Re: New PT cruiser

#21

Steve wrote:

Quote:

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.

#22

Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> writes:

Quote:

Brian Priebe wrote:

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.

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)

#23

Josh S wrote:

Quote:

In article <W4KdnSInCqXOFH3XnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d (AT) texas (DOT) net>,
Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) 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.

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.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

#24

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:25:59 -0400, Steve Stone <n2ubp (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

I think the insurance company will total our 2006 PT Cruiser after it
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

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.

#25

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:33:22 -0500, Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

#26

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:36:00 -0500, Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

Quote:

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.

#27

Steve wrote:

Quote:

Some O wrote:
In article <hbmukq$k1n$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Steve Stone <n2ubp (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Any one here know more about the Dodge Journey or can compare one to
the PT Cruiser?

Steve

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.

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.
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?

#28

CF wrote:

Quote:

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.

#29

Steve Stone wrote:

Quote:

CF wrote:
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.
Why the hell do these sites only show the "R/T" models and the ones with

the "biggest" everything!
What about the economy models that most people buy!

#30

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

Quote:

Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> writes:

Brian Priebe wrote:

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.

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*.

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.