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
#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.
#437 of 498 Re: Faster wear [ruking1]
Mar 08, 2007 (9:24 am)
Even 55,000 miles on a set of OEM tires (or almost any tire for that matter)is a lot yet you say the tires on a Jetta you own is expected to go 120-130,000 miles. This on one (1) set of tires? I can honestly say that neither I nor anybody I know ever got anywhere near that and I would be happy if I got that "poor" 55K mile treadlife on ANY tire I ever bought regardless of price paid or brand or treadwear estimates. My tires wear evenly, I rotate religiously, keep correct air pressure, drive sanely, don't do burn-outs, but they just plain WEAR OUT!! How is it that some get 100+K miles on brake pads....100K miles on tires....50 mpg and so on? Am I doing something wrong? Am I buying the wrong brand? Do I believe everything I read on a website?
#438 of 498 Re: Faster wear [targettuning]
Mar 08, 2007 (11:49 am)
How is it that some get 100+K miles on brake pads.
It is quite simple, they were never really used for most of those miles. Before the car was handed down to me, it was driven 70 miles a day round trip on my grandmother's work commute, 31-32 miles or so of which was beltway-type interstate (I-459 in Birmingham, if you are familiar). 70 MPH speed limits, with very little traffic holdups. The car ran for 120,000 miles that way before I got it. She had them checked several times, because she just knew it would need them before then (she got the 1996 Accord only 2 years after changing where she worked - she has since retired), but they always told her approx. what percent of brake pad life was left, so she never had to get them done. That fell to me, at 141k miles. I still have the original rears, but want to get them at least looked at on my next oil change (I'm at 3,300 miles on this oil, so I'll go in very soon).
The short answer for extending brake pad life?
Don't use 'em!
#439 of 498 Re: Faster wear [thegraduate]
Mar 08, 2007 (12:11 pm)
Yeah but you gotta stop sometime. It just seems unreal since I change pads at about 30K intervals and do not live in a large city where there is more STOP than GO. Sure I stop at a few lights and stop signs every day but still... Anyhow,we always use the tires...round and round we go.
#440 of 498 Re: Faster wear [targettuning]
Mar 08, 2007 (2:30 pm)
Yes ONE set (1). No alignment since the new car break in ( 12,000 or one year warranty) What this means in English is I drove it around for app 5,000 miles and brought it in to the local VW Dealer and ask them to check the alignment and give me a written result. I did the same with the Honda Civic.
On the tires, we do geek out, (www.tdi.com) about the proper air pressure, but I will not bore you all with the discussion. Truly how I thought I had the wrong brand (GY) was on the discussion thread and as a result really thought I got the short end of the stick.
I can't yet speak on either about the brake pads and rotors as I am not yet at 135,000 miles on either. As you all know it is VERY easy to check the remaining material on a disc brake. You can also feel when a rotor is warped. I can swag with a micrometer and a bit of shop manual research but....
Both cars routinely see once or twice a month operation on the streets of San Francisco.
#441 of 498 Re: Faster wear [targettuning]
Mar 08, 2007 (2:32 pm)
Yeah but you gotta stop sometime. It just seems unreal since I change pads at about 30K intervals and do not live in a large city where there is more STOP than GO.
You have to remember, she drove about 60 miles (of 70) where she never had to apply the brakes (unless an unlikely traffic tie-up occurred). This meant that for over 80% of her driving, she never used the brakes more than occasionally. The other 20% is when most of the wear occurred. It isn't where she lived, it is how far her brake-less commute was versus the area where she DID have to use them. Between her house and her office, in my head, I'm counting four traffic lights and two stop signs; over 35 miles. She made a round trip, so 8 redlights and 4 stop signs a day, over 70 miles. Considering all of the lights fall in zones where the speeds should be under 40 MPH, it doesn't surprise me at all, nor does it make me think a different car of similar weight and driven similarly couldn't do the same thing.
I've got 30k miles on my current front pads now, and they have been used a lot more than my grandmother used. Still plenty of life in them though, although not nearly as much as the original ones would have had at this stage. I drive 28 miles a day, with probably 15 lights, and 3 or 4 stop signs; only 14 miles of interstate in that 28 miles.
We always use the tires, yes, but how do you use them? I think the current pattern is looking like I'll get about 65,000 miles from my OEM tires on my 2006 Accord (approximately 1/4th of tread above the "warning bars" has been used, and I have 17,000 miles on the car). If you drive in curves, do more turning, or drive more aggressive in general, tires, brakes, and gas will all be fleeting.