2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I gave Turbo-4s a chance.... I really did believe they were a decent replacement for a larger displacement V6.  But the power delivery just isn't as good. Too long to wait to spool up... even on the light duty ones.   Are turbo-4s an improvement over non-turbo-4s? Absolutely... but they are still no V6.  A V6 still has a baseline level of torque there that a that a turbo-4 doesn't.  V6es have a level of refinement that 4s cannot match. 

I also want to be clear. This is not just GM products I'm objecting to.  I'd rather have a V6 explorer than a 2.3T Explorer. 

As far as CAFE, GM can turn their V6es into 4-cylinders and back in less than a single revolution of the crank. Much less lag than a turbo. 

First off since this was a GM Buick thread that is all I am speaking on just for full disclosure. Not all Turbo engines are the same and can not all be lumped into one group no more than all V6.

Now take a look at most of the GM torque curves and you will see what is going on. In most of them it is not even a curve but a table top is a better reference.

As for the AFM on the V6. Funny you bring this up. Guess what one of my 3.6 has this too. So here is a first hand observation of someone who owns one and drives it more than one.

Yes the engine will drop two cylinders to improve MPG but generally you have to be very light on the throttle or even coasting down hill. Moving down the freeway at 65 MPG you will remain most times in V6 mode.

I am sure there is some fuel savings but 85% of the time it is in V6 mode and the MPG is no where near what the Turbo 4 can get even driven hard.

Yes there is half a second less lag on the 2017 V6 but about the same on the older version that many in the Mid size trucks complain about. Go to Coloradofans forum and see the topic Pedal Commander and just see what they say about lag in the 15-16 V6.

Now go to the HHR and Cobalt sites and see if anyone there complains about lag? Not really a topic anyone has an issue with. Even the non performance models the lag is even less noticed and most of the people really if they are not told would even understand it has a turbo.

I fully agree on the smooth and as for noise both are about the same as the V6 is far from a silent engine even in a well insulated truck.

I like both engines and would not own both if not. I even own more 3.6 than the Turbo 4 but having as many miles as I have I have really gotten to know the engine inside and out and the lag argument is negated as well as the durability complaints that are today groundless with the better materials and oils.

You have a right to your opinion but I do also. Yours comes from limited driving my comes from where I put my money. I have 4 vehicles purchased new with these engines and know them very well by this point. The weakest is the Terrain as the lag is at times scary. The throttle lag is 10 times worse than the Turbo. The Malibu once in a while gets a dead spot too. The new 2017 3.6 it appears to have been resolved.

I challenge you to spend some time in a 2010-2016 Equilnox and not say how the lag is in the throttle.

Here is a SRX thread but I can also give them for the Terrain and Nox. Even my Bu will do it on a turn.

http://www.srxforum.net/index.php?topic=2226.0

It I would imagine is a drive train issue in the combo of the engine and transmission. But the lag is much more than you will ever get in a turbo. It often feels like the engine died. It also covered cars for 8-10 years as my bu is a 08.

5 minutes ago, hyperv6 said:

Now take a look at most of the GM torque curves and you will see what is going on. In most of them it is not even a curve but a table top is a better reference.

@Drew Dowdell and I have talked about this before.. those dyno graphs you're talking about are full throttle only. We're talking about daily driving in regular every day circumstances where you'll likely never need a full throttle input so those graphs are kind of null.

With that said, find partial throttle graphs and the conversation can continue. Until then, it's Drew's personal preference and no matter what you or I say we won't change his mind on a opinion. It's just an opinion.

9 minutes ago, hyperv6 said:

Now go to the HHR and Cobalt sites and see if anyone there complains about lag?

That's probably because everybody has a tune on them, we're talking about a performance car site.

10 minutes ago, hyperv6 said:

Yours comes from limited driving my comes from where I put my money.

Drew does own a turbo 4.

I own a Turbo 4 (and a laggy one that GM compensates for by having a very short 1st gear).

I've owned the very first generation CTS with the 3.6. Even that old first gen HF has better every day feel than the 2.0T in the Regal GS. 

I drive different cars nearly every week, I've sampled nearly EVERY new car out there. I rent cars nearly every week and take them on 400 - 800 mile trips.

