webslave

The information provided by Chris B. also applies. Bear in mind that the advertised "dry weight", etc. of your popup does not have the actual "travel weight" information that you need to consider. The weight, as provided by the manufacturers of RVs, is "dry weight". That weight does not include extras, even "mandatory options". Things like propane, battery, even water in the tank(s), must be added to the dry weight. The tongue weight will go up along with the additional travel weight. Also, as I mentioned above, along with the weight of the trailer in matters pertaining to the "tow rating" of a vehicle is the Gross Combined Vehicle Weight or Gross Vehicle Weight. That is the weight of the loaded vehicle. While that weight is usually sufficient for 5 and luggage, the addition of added cargo for camping can be much heavier, coupled with the additional weight of the trailer's tongue weight, than what the vehicle was intended to support. Bottom line...even the 3500 lb rated Journey's were not designed to be an RV hauler. While with the careful packing and a light popup style trailer it can be done, that's not what the tow system was designed for on these vehicles. Bicycles, a jet-ski, a large cooler mounted on hitch style carrier, a small bass boat or a canoe or kayaks, even a small utility trailer loaded with 12 bales of mulch, yes, but, by no stretch of the imagination was the Journey ever designed to be an RV hauler. As I mentioned above, I'm an RVer with a lot of experience. Do I know everything about towable camping? NO, I'd never claim that, but, I do know enough that I would, personally, never tow any type of camper with a vehicle that had a rating of less than 5,000 lbs and even then, if the vehicle wasn't espressly designed to be a "hauler" (like an HD pickup or full sized SUV), I'd stay under the 80% rule. That's an uspoken "rule of thumb" that says, if in doubt, make sure your load is less than or equal to 80% of the stated capacity. On a Journed rated at 2500 lbs, that means a tow weight of no more than 2,000 lbs. and on your 3500 lb Journeys, the weight would be limited to under 2750 lbs and those two figures will still place a great deal of additional wear and tear on the vehicle. Yes you can exceed the vehicle manufacturer's ratings; a lot of people assume that if it fits on the ball of the hitch, they are good to go. These are the same people that will be, soon, writing on a forum somewhere about the cheap CV joints, poor transaxle seals, lousy bearings, crumby crankshafts (a crankshaft can make a whole bunch of horsepower, but, be too light to take a full load pounding from towing) that there vehicle has, how dare it break down. I was brought up that if you want a sport's car, buy one; don't buy a cheap import and try to convert it to one and by the same token if you want a towing vehicle, buy a vehicle designed for towing and not just hang a hitch on whatever you've got and say it is a "tow vehicle". Like my dad taught me, it is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You'll never manage to do it and all you'll get for the effort is frustration and a thoroughly "ticked off" pig. Sadly, if you bought your Journey to be an RV tow vehicle, you bought the wrong vehicle; it was never designed to fulfill that role...even the Jeep CJ makes a better tow vehicle than the Journey, at least it has heavy duty axles, joints and bearings though, lest someone take me wrong, it also was never designed to be an RV hauler (unless you have the 4 door version, the 2 door's wheel base is too short for stability and the 4 door just barely adequate for a short popup). Now that I've said that let's hear from all the folks out there that have been towing their 24' fullsize RV with one for years! :hide: Hate to rain on anyone's parade, but, I am an RVer, and if there are going to be combination vehicles on the road they should be within design and safety parameters of both the tow vehicle and the towable for the safety of the passengers and the other vehicles on the road, I'd hate for anyone on here to become an "RV safety statistic".

As a long time RVer, I can only agree. While you may have the horsepower and torque required, there are many, many more things that enter into tow capacity than just the engine and transmission. A Toyota pickup truck can tow a 300,000 lb. space shuttle, but, not for very long, not very fast nor very often. Your vehicle, you can do what you like, and 275 lbs isn't that much over the 2500 limit, but, if you loaded up the Journey with the rest of the *stuff* campers haul along, you are probably over the gross vehicle weight limit and bear in mind you've voided most all of your warranty and on a brand new Journey to boot...comes under the "we won't cover abuse" section of the warranty.

