Last post on Mar 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM
You are in the Volkswagen Jetta
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Volkswagen Jetta, Sedan
#427 of 498 Re: I'm imagining one thing [ruking1]
Mar 07, 2007 (1:01 pm)
Can you say Tourag (however you spell the darn thing), Q7, X5, X3, or Cayenne S?
#428 of 498 Faster wear
Mar 07, 2007 (6:24 pm)
So far two consumeables on the Honda are wearing 2x faster than on the Jetta: alignment and tires. Both cars were baselined at each respective dealer when new. I needed an alignment at app 42,000 miles with the Honda. Tires while very evenly worn, do not look like they will go past 55k. The Jetta so far with 89,000 miles has not needed an alignment and the tires will probably go 120k to 130k. The Jetta is run on the highways at higher sustained speeds than the Honda.
#429 of 498 Re: Faster wear [ruking1]
Mar 07, 2007 (7:17 pm)
I'm a little confused, your Jetta is run on the highways more than the Honda?
My 1996 Accord went 141k miles before ever having brake pads put on the car. I still have the orignal rear ones. It ran lots of highway miles.
I'm curious if your Honda is run on the same route as the VW, your post almost makes it sound like it might be (the highway comment) or you may just drive it faster; I wasn't really clear on that.
#430 of 498 Re: Faster wear [thegraduate]
Mar 07, 2007 (7:24 pm)
Actually correct. It is the one that we use when we do longer trips and cross country. It has been R/T'd cross country.
Yes the daily commute is EXACTLY the same route. During the RUSH HOUR commute, it is HARD (and actually dangerous to drive one faster or slower than another. So I apologize if that was not too clear.
On the brakes for sure the rears will run 125k on the Jetta. I actually think the fronts will go at least that, but am prepared to do the rotor and pad change when and if needed, as the fronts do the majority of the braking.
#431 of 498 Re: Faster wear [ruking1]
Mar 07, 2007 (7:28 pm)
Then it sounds to me like the Honda lives the more abused life. More cornering comes to your Honda (it ONLY does your city commute, whereas your Jetta gets to split that with long straight highway trips). Also, if your city is anything like Birmingham, AL where I live, the roads in town are much worse than those outside of town, bumpy and pothole filled vs. smooth 70 MPH interstates.
So, with that stated, your post seems logical. The car getting more (abuse isn't a good word) stress will be wearing faster (the Honda). Highways are a velvet pillow for a car. They stay at optimum operating temperature, you don't stop and go, you don't use the brakes (much!), and you don't corner at all. You're Jetta gets all the treadmill time, while your Civic is doing the triathalon.
#432 of 498 Re: Faster wear [thegraduate]
Mar 07, 2007 (7:36 pm)
I would agree with you, except for the fact the Jetta has double the miles on the (same) commute than the Honda. We do take the Honda on highway trips, but shorter highway trips such as 1000 mile r/t. In that commute, the Civic is the gas guzzler with 38-42. The Jetta gets 48-51.
#433 of 498 Re: Faster wear [ruking1]
Mar 07, 2007 (7:43 pm)
Sounds like the Honda is the ONLY gas guzzler in your family. TDI Jetta, eh? If the Civic averages 40 MPG at $2.20 a gallon, and the Jetta averages 49 MPG at $2.70 a gallon, it almost seems like a wash!
If the Honda sees a higher percentage of city miles than the VW does (which is what I'm trying to figure out) then it still sort of makes sense to me.
What kind of tires do you have on each, out of curiousity? I just realized I probably look like I'm grilling you. I'm not trying to be a pest, so send me an online *slap* if I need to stop!
#434 of 498 Re: Faster wear [thegraduate]
Mar 07, 2007 (7:55 pm)
No not at all. Since I see them side by side, something that might seem totally logical and a no brainer would not be as apparent if someone else just owns one or the other. No attempt was made to equalize the tires, other than run what came OEM. GY LS, Dunlop on the other.
Yes ULR is currently at 2.83 and diesel at 2.97. So the math would put fuel cost at 2.83/40=.07075 vs 2.97/49= .0606122. This would make the ULR 14.3% more per mile driven.
#435 of 498 Re: Faster wear [ruking1]
Mar 08, 2007 (8:19 am)
In terms of lessons learned about the vehicles side by side, quite a few "commonly known" things about Honda and VW have been shown to be at the worst suspect and on a practical level reinforces the dictum "buyer beware." Indeed for the same miles driven (41,500) on both cars. The Honda is one alignment and 4 tires more expensive than the VW. This is of course with a look back with the VW as it has more than 2x the miles the Honda has currently. So if we put some dollar figures to those items, we are talking 60-100 for the alignment and (just to replace with the obviously short wearing) oem tires, app 300.
While sort of unrelated, BUT REALLY RELATED, another issue would be what tires to replace the Dunlop OEM's with. If one is not careful, most selections lose mpg which would partially negate why one bought a economic/economy vehicle in the first place? However it is pretty obvious, they are not long wearing in my case. When you start to take this stuff out to 250,000 -300,000 miles the consequences of the decision just jump out at you. On the other side if one is a ricer, they are probably thinking geez, what a fogie.
#436 of 498 Re: Faster wear [ruking1]
Mar 08, 2007 (9:00 am)
On the VW side, I am just as surprise as anyone (in the VW gearhead community) that the lowly rated and thought of oem GY LS tires seem to be going to 125,000 miles with no issues other than dead even across wear.