If I walk onto a National lot and my choice is between a Taurus Turbo-4 or an Avalon V6 which would you think would have the more satisfying power delivery?   You know me well enough @hyperv6 to know I'm not Toyota lover, but I'm going with the Avalon. I'll even take a Maxima with the CVT over a Taurus with a Turbo-4.  Now if the Taurus had the 3.5, the math would be different for me. 

What I'm saying is this... in a space where there can not be a V6, a Turbo-4 is a great improvement over a N/A 4.  But a Turbo-4 is not a full on V6 replacement... at best it is a tweener that lets manufacturers sell cheaper products at a premium price.  Remember, you're driving a tuned and chipped 2.0T, but that's not what is being produced for most cars these days. Your HHR is putting out more power and torque than the ATS 2.0T does from the factory.... so your view on the matter is obviously shaped by that. 

All of that argument aside.  The ATS is quite possibly the only instance where I might go with the 2.0T over the 3.6 because there is such a difference in weight balance and handling.  But given my current desire for raw thrust, I'd probably pick the 3.6

So much of it depends on the particular engine.  Alot of DOHC sixes give up torque for HP and feel soft on the low end.  On the hand thanks to modern advances like DI, twin scroll turbos, etc, you can have a turbo 4 that has surpior low end torque feel and does not have to be wrung out, but rather just driven normally (my bug is one of those, as was the Fusion).  THe question comes to long term reliability and true gains in FE.  i average over 30 MPG in my my bug, averaged 24 in my stock GTP (went up to 26 once I modified it), my brother's ATS averages in the mid 20s, as did the Fusion.  Proper application is also key.  The problem with the Taurus and 2.0 is it is a 4000 pound beast, way too much for the turbo 4.  Same with the turbo 4 Explorer, even for the 2.3 it is heavy.  A focus, a bug, a GTi, even a malibu or Fusion is a different story because you are talking 600+ pounds lighter than the Tuarus.  Anywho, it is preference and has a lot to do with the vehicle.  a 2.0T in the Encore tuned for say, 200 HP and 200 pound feet of torque would feel like totally different and far more satisfying beast.  And i can't see one of the older Regal GS with manual and turbo 2.0 being anything but fun to drive. 

But your Bug is putting out 210 hp / 207 lb-ft.... that's not V6 power... Well it was... in 1993 in an Oldsmobile.....Grandpap's Buick Lacrosse can do that in it's sleep and still have loads more over that as the RPM climbs.

15 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But your Bug is putting out 210 hp / 207 lb-ft.... that's not V6 power... Well it was... in 1993 in an Oldsmobile.....Grandpap's Buick Lacrosse can do that in it's sleep and still have loads more over that as the RPM climbs.

Mine is a 12 so the rated HP is actually 200 :0  Still, 0-60 in 6.3 and when that version of the 2.0T appeared in 2006 we had 200 HP 3.0 Fusions, 3.8 GM vehicles, 2.7 Chargers with 200 HP, etc, etc.  Heck, then a supercharged 3.8 was good for a max of 260 HP (gen 3).  It is a matter of more then peak HP as well, the torque and hp spread even on my 12 beetle means it is always in the powerband.  heck, i can climb steeper hills around here in top gear and still accelerate without downshifting if I need too.  Looking at more recent 2.0Ts, a 220HP GTi is good for 0-60 in 5.7 (DCT) to 5.9 (manual).  A 3.6 17 Lacrosse isn't much quicker than the 17 Malibu 2.0 which hits 60 in 5.7 seconds with a 9 speed auto to keep it in it's power curve.,  That is a quick a 16 200 with the 3.6 and the much im[proved version of the 9 speed auto (given the Malibu is from MT and 200 from C&D and given the 200 is a considerably heavier car (roughly 3300 for the new Malibu and 3550 for the 200 V6 FWD).  It is all application, the specific engine, the transmission, tuning, gearing, etc, etc, etc. 

 

People don't drag race cars every day. 0-60 is meaningless in EVERYDAY driving. It's not the full throttle performance I care about because I use it so infrequently.  It's the partial throttle glide away from a stop light that feels strong rather than spooling. 

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

People don't drag race cars every day. 0-60 is meaningless in EVERYDAY driving. It's not the full throttle performance I care about because I use it so infrequently.  It's the partial throttle glide away from a stop light that feels strong rather than spooling. 