Yep...Hard for me to break that reflex, hand on handle, use thumb to press the button. Lock/Unlock as fast as you can read it. Not touching the door handle, index finger push the button and watch for the lock button to go down. Very sensitive to any body part touching the inside surface of the door handle when trying to use the button to lock the car. I've gotten in the habit of just using the button on the armrest when exiting the car; the same process I use for my truck as it doesn't have the keyless entry feature. But to your original question; no, not normal. If I remember to keep my fingers off the inside surface of the door handle, one push is all it takes.

Agree on the finding of the actual weight. I'm a long time RV'er (I now tow a 35' 5th wheel at 11,400 lbs with my RAM 2500 HO CTD). Your trailer weight, while an important part is only part of the weight saga. Be aware that trailer weights are given "dry" and optomistically at that. The dry weight does not include "options" even if those "options" are mandatory. Things like batteries, the LP in the tanks for the stove and refrigerator, canopies, etc. are not included in the dry weight. Add to that the amount of "stuff" you'll need to go camping with and you may find that while the trailer is at the ragged edge of around if not slightly over the 1000 lb limit, the other "stuff" (gear, clothes, food, kids, pets, etc) plus the tongue weight and hitch weight may put you over the gross vehicle weight limit for that Journey (the gross combined weight should be on a sticker in the drivers door).

Gotcha... Your radio is a SiriusXM branded radio, to the best of my knowledge...the '13 is at any rate as is my '11 RAM 2500. I believe most satellite radios made since the merger have been the combined SiriusXM models (that's what I was getting at, I guess I didn't explain it very well...). There are still a lot of the older satellite radios out there, hence the Sirius and XM package differences. Originally, they used different frequencies as licensed by the FCC, but, post merger and the advent of the SiriusXM radio, that radio can pick up all of their packages, while the older models are relegated to the particular frequencies they were designed for, Sirius or XM. The SiriusXM has a lot more "channels" since it effectively recieves "twice" as many frequencies, while the older Sirius and XM radios are limited to the number of frequencies they were designed originally to receive. You can choose any of the packages and features listed under the SiriusXM breakout menu unless someone with a '12 Journey knows that, for some reason, the '12 model year didn't come with SiriusXM radio...

SiriusXM is one company now...if you have a Sirius contract (or get one), you'll get both. Same with XM; if you had an XM contract you will get both. Well, you'll get "it" since there is no difference any longer, both brands are now one company. "On July 29, 2008, XM and former competitor Sirius Satellite Radio formally completed their merger, following U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval, forming Sirius XM Radio, Inc. with XM Satellite Radio, Inc. as its subsidiary.[1] On November 12, 2008, Sirius and XM began broadcasting with their new, combined channel lineups.[2] On January 13, 2011, XM Satellite Radio, Inc. was dissolved as a separate entity and merged into Sirius XM Radio, Inc."

One thing occurs to me... Does your vehicle actually download (well it doesn't actually download it, it just makes a connection to your phone) your phonebook from your phone? Mine does the same thing, but... Upon investigation, I discovered that while the Journey will connect with my phone and work just fine, it won't download the phonebook. I can tell my UConnect system to phone 1-234-567-8910, and it will work just fine because I gave it the numbers to call. If I try to tell it to Call Mr. Smith, I get the same "I don't understand" type response. I get it because there aren't any names from a non-existant phonebook to compare against and get the number to dial. Just one more thing to look at... The list of "accepted" phones on the Journey is really, really short, basically a handful of newer smart phones. If you have a dumb phone, or an older not so smart any more phone, it may not be able to see your phonebook. My phone worked fine on my Jeep Commander and my works fine on my RAM 2500, but, they both have/had the MyGig system (RER), because it actually downloads the phone book to its own hard drive while in the Journey, it relies on being able to see your phone's phone book and to communicate with it via the BlueTooth connection. I wish the Journey had that unit (RER); 30 GB hard drive to hold all of our music, phone book, pictures, a voice command system that worked really well and a, to me, much better NAV system. I still can't get my Garmin to route to my house by direct paved roads. It still wants to go 12 miles out of the way using forest service logging roads. Doesn't instill a great deal of faith in my using it to go somewhere I haven't been before...

