Repair-It

2014 Cruze (6-sp auto) vs 2013 Jetta TDI (w/ DSG), C&D. I hadn't seen this but it's from August 2013.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons ... rison-test

It seems the Jetta's TDI out-classes the diesel in the Cruze. While not being any louder empirically, the Cruze apparently had more overall clatter and NVH. The Cruze also looks like a bit of a packaging failure compared to the Jetta, with a smaller back seat and smaller trunk while carrying an extra 232lbs. They both pulled 0.81g but the Jetta slalomed better and felt more connected (driver's car, etc.).

But that's not to say the Cruze was a total failure. Overall vehicle performance is about the same. These both trap 85mph which is respectable. It would seem the Cruze has a bigger turbo based on having a higher torque peak RPM, and being described as not running out of breath as much toward redline. In fact they also described some turbo lag off the line. That would annoy me surely. But yet, the 5-60 time actually beat the Jetta. The Cruze did 5-60 in 8.6 seconds, only 0.6 seconds slower than the 0-60. The Jetta, with an identical 8 seconds from 0-60 needed 9.3 from 5-60. I think maybe I would blame the DSG here. And despite turning in the same 85mph trap (and the cars have nearly the same power/weight ratio), the Cruze is 1.1 seconds faster to 100mph. Aerodynamics perhaps.

The Cruze had a much longer fuel range, which seems to be some sort of hallmark for this kind of car. The Jetta ran 617 miles on a tank while the Cruze managed 747 miles. Both are going to require you stop to pee before running out of fuel, of course, but, again, this seems to be some kind of novelty. Also, over the 900 mile test trip, the Jetta averaged 40mpg and the Cruze impressively got 44mpg.

I think the Cruze Eco w/ manual is the better choice, at least with the Cruze.

Here's a perspective from the comments in this article:

I own a 2000 VW Jetta diesel, manual 5 speed. I purchased the Jetta with 172,000 on it in May 2010 for $4,800.00 At 192,000 the timing belt broke. (No way to now if it was ever changed) that cost $4,200.00 to fix. I drive 65k miles a yr. It runs well still today with 317,000 on it. However I wasn't about to let the timing belt snap again so I replaced it at 280 k miles. Cost $1,100.00 I've also replaced struts $350.00, tires 3 sets $1,300.00, many oil changes $55.00 x15 or so. Rear main engine seal $650.00 a few other oil leaks along the way. It's very expensive to maintain if you,compare it with a corolla, civic etc. on the plus side you get great mileage, German handling, tight and fairly quiet. On average 70 mph = 50 mpg. 78 mph = 43 to 47 depending on headwinds between Phoenix and SoCal . Ok, yes, I took one for the team, one time 65 mph all 405.6 miles to my office in Laguna Hills. Everybody passing me staring at me, a few less then favorable gestures but I stayed in the right hand lane. 65 mph = 68.7 mpg on that trip. If you're an average driver 15 k miles per ear I'd say go for a diesel, if you do 65k to 80 k like I do you have to spend 1200.00 every year for a timing belt. That extra $100.00 per month divided into fuel mileage isn't worth it at all. I'd do much better in a Camry-accord-civic-corolla vehicle and not have all the maintanance expenses as well. You be the judge. P.s. I called the local VW dealer, quote for a gas or diesel Jetta $1250.00 for a timing belt. Called Toyota for a Camry belt quote, 344.00 quite a bit of difference from German to Asian parts costs.

I think what I am tired of is people saying things like "diesel engines go 300k" as if A) they are as simple as the old mechanical injection diesels that had zero horsepower and belched smoke, so who would want to drive that anyway and B) the rest of the car somehow becomes magic and needs nothing for that 300k (transmission? electrical?) and C) gas engine reliability is somehow still a problem and we need a diesel to solve it. The engine is not very likely to cause a car to wind up in a junkyard. Look at all the perfectly functioning engines you can get from junked cars.

Look at this guy's data point - he does 65k miles a year. The mileage is great, yes, but the maintenance expense ruins the advantage. Which is completely counter to the "common wisdom" of why you'd buy a diesel.

I was a big proponent of diesel as the fuel of the future at one point in time. I have now come to the realization that diesel's window for success and widespread adoption in the US has probably passed. Between the 20% price premium for the fuel and the lack of real savings on maintenance (maybe this is a result of most of the diesel offerings being VWs), I just don't see it really taking off.

I am however happy to see a non-VW compact car diesel option. I wish Mazda could get their Skyactiv D engine right because I would really like to see the Skyactiv D Mazda3.