It is an indicator of how it performas.  maybe better is the C&D street start 0-60.  I seriously doubt these mags are brake torquing to get into the boost so the 0-60 gives you an idea of how close they are  Didn't one of the mags used to do a street start 0-60?

And this is just a friendly convo.  Some cars i like V6 and others the turbo.  i drive my bbeetle everyday and I can't go WOT from a stop very often because even with my new tires it wants to spin through 1st and into 2nd. 

Just now, Stew said:

It is an indicator of how it performas.  maybe better is the C&D street start 0-60.  I seriously doubt these mags are brake torquing to get into the boost so the 0-60 gives you an idea of how close they are  Didn't one of the mags used to do a street start 0-60?

It's an indicator of how it performs at full throttle.  How often do you pull away from a stop light at full throttle? 

Part throttle on a turbo engine and you'll barely be into any boost.... you're just driving a regular old 2 liter 4-cylinder sedan. Maybe with the slight boost, it will feel like a 2.5 liter naturally aspirated 4.  In a V6, you have all the smoothness and all the displacement of a 3.6 liter engine pulling you out of the stop.  Might the 2.0T be able to do more? Sure.. but you've got to put your foot into it more, spin those turbos up, and that's called lag. 

As for saving gas.  Honda and GM V6es can shut down 2 cylinders at cruise and turn them back on faster than a turbo can spool. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It's an indicator of how it performs at full throttle.  How often do you pull away from a stop light at full throttle? 

Part throttle on a turbo engine and you'll barely be into any boost.... you're just driving a regular old 2 liter 4-cylinder sedan. Maybe with the slight boost, it will feel like a 2.5 liter naturally aspirated 4.  In a V6, you have all the smoothness and all the displacement of a 3.6 liter engine pulling you out of the stop.  Might the 2.0T be able to do more? Sure.. but you've got to put your foot into it more, spin those turbos up, and that's called lag. 

As for saving gas.  Honda and GM V6es can shut down 2 cylinders at cruise and turn them back on faster than a turbo can spool. 

Modern turbos do not take a lot of time to spool, and agin, i do not go WOT all the time, probably more than I should, but hey, the place is littered with twisty roads.  That said, a turbo bug is light, 3000 pounds, as is a Malibu at 3300.  A V6, especially a DOHC has to build revs to get into it's powerband so it is not like it has instant max power.  Different ways of doing the same thing.   It is like the max torque curve.  Many a turbo can hit max torque at 1500 RPM, while a DOHC v6 may need 4500 RPM to hit peak torque and the difference can be felt.  At 1500 RPM you do not have to go WOT to get that torque. 

Why is this concept so difficult? Stop thinking only in max throttle situations.  A turbo will not hit max torque at 1500 rpm at partial throttle because you're only getting very light boost. 

1/3 throttle in a 2.0T and you're driving about the equivalent of a 2.5 N/A. 

1/3 throttle in a 3.6 and you're still driving a 3.6.

3.6 > 2.5

 

38 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Why is this concept so difficult? Stop thinking only in max throttle situations.  A turbo will not hit max torque at 1500 rpm at partial throttle because you're only getting very light boost. 

1/3 throttle in a 2.0T and you're driving about the equivalent of a 2.5 N/A. 

1/3 throttle in a 3.6 and you're still driving a 3.6.

3.6 > 2.5

 

My Bug certainly does not feel like a weak 2.5 at 1500 RPM under 1/3 throttle.  Oh well though.  Is what it is is.  Also keeping in mind, if ou have an auto, it is going to downshift.  Try hem both as manuals and the V6 still has to build RPM to make power just as the turbo.  I used to be a lot more anti-turbo, but after living with this car i can tell you, you do not have to be WOT to get the power.  It just isn't remotely true. 

11 minutes ago, Stew said:

My Bug certainly does not feel like a weak 2.5 at 1500 RPM under 1/3 throttle.  Oh well though.  Is what it is is.  Also keeping in mind, if ou have an auto, it is going to downshift.  Try hem both as manuals and the V6 still has to build RPM to make power just as the turbo.  I used to be a lot more anti-turbo, but after living with this car i can tell you, you do not have to be WOT to get the power.  It just isn't remotely true. 