Hi! and welcome to the forum. Bunch of nice folks on here...some gearheads, some brainiacs and a couple of MOPAR reps; about as good a cross-section as a forum can get! Question #1 about the UConnect, I would post in the Infotainment section... Question #2 about the door locks would probably go in Chasis or Interior And yes, you could ask both questions in one posting in one spot. Usually, those of us on this forum peruse pretty much all of the categories or maybe like me, I use the "View New Content" link that brings up all the new postings since my last visit and then I can pick and choose those that I might have an interest in or those that I might have information to provide. The danger in asking both questions in one spot is the problem of a "title" that expresses both questions. If your title mentions the UConnect, then the question in the body of the post about the door locks might go unanswered because a reader that might not have any insight to UConnect issues would skip the post, but, that person might have insight to the door lock problem but wouldn't ever see the question...

All auto manufacturers "spec" out tires for bid when they start a model year and sometimes mid-year if they run short. The spec'd tires are quite often slightly inferior in contstruction materials (softer compounds usually) to improve the ride. The manufacturer is more concerned with your initial test drive impression than in how long the tires will last. If I were them, I'd do the same thing. Once the deal is made, the life of the tire becomes irrelevant to the manufacturer; whenever they wear out, the owner is least likely to come back to the dealer for new tires, so, it doesn't push the manufacturer to provide long-life tires vs. good riding tires. I've owned a lot of cars in my lifetime and the Kumhos are no worse than most of the "stock" tires that my cars came with, and they are a bit better in some aspects to some of the "stock" tires a few of my cars came with. I had a 1978 5 liter Mustang (the first of the V8 modern Mustangs) and it came with BFGs. If you spit on the road those tires would slip and slide. They were so bad that I bought new tires before they had 3,000 miles on them. These Kumho tires ride nicely, have good wet and dry grip and had good bite this past winter in the snow. Are they the best in any of those categories? No, but, they are adequate and I'll leave them on the Journey until they are worn out (keeping them aired and rotated), but, I never expect to get more than 20-25K miles out of any original manufacturer's supplied tire. If I get that, I'll be happy. If I get more than that, I'll consider it a "gift". Will I ever buy Kumho tires again? Maybe; depends on price break, tread wear warranty and tread design. I won't say that the tires are so bad that I'll never own another set.

It won't hurt your engine to have 5W-30 as opposed to 5W-20 in it. In fact, for summer use, it is better to have the added thickness of 30 at the "heated" end of the spectrum. As long as you have the cold start lubricity of the 5W, I only see poor public relations as opposed to a threat of your engine's life. Most auto makers have gone to thinner oils for economy's sake and not any specific need of the engine. The only exception is the Hemi with the MDS option; it needs 0W-20 in order for the valves to properly float when the MDS shuts off 4 cylinders. From the owner's manual (emphasis added): "SAE 5W-20 engine oil is recommended for all operating temperatures. This engine oil improves low temperature starting and vehicle fuel economy." Again, poor choice by the dealership in not informing you of the mistake and giving you the option of a drain/re-fill, but, there won't be any damage done to your Journey.

If it is any consolation... My 2013 R/T only has the one dimmer switch that controls everything. The switch's faceplate is wide enough to hold two of the wheels, but, there is only one and there isn't a covered slot where a second could/would be. Just the one and it was made for only one...controls everything with the one wheel; dash, 8.4N, cup holders and footwell, map pockets, etc.

