This update greatly reduced the humming noise for me, although I never really believed the humming noise was indicative of any issues and the sound is still there just at different speeds as Jasmine said. The update will make most people happy but when you still hear it now and then just remember its one of the most advanced all-wheel drive systems around just doing its good work for you, trying to give you AWD performance with 2WD economy.Jasmine said:Service bulletin TSB 08-095-18 from FCA has a software update your dealer can do.
ESC has three states. When you start the car, it is completely on. If you press the button momentarily, it is partially off. If you hold the button at a STOP for about 10 seconds it will go almost completely off, but, slips back into partially off mode if you go above a certain speed. This is all described in the user manual.Jasmine said:You can also make the noise go away by using autostick or by turning ESC off. I was chastised by some on the site for turning off ESC because it is a safety device; still others said ESC is always there regardless of the switch position.
:rotfl:Jasmine said:The new Kittenfish engine, I mean Tigershark engine...
This is not really...quite...fair to say... arrrg here we go.......Jasmine said:...tends to use a lot of oil
Lol this is why I laugh when people say new Compass feels under powered, cant move its body, wont be able to go up hill off-road (yes I heard this). My 2006 Jeep GC has 230HP an that is a massive 4.7V8 on a 4700lb car. Compass has 180HP on a 3600lb car. So basically both cars have ~20HPs per lb. IF you go another 10 years back to 1995ish models, there are engines like 5.2L V8 that produced 220HP and a 5.9L V8 that produced 245HP. Lol there is even the AMC 1991 5.9L V8 that produced 144HP. I am not even going to talk about how inefficient transmissions and powertrain components were back then and even less power made it to the road.This engine produces nearly the same horsepower as engines with nearly two liters of additional displacement did in the early 2000's, and gets significantly better fuel economy.
I will say, on the other side of the coin, while these engines are making comparable horsepower they are not making anywhere near the torque figures of older, bigger engines, and that's what hurts the most and gives the under-powered reputation. Torque is required for good acceleration, we have the horsepower of older V6 engines but lack at least 100 ft lbs of torque on them, and this is what people notice when they stomp their foot down on the go-pedal. Its the reason these vehicles have to downshift for the slightest hill and its a big part of why we have umpteen gears now instead of four, you really need to be able to have a good selection of gears to make the best use of a small amount of torque.Tripod said:So like you said, 2.4 multiair produces two times the power of an engine of its size from 10 years ago and even more if you go 20 years back. Yet some how it is under powered and cant move the car. I guess all the cars people were driving 10-20 years ago was under powered and were barely able to move.
I really wished that we had the 2.0 turbo diesel engine. It is already offered in EU market. It has 170 horsepower at 3,750 rpm and 280 lb-ft of torque @1,750 rpm. FCA also have a 2.2 turbo diesel that produces 197HP and 320 lb-ft of torque and a 5 cylinder 2.4 turbo diesel that produces 207HP and 295lb-ft of torque. These engines would have been a dream, but for now it is only used in Alfa Romeos. Both engines probably also have higher MPG than gas engines as well.I will say, on the other side of the coin, while these engines are making comparable horsepower they are not making anywhere near the torque figures of older, bigger engines, and that's what hurts the most and gives the under-powered reputation. Torque is required for good acceleration, we have the horsepower of older V6 engines but lack at least 100 ft lbs of torque on them, and this is what people notice when they stomp their foot down on the go-pedal. Its the reason these vehicles have to downshift for the slightest hill and its a big part of why we have umpteen gears now instead of four, you really need to be able to have a good selection of gears to make the best use of a small amount of torque.
I'd like to say its worth the loss in torque to get the better fuel economy but the sad scam is that they HAVE engines that do both, we just don't get them due to cost and how they want to position their vehicles to compete with each-other and the competition. Look at the Chrysler 300, it weighs at least 500 pounds more than a Compass, potentially upwards of 1000 pounds more, yet with the 3.6L V6 it gets virtually the same highway mileage as a Compass while providing 292 HP and 260 lb-ft of smile-inducing torque.
Can you imagine how formidable the Compass would be with 292 horse and 260 lb-ft of torque??? It would be an incredible machine, and all the while it would get pretty much exactly the same fuel economy it does with the 4 cylinder :wallbash:
They could do it so easily too. Competitors are using the same ZF 9-Speed transmissions with V6 engines producing similar power as the 3.6L, and even within FCA's lineup you have the Cherokee using either the same 2.4L we have OR the 3.2L version of the V6 on the same transmission. There is no technical obstacle here, just money and marketing politics
Ah well, thats enough ranting about what we could have had. Don't even get me started on the turbo 4 cylinders they could have used...
There are things to love about the 2.4L, like its simplicity, durability, and low cost. Its a solid little motor, and they could not have brought the new Compass to market with a V6 option at the price levels we enjoy now.