell overseas to the US--40+ mpg in an AWD vehicle, but it probably won't happen.

[Ziasforever]

Yeah, as much fun as I like to poke at the Subaru, it definitely is very capable in the mountains.

[Umbria]

Hello, I went out today and took a close look at the Outback & Forester. Both look excellent so I'm thinking I may say audios to the Rav. The new design of the Outback gives it more of a SUV look and the Forester has a cute tush. Now - 4 or 6 cyl for the Outback???????? The Forester still has the turbo and when I asked why the Outback stopped with the turbo she said people just weren't ordering it. They went with fuel efficiency. S-l-o-w-l-y but surely this will all happen.
Her son moved out to CO to go to school and he loves his 4 cyl. Outback

I have not looked at the VW but I know nothing about diesel.

So~~~~~~~~~~~~~~thank you all for your input on this Ya just got to love CD! I get so much good info on here.

[breaksraver13]

Do not get any NEW VW's, I have had bad experiences with there construction.......they will crumble to pieces right in front of you

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by Umbria

Hello, I went out today and took a close look at the Outback & Forester. Both look excellent so I'm thinking I may say audios to the Rav. The new design of the Outback gives it more of a SUV look and the Forester has a cute tush. Now - 4 or 6 cyl for the Outback???????? The Forester still has the turbo and when I asked why the Outback stopped with the turbo she said people just weren't ordering it. They went with fuel efficiency. S-l-o-w-l-y but surely this will all happen.
Her son moved out to CO to go to school and he loves his 4 cyl. Outback

I have not looked at the VW but I know nothing about diesel.

So~~~~~~~~~~~~~~thank you all for your input on this Ya just got to love CD! I get so much good info on here.

Subaru decided to adopt the Tribeca 3.6 6cyl motor instead and it gives the Outback plenty of kick.

The main advantage of the Subaru is they all come standard with symmetrical all wheel drive which can put 25% power to each wheel or vary the split as need be.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

Subaru decided to adopt the Tribeca 3.6 6cyl motor instead and it gives the Outback plenty of kick.

The main advantage of the Subaru is they all come standard with symmetrical all wheel drive which can put 25% power to each wheel or vary the split as need be.

The problem with the Outback 6-cylinder is that it doesn't get much better fuel economy than a regular 4WD SUV. The 2011 EPA fuel economy rating is 18 city/25 highway. Compare that to a full-size Chevy 1/2 4WD pickup with a 5.3 V8--it gets 15/21. Not that much difference. A friend of mine just purchased a 2011 3/4 ton 4WD Chevy Duramax diesel for use in his business. He is getting 22 mpg on the highway unladen with it, consistently--of course, the damned thing cost him nearly 45 grand--ouch!

The 2.5 4 in the Subarus is not a rocket, but at least it gets respectable fuel economy for an AWD--still it's no economy car. You really need to evaluate whether you need AWD or not. You might consider doing what a lot of we locals have done--buy an economical lightly used FWD car for a daily driver and a used "beater" 4WD to bash around the mountains and have for those occasional really bad winter storms.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

The problem with the Outback 6-cylinder is that it doesn't get much better fuel economy than a regular 4WD SUV. The 2011 EPA fuel economy rating is 18 city/25 highway. Compare that to a full-size Chevy 1/2 4WD pickup with a 5.3 V8--it gets 15/21. Not that much difference. A friend of mine just purchased a 2011 3/4 ton 4WD Chevy Duramax diesel for use in his business. He is getting 22 mpg on the highway unladen with it, consistently--of course, the damned thing cost him nearly 45 grand--ouch!

The 2.5 4 in the Subarus is not a rocket, but at least it gets respectable fuel economy for an AWD--still it's no economy car. You really need to evaluate whether you need AWD or not. You might consider doing what a lot of we locals have done--buy an economical lightly used FWD car for a daily driver and a used "beater" 4WD to bash around the mountains and have for those occasional really bad winter storms.

Essentially how AWD cars work is most of the time they are only putting power to the front axle anyways providing power to the rear axle in slipping or accelerating situations. AWD is something that when you need it, you really really need it.

If you look at 6 cyls in this class the gas mileage isn't much different. For me 2 or 3 mpg means little if I am driving a crappy vehicle by comparison.

I also don't want an old beater for driving in bad weather because not only that is when frequency of auto accidents goes up but also the chance of breaking down or having issues.

[Umbria]

I currently have a Honda CRV 1998 with only 55,000 miles and I bought a Miata in 2002 with the thought that the Honda would last me to my grave since I drive the Miata spring, summer, fall and the Honda only when I need to haul stuff (people, dogs, rock, stone, etc...). The Honda is great in the winter for this area - goose it and it goes through anything.

What's happened is the Honda has started to deteriorate from nonuse. I am just now putting in a new alternator, fan belt, brakes etc....This is the only money I have put into it in 12 years besides the regular oil change, etc...

It's also a 4 (whatever) and just don't think it will be able to handle mountain driving/altitude so I will trade them both in and get something that will.

Old beaters are fine if you know something about cars. I, however, am automobile challenged. I also am tired of paying ins. for 2 cars, oil changes on 2 cars, license tabs on 2 cars - not the mention all the harrassment I get from people - "Oh, which one should I drive today"