I feel similar with modern turbo and DI technology. I know Drew has driven a looooot more than you or I but I've always felt very very minimal turbo lag but I've also needed about half the downshifts than I would had it been a n/a v6(talking about my 2.0T in my Escape)

42 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I feel similar with modern turbo and DI technology. I know Drew has driven a looooot more than you or I but I've always felt very very minimal turbo lag but I've also needed about half the downshifts than I would had it been a n/a v6(talking about my 2.0T in my Escape)

True, but me and you have lived with these on a daily basis.  i have already put over 15k miles on the bug!

6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

There are other ways to get there.... GM and Honda's active displacement works really well.   The ATS-V is essentially a turbo-4 at highway cruise.

But a downsized turbo 4 all the time is going to be a V6 with cylinder cut off.   For V-series cars, or expensive sports cars and luxury cars the CAFE numbers are less of a concern, because they are getting profit margin, which can in turn help pay any fines for missing CAFE targets or any other country's targets.   And the volume is low anyway.  But when you look at something like a Fusion, Camry, Rav4, etc, they are selling 300-400,000 of those a year, they need ever 1 mpg improvement they can get.  And even Acadia/Enclave/Traverse combine for 150k a year, maybe 200k units, Ford probably sells that many Explorers.  The pickups are going to be the killer to Ford and GM, you are going to see 2 liter turbos in F150s and Silverados by 2025.

The ATS-V is rated at 17/25 mpg, there are V8s that do that or beat it.  I love V8s, but this engine downsize trend isn't over.  If you think about it, the carmakers have more ground to cover from 2017-2025 CAFE than they did from 2008-2015 and crossovers and SUVs are outselling cars, so they lost the ability to offset thirsty trucks with cheap cars.  

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

People don't drag race cars every day. 0-60 is meaningless in EVERYDAY driving. It's not the full throttle performance I care about because I use it so infrequently.  It's the partial throttle glide away from a stop light that feels strong rather than spooling. 

But isn't the important thing here how a 241 hp turbo 4 GLC is faster 0-60 than a 310 hp V6 XT5 or a 300 hp V6 MKX?

On 4/9/2017 at 10:20 AM, hyperv6 said:

I think there will be a slight pause in the CAFE but I do not see the companies changing their strategy. They are just looking to buy time. 

I agree the V6 has a smoothness to it that is one true advantage to anyone willing to be honest. That is as long as it is a 60 degree engine. The 43 even with balance shafts can still have an edge to it. 

I would love to see the Turbo 4 standard and a V6 as an option in many models as to give people a choice. 

The real issue coming up is the stop start systems. While they work fine there is not much public acceptance to them. Most people just do not like them. Yes it is not always legitimate complaints but an unhappy customer is not a buying customer and going to a six may require the stop start with no shut off. Hmmmm what is one to do. 

I know there is nothing wrong with stop start but to me I would rather leave it in my golf cart LOL! Younger buyers may be more receptive but they are not the majority of the buyers yet. 

 

 

Stop start works mostly ok in the malibu.  I actually love it when it shuts off if the weather is good.

they need to work to get rid of the typical starter noise when it restarts.  Its not super annoying but when you have windows down or its operating a lot where that noise the starter makes quite honestly gets on your nerves.  Fine if you hear it once when you start your car, but when you just are going to pick up milk and it does it ten  times it really sounds cheap and crappy.

Still, in the end of it all, I WANT A SWITCH TO TURN IT OFF< IF I DESIRE.

 

7 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It's a really simple thing to figure out.  Go test drive two Ford Explorers... one with the turbo 2.3 and one with the V6.  Drive them normally, not as race cars.  Drive them in normal traffic... take them on a jaunt on the highway for a bit. Try and pass someone at highway speeds. 

Head on over to the Buick dealership and drive a Regal GS back to back with a V6 Lacrosse...

Then head over to Kia... try out an Optima Turbo and then a Cadenza.  Which one handles daily driving in a more competent way? 

I'm trying to imagine what kind of pig the new Traverse is going to feel like with the 2.0T spinning under the hood of the base models.  It will probably be more pig-like than the much heavier current traverse with the V6. 

