VW "Leatherette" and DSG transmission

[CincyDavid]

Interesting. Which Cherokee is that again? And what frame is using it? [/quote]

Haha, that's why I put that in quotes. I have misgivings about FWD-biased, car based drivetrains in larger, heavier vehicles. The JGC is primarily RWD and I associate that with sturdiness...I have heard too many negative stories about minivans with delicate transmissions. My take on that is the transmission isn't really up to the task of lugging around a bigger, heavier vehicle than the donor vehicle...and to my way of thinking a FWD-biased SUV/CUV is a minivan in a tougher-looking package. My first exposure to that concept was a 96 Ford Windstar I bought in 1998...went through 3 transmissions under warranty...one only lasted a week. A Windstar is heavier than a Taurus, and once you add 7 people there's the potential for LOTS of extra weight, plus the extra surface area of a larger vehicle, it's a recipe for shorter service life.

BOF vs. unit body is irrelevant to the discussion, it's strictly a drivetrain issue.

For a leased vehicle it wouldn't matter, but for a long term "keeper" longevity is important to me. edyVW, if you were going to pile hundreds of thousands of miles on a vehicle, would you want a Sienna or a 4Runner, or even a Sequoia?!? In my mind I'd expect the RWD-biased "trucks" to last a lot longer and be sturdier than the Camry-based Sienna.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
Interesting. Which Cherokee is that again? And what frame is using it?


Quote
Haha, that's why I put that in quotes. I have misgivings about FWD-biased, car based drivetrains in larger, heavier vehicles. The JGC is primarily RWD and I associate that with sturdiness...I have heard too many negative stories about minivans with delicate transmissions. My take on that is the transmission isn't really up to the task of lugging around a bigger, heavier vehicle than the donor vehicle...and to my way of thinking a FWD-biased SUV/CUV is a minivan in a tougher-looking package. My first exposure to that concept was a 96 Ford Windstar I bought in 1998...went through 3 transmissions under warranty...one only lasted a week. A Windstar is heavier than a Taurus, and once you add 7 people there's the potential for LOTS of extra weight, plus the extra surface area of a larger vehicle, it's a recipe for shorter service life.

BOF vs. unit body is irrelevant to the discussion, it's strictly a drivetrain issue.

For a leased vehicle it wouldn't matter, but for a long term "keeper" longevity is important to me. edyVW, if you were going to pile hundreds of thousands of miles on a vehicle, would you want a Sienna or a 4Runner, or even a Sequoia?!? In my mind I'd expect the RWD-biased "trucks" to last a lot longer and be sturdier than the Camry-based Sienna.


RWD based platform is not indication of sturdiness. There are a lot of RWD based platforms from Chrysler, GM, and yet they went bankrupt for a reason. They final execution is what matters, that is why your GC has Mercedes platform not Chrysler one.
As for your question what I would want, I would not want Sequoia or 4Runner. Sienna is much better performer for what I need, and that is to haul kids. Sienna is better then GC, GL, X5 (which I traded in for Sienna), 4Runner in driving kids to and from daycare. I am not going to do off roading, I am going to ski with this car, and going to ski means it is more important what kind of tires one has not platform or drivetrain system.
As for Camry based Sienna, based on my observations, there are much more 15-20 year old Camry's or Sienna's on the road then 15-20 years old truck based Chryslers. Platform is just one piece of the pie.

 

[Zee09]

Bump