Not knowing the procedure for replacing a timing belt in either the toyotas or the jetta's, I bet the difference is in labor costs. It is possible that doing the timing belt on the jetta is an engine-out job. The timing belt maintenance seems like it should be factored into operating cost whether you do 15k per year or 85k per year, regardless of fuel economy.

I agree that the diesel seems unlikely to take off. Sure, they're interesting, and the mileage is high enough to attract some buyers, but the cost savings is just not there once someone does all the calculations.

Fortunately for these companies, most buyers do not do those calcs.

I'm curious about the skyactiv technology as well. In reading about it some time ago, it seemed like they were using some crazy high compression ratios (like a diesel perhaps?!). But the american versions ended up being must less radical.

Fast_Ed wrote:The timing belt maintenance seems like it should be factored into operating cost whether you do 15k per year or 85k per year, regardless of fuel economy.

Yeah I figured that out as I was reading it. It seems like some people still make "emotional calculations." In other words, an annual $1200 timing belt replacement is a real expense, but a 5 year timing belt replacement is "so infrequent as to not exist." But it's just math. You don't factor things out like that.

I guess when you're doing that many miles the maintenance costs are more 'in your face.'

People who get rid of their cars after 100k probably never see a timing belt or timing chain service. However, if they keep it until *gasp* 150k, they start hearing things about that timing belt if they have one. Suddenly they have an opinion on belt vs chain.

That's also why people are willing to pay $30k to save a couple bucks at the pump, because there's no more in your face operating cost than fuel.

Imo, it's representative of most people's failure at budgeting. To a lot of people, if it's not a monthly expense, it's infrequent. Then it becomes a surprise that wasn't planned for. For example, you can save money if you prepay your 6 month car insurance premium. But people suck at life so, omg, I don't have $800! Strangely, these people find a way to afford $150/mo (which adds up to $900). If you took that $150/mo that you can afford, and then save it, you'll end up with $900 (ends up with a $100 surplus, which is exactly what people with a high debt to income ratio should be doing). If you can pay $150/mo, you can save $900. There's no debating that.

The consumeristic American culture basically shuns conservative financial planning/spending. People that make $50k/yr qualify for and sign up for a $30k 6 year car loan. Why? Because "that's what you do, right?" I'm an American! I have a right to drive a new car!

I accept your challenge on whether 'that can be debated..':

So the person cancels their car insurance for six months to cover their next premium? I suppose that's a choice you could make. In New Hampshire. In 1996.

However, I totally agree with you on the car loan problem. But I think your pent up anger is mostly due to people giving you a hard time about driving 'older' cars. The expectation is that everyone should drive a "brand new" car (less than 3 years old) because they 'can afford it' or 'need it' or 'its safer..'

However, the idea of "living within your means" is not in the financial interest of any entity able to promote it on a large scale. It's good for the economy to pay interest, buy new cars, and have the latest gadgets. But not for the individuals, or "consumers," which is a common synonym for that other word nowadays.

I think the best bet is just to continue the generations-old tradition of parents teaching their children about life and money.

We just have to hope they remember that when all their friends are driving the latest and greatest economy stimulation device, and they drive sweet b-bodies.

Stimulating the economy is fine. After all, about the worst thing people could do for the economy is put cash under a mattress. But any other kind of savings still benefits the economy.

Anyway, the second I have to listen to someone complain that they don't have any money, I'd rather they drive something cheaper (or not at all). Or substitute any other kind of expense (i.e. "some expenses aren't car related at all" which is a hilarious homage to that popcorn joke).

Over time, if you can afford revolving monthly debt, it is always possible to save money. Will you have to compromise or do without for a month or six as you re-baseline your finances? Uh, probably. I mean, is the expectation that you should be able to afford every necessity AND discretionary expense while also saving money? That expectation is not grounded in reality if so.

The real problem is that you can't legislate common sense. Social security is a perfect example. That program could be SIGNIFICANTLY scaled back to only account for people who have major life changing circumstances (loss of a parent, etc.) and not a general retirement plan. But no, we can't do that, because people won't take care of themselves. So they cast political votes that elect talking heads who've said nice words about how they should be getting a larger check from the government..........have I fallen down a hole yet?

In summary, if you (the royal "you") want to live your life in a "I can't use this money after I die" sort of way, then guess what? More power to you!! Really! But for fuck's sake, don't ask the government for a DIME. Ok?? There's nothing more obnoxious than someone who plans like shit, gets to retirement and goes "well I'll be damned, I'm still alive - I guess I needed some money after all." Message to society: please don't do that.