The Regal should be lighter and should reduce what you speak of compared to an Explorer, but your observations are on track.

Using the Malibu as a reference, i didn't feel either 4 had much lag but have driven turbos with more lag so i understand your point.  I have no complaints about turbo lag in my 1.5.  GM did a great job with the torque curve, even if there is not much of it due to engine size.  It would be nice if they tested it more before they put it out there (the oil leaks and ECM fix).

I actually should go find a Fusion sport to test drive. I really do feel with the light weight of the new Regal chassis, a 2.5-3.0 v6 even detuned to 350hp as suggested + nice torque band would make for a very entertaining ride for a Regal.  I think the cost aspect is a bit overrated.  Ford is putting twin turbo six in pickups, and other sub 40 out the door vehicles.  It really is as much GM loves to overprice their vehicles for padding.  I think GM if they really invested in a decent mill used in many vehicles would have no trouble making coin with a v6 turbo.  Just because a CT6 twin turbo is 70k does not mean a buick needs to be 60k.  turbos are not new.  v6's are not new.  

6 hours ago, ccap41 said:

@Drew Dowdell and I have talked about this before.. those dyno graphs you're talking about are full throttle only. We're talking about daily driving in regular every day circumstances where you'll likely never need a full throttle input so those graphs are kind of null.

With that said, find partial throttle graphs and the conversation can continue. Until then, it's Drew's personal preference and no matter what you or I say we won't change his mind on a opinion. It's just an opinion.

That's probably because everybody has a tune on them, we're talking about a performance car site.

Drew does own a turbo 4.

They do not have much lag even stock. Not everyone has a tune FYI. 

As for the torque it is there and all you have to do is step a little on the gas. Not full trottle. You can't use 1/3 of 315 FT LBS at 1800 in a FWD if you do not want the traction control to kick in. Just no traction with FWD. 

As for his Turbo it must be a 1.5. You get that low on power it lags turbo or not. 

Edited April 10, 20178 yr by hyperv6

Just now, hyperv6 said:

They do not have much lag even stock. Not everyone has a tune FYI. 

 

5 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I own a Turbo 4 (and a laggy one that GM compensates for by having a very short 1st gear).

I've owned the very first generation CTS with the 3.6. Even that old first gen HF has better every day feel than the 2.0T in the Regal GS. 

I drive different cars nearly every week, I've sampled nearly EVERY new car out there. I rent cars nearly every week and take them on 400 - 800 mile trips.

If I walk onto a National lot and my choice is between a Taurus Turbo-4 or an Avalon V6 which would you think would have the more satisfying power delivery?   You know me well enough @hyperv6 to know I'm not Toyota lover, but I'm going with the Avalon. I'll even take a Maxima with the CVT over a Taurus with a Turbo-4.  Now if the Taurus had the 3.5, the math would be different for me. 

What I'm saying is this... in a space where there can not be a V6, a Turbo-4 is a great improvement over a N/A 4.  But a Turbo-4 is not a full on V6 replacement... at best it is a tweener that lets manufacturers sell cheaper products at a premium price.  Remember, you're driving a tuned and chipped 2.0T, but that's not what is being produced for most cars these days. Your HHR is putting out more power and torque than the ATS 2.0T does from the factory.... so your view on the matter is obviously shaped by that. 

All of that argument aside.  The ATS is quite possibly the only instance where I might go with the 2.0T over the 3.6 because there is such a difference in weight balance and handling.  But given my current desire for raw thrust, I'd probably pick the 3.6

What can I say your glass is half empty mine is half full. 

My experience is mostly with several 2.0T. I will not comment on the 1.5 as I have limited seat time there. I would expect less due to just less power and torque. 

As for the lag issues in the Nox and  other 3.6 models it is real and I have grown tired of it in the Terrain. 

But even today the lag is no where near GN levels accept the Nox, Terrain and Colorado V6 and they do not have a turbo. Sad. 

1 hour ago, regfootball said:

Stop start works mostly ok in the malibu.  I actually love it when it shuts off if the weather is good.

they need to work to get rid of the typical starter noise when it restarts.  Its not super annoying but when you have windows down or its operating a lot where that noise the starter makes quite honestly gets on your nerves.  Fine if you hear it once when you start your car, but when you just are going to pick up milk and it does it ten  times it really sounds cheap and crappy.