I find the debate about the result of fuel usage calculations interesting. Since both results are the end product of the same calculated products, the answers are both legitimate and accurate. The car takes fuel used/being used and distance covered and calculates the results (either at that moment or over some period of time). Neither is inherently more accurate than the other, just the expression of the result changes. I have my system reporting in mpg (I'm in PA and the US mph numbers are larger on my dash; easier to read), so, I get two different mpg readings, a "lifetime" (unless I hit the reset by mistake) and an instantaneous. Both only as accurate as the fuel usage meter and distance covered meters are. If I switch to the metric settings, it uses the same meters, but, changes the output via conversion. Neither is more "accurate", only the relationship of the output. My "lifetime" reading right now is 21.6 mpg which is the same as 10.89L/100km. Expression of the end product doesn't change the actual product, i.e., in the 21.6 mpg or 10.89L/100km relationship it is also equal to 4.62 gal/100 mi or .1089L/km. Accuracy of any of the expressions is based on the same two meter readings. It is just a matter of what you are used to wrapping your mind around as far as interpretation of that result; accuracy remains the same. We, in the US are accustomed to expressing fuel efficiency by the mpg computation and until the government starts expressing fuel consumption by vehicles in a different manner, we will remain most comfortable using that expression and as long as we are comparing mpg to mpg it is everybit as accurate for determining efficiency as any other method. 21.6 is more efficient than 16 mpg and not as efficient as 26.8 mpg which is all the accuracy you can get from the devices in these vehicles; they are not lab quality and are useful only in a rough indication of how well your vehicle is using fuel, regardless of whether the output of the calculation is mpg or l/100km. A rose by any other name... No argument intended in the above, just a musing by a reader

Even if you, your boyfriend, fiance, father, etc., install it, my WAG would be that an aftermarket radio would be cheaper since you don't really want all of the "goodies" that the 8.4 unit has. The units, IIRC, are a double-DIN sized fitment and the only thing you would need from the dealer is the proper trim plate that would have the 8" opening in it. A good aftermarket stereo shop could probably install a high-grade double-DIN unit for less than half the price of even an eBay original head unit. They may even be able to trim the 4.3 opening in the trim plate that you currently have to allow for the 8.4 sized stereo. Some of the aftermarket units are actually quite "sexy" in eye appeal and I don't think they would be unattractive sitting in place of a stock 8.4 unit that you really aren't going to take advantage of. I'd cruise by one of your local, good, automotive stereo shops and see what they have to offer if you just want the eye candy of a larger stereo; you can probably get one that will play your CDs and have a usb input for your iPod...for less than the stock head unit alone. Now, if you want the back up camera, the environmental control tie in (heat and A/C), compass, etc. Then you'll have to go stock and that's going to start getting into some big money real quick...

Even though your dealer can't fit you in for a repair appointment, I would check with them to see if they could at least read the code to check what the problem is. You may or may not be doing additional damage to the engine/powertrain by continued use. If they can't/won't at least read the code, try taking the car to someplace that will; TrakAuto, AutoZone, NAPA, etc. Most of those places have the code readers and will read the code for you free. IMHO, it would behoove almost everyone, nowadays, to get at the minimum a code reader for their OBDII systems. They aren't that expensive, the cheapest ones are around $25 and, while they won't erase the codes or do some of the more fancy tests at that price point, they will at least get you the code that you can then look up on the web. I carry a mid-priced one in each of my vehicles (it will read and reset the codes) and I have a high dollar one in the workshop that will read while on the move, capturing live data, and will even "exercise" all the switches, relays and sensors on the car. If you are a DIY you should spring for one of the better ones (several hundred dollars), but, my feeling is everyone should have at least a "reader" available since the cars won't tell you, basically, any more than "hey, you've got a problem". Until such time as the cars actually tell you in the language you speak, what the problem is, you'll have to take it on yourself to try and figure out if you are causing addition damage...

OK... Somehow I got the impression that you had gotten a 2013 8.4 unit in which case the software might have been an issue. Since it is a 2011 unit that you got, it should all work and you are correct it may be cable issues that are preventing it from behaving properly. I do a fair amount of "modding" on my other equipment (my ATVs and RVs along with a couple of antique autos) and the Dremel is my friend...great tool for getting that extra bit of clearance or a perfect fit in an opening or a slot where something is going to fit. I think I have 4 of them spread around the farm in various places so that one is always handy.Good luck, and even if you don't get that one thing fixed, it sounds like you made a good swap!

I would also replace the tensioner. With age they get to the point where the "spring action" is severely compromised and it is that bad tension that may have led to the failure of your alternator bearings. Those alternator bearings will usually outlast the car, but, with improper tensioning on the belt, the load varies so much that bearing becomes unstable leading to premature failure. On a newer Journey, I might be tempted to leave it alone and blame the alternator failure on a bad bearing, but, on an '09, I'd place the blame on the tensioner and I'd replace it...it would be a shame to wind up destroying a new alternator in a year or two and have to replace it again just because you didn't replace the tensioner now...

Did you have the Journey's CANBus and VIN updated to show that the car is now equipped with the 8.4N? If you haven't then the car doesn't know what it has and it won't generate or accept the proper command pulses to allow a lot of the controls operate properly. There is a very tight "handshake" implementation of the modules and options in these new automobiles and unless the base computer systems are "introduced" (handshake) properly they won't interact and may be causing some of your issues. That was the issue with the DRLs...while all the controls and modules were in place (physically present), until the VIN was updated along with the BCM to let the Journey know that the parts were indeed there and that it was OK to use them, they wouldn't work. Of course, a lot depends on whether the '11's CANBus will even recognize the 8.4 unit...it wasn't an option then and the CANBus may not even have the proper software to fully integrate with the 8.4 unit. Not sure whether, if that is the case, the entire vehicle can be "upgraded" from the '11 CANBus software to the '13 CANBus package...you may wind up with what you have; an 8.4N that has the radio and nav but no ability to interact via its soft interface with the other modules in your car. As for the lower stack, you may have to take a Dremel or the like and relieve (open up) the openings a bit...probably wouldn't take much, but, that should free up things. The setting for the Nav's voice is a little obtuse and you have to be quick to get the volume adjusted since the voice doesn't talk that long! As mentioned though, once adjusted it should stay that way.

I agree about the HIR as opposed to the HID... As I mentioned above, I'm not a fan of the HID nor like being on the receiving end of an HID setup in a Halogen designed housing. I run HIRs in the truck (and have some on order for the Journey) as well as having run them in the Jeep. Much brighter, but, a simple stock swap (after modifiying the tabs slightly on the ones I get) and you maintain beam aim and cutoff so that it isn't annoying to other drivers. Mostly was just curious about the certification laws in Canada...sounds much more convoluted and complex than those down here in the US. Basically, the manufacturer gets the "certification" that their part meets DOT requirements for the application that it is designed for. The customer then installs said modification and takes it up to the inspection with the certification paper from the manufacturer and gets it inspected. Done deal. Suspension mods and frame mods are a bit more involved since they are usually a "one off" by the builder, but, there are inspections stations for those too and once they are passed, they are issued a title and you are then good to go. You are issued a "compliance certificate" that you can present to a law enforcement officer if you get stopped, but, once it has tags and the local inspection stickers on the windshield on it, unless you have a "really out there" modification, the odds of you getting stopped are virtually nil. It is a bit of a hastle, but, the specifications for getting approved are available and if you adhere to the requirements, it is more of a paper chase than anything else.