Still, in the end of it all, I WANT A SWITCH TO TURN IT OFF< IF I DESIRE.

 

I find it more a psychological thing. Today these systems work well. I really do worry that they may be expensive to fix in older cars. 

Also like traction control I would like to shut it off when getting stuck or in a situation that I prefer to keep it running. 

Too much on today's cars are not in our control and I prefer to have the ability to manage my own vehicle. 

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Why is this concept so difficult? Stop thinking only in max throttle situations.  A turbo will not hit max torque at 1500 rpm at partial throttle because you're only getting very light boost. 

1/3 throttle in a 2.0T and you're driving about the equivalent of a 2.5 N/A. 

1/3 throttle in a 3.6 and you're still driving a 3.6.

3.6 > 2.5

 

Drew the fact is

The physics of moving the same amount of mass takes the same amount of force. The 4T of similar power of the 6 can do it at the same rate just one can do it a little more efficiently on less size and cylinders. 

The 2.5 can also do it with the same amount of power with much less reserve and needs to use more of a percentage of RPM and fuel.

The fact is while you can make max torque at low end you still can make more torque even at half or one third throttle.

My Turbo does not need 23 PSI or full throttle to spin the tires at 40 MPH it also does not need 5300 RPM to do it.

The Malibu spin the tires from a dead stop to a point but just no low end power till 3000 RPM and even then  no torque steer as there is just not that much torque.

Horse Power is like thunder but torque is like lightning and does all the work.  This is why so many are paying $3700 for the 2.8 Turbo in the Colorado. HP just the noise while Torque does all the work. 

6 hours ago, Stew said:

True, but me and you have lived with these on a daily basis.  i have already put over 15k miles on the bug!

Shet, that's a lot of miles in what feels like a short period of time! 

8 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Shet, that's a lot of miles in what feels like a short period of time! 

That is what I get for working 50+ miles from home haha.  I pile on the miles, what can I say lol. 

3 minutes ago, Stew said:

That is what I get for working 50+ miles from home haha.  I pile on the miles, what can I say lol. 

Ahhhhhh, yeah that'll do it. I live 35 miles from work but 30 of that I'm on a bus.

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Ahhhhhh, yeah that'll do it. I live 35 miles from work but 30 of that I'm on a bus.

I spend over 2 hours on the road 5 to 6 days a week.  Really want to move closer, but can't right now. 

7 minutes ago, Stew said:

I spend over 2 hours on the road 5 to 6 days a week.  Really want to move closer, but can't right now. 

I feel ya on the moving closer.. I'm more thinking of finding a job closer to home. My commute isn't terrible but nearly an hour each way gets old and that time adds up. Similar to you, 10 hours a week just commuting... that sucks.

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

I feel ya on the moving closer.. I'm more thinking of finding a job closer to home. My commute isn't terrible but nearly an hour each way gets old and that time adds up. Similar to you, 10 hours a week just commuting... that sucks.

Hopefully a few things will be changing over the next few months to allow it.  fingers crossed.

14 hours ago, Stew said:

I spend over 2 hours on the road 5 to 6 days a week.  Really want to move closer, but can't right now. 

i had a 43 mile commute for about 3 years.  On bad weather days it really consumed my life.   otherwise, it was generally fatiguing.  But the moment you move closer to work then the work goes bye bye or something crazy like that.

Commutes can suck.  Here in Az most of my jobs have had commutes in the 6-20 miles each way range, worst was 27 miles each way for 2 years, mostly freeway.  Worst commute I ever had was 68 miles each way back in '02 in Colorado, did that for 3 months until I moved a couple miles from the office then a month later changed jobs. 

Looking forward to when my Ohio move is done in a few weeks, then I will be working from home most of the time. 

Edited April 12, 20178 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Mine is 30 min but I take to the back roads in the Lake, park district passing two golf courses including Firestone country club. The surroundings make for a nice trip

the one road was my own Nürburgring road but too many cops anymore. 

25-30 min commute. Lucky I work for a boss that allows me to stay being a morning person so I start early and end early missing the bulk of the commuters and the congestion that goes with it.

Gave up on ever living close to work. Always seemed that once I got close to work, I ended up changing jobs.