What does Canada do for cars that come standard with only LED DRLs (I believe that late model BMW, Mercedes and and some Porsche)? I'm sure there is a re-written code somewhere that allows for LED DRL compliance or does Canada make all of those auto makers delete their LED DRLs and install some sort of "special harness" that would light their headlights? If those vehicles are allowed to have LED DRLs, I don't see how they can judge any car with LED DRLs deficient just because they weren't "stock". It would seem that if they qualified as meeting the requirements for DRL usage, then any car with them would be legal...as long as they met the required specifications; I would suspect there is a height, width and lumen specification for them if allowed, much as ours have to meet DOT specifications. As long as our lighting meets DOT speciifications, then they are legal, whether stock or not. We have vehicle inspections in the US...I wish ours was 7 years. Our inspections are annual and some localities require not only the annual state inspection, but, a local inspection in addition to it and I understand some localities have their inspections every 6 months. Nothing against Canada, but, I'm glad I don't live there...we are slowly losing our freedoms, but, we've apparently got a bit more elbow room than those to our north with regards to automobiles and a few other things that aren't pertinent to this forum.

That is the way it is in the US also, except that there is a mechanism for getting a "custom built" or "modified" vehicle inspected and approved. There is a process in place, in the US and I'm going to assume in Canada also, that allows for a person to design a custom vehicle or vehicle modification and then to get that design or modification approved for street use. Many car aficionados design cars from the ground up with "non-standard" parts and then go through the process of testing and "licensing" that vehicle for street use; regardless of how the "original" car shipped from the factory. Unless it is against the law in Canada to own a "hot rod" or "custom modified" vehicle at all; i.e., the only cars allowed on the streets are 100% stock, then there must be some mechanism in place to get them approved and licensed as "meeting the requirements of nnnnn statute" and be licensable. If not, I feel for those in the Canada that like the "not stock" auto venue. Much the same with building a custom towable trailer...it must meet certain frame, length, width and lighting regulations, but, you can build one and get it licensed for street use; at least in the US. If you can't do any of that in Canada, I'm just a little bit happier about the US's regulatory system. If LEDs are approved for DRL use in Canada, I still would think that there would be a process in place to make the conversion (adding LEDs as the DRL requirement) and get it approved, thus freeing up the high beam housing for any conversions desired, as long as those conversions, don't in themselves, break other laws. Again, I don't care for the conversions and would just as soon the OP not make any modifications (HID-wise) to the Journey, but, I'm just trying to understand the legal process for custom modifieds in Canada; I wouldn't think they would be that different from the US, but, stranger things happen.

My guess and this is just that, a guess, as I have no desire to ever have HIDs, is that you won't be able to have both HID high beams and DRLs from the same units. HIDs require a certain voltage, as supplied by the ballasts used for both starting and operation, and that operation at ~ 1/2 nominal voltage as the DRLs do would not be enough to trip the ballast into firing the HIDs up, nor do I think that the HIDs will operate, or operate very long, at half their nominal voltage. I've never seen an HID equipped car using the HID units as DRLs; usually those cars are the ones with dedicated LED DRLs to cover the above issue. I don't know the legality involved in Canada; however, if LED DRLs are approved for use in Canada (as used on BMWs, Mercedes, etc.), I don't see why it would be illegal to use them on your Journey post HID conversion, provided the HID conversion itself is legal. Frankly, I'd like to see them ban HID units unless the car was expressly designed (proper projector and housing systems for control of the beam) as I consider them a major hazard to other drivers on the road due to errant scatter and poor installation by most DIY mechanics that don't have access to the proper headlight aiming tools and use an "I guess this is close enough" analysis of beam pattern and aim. HIDs were designed for a particular design of housing and beam control, and IMHO, trying to "plug and play" them into a housing designed for halogen lamps is a hazard to other drivers.

According to my manual for my 2013 AWD R/T; the fuel capacity is 21 gallons (FWD is only 20.5) and the "Low Fuel Light" is supposed to come on at ~3 gallons left. If I'm getting 21 mpg, that is, of course, 61 miles to empty. I just put fuel in the car today and it was just a hair under the 1/4 level and the EVIC reported that I had 101 miles to empty. I pumped 14.79 gallons. So I had (21-14.79=) 5.21 gallons remaining when I filled up. A quarter of a tank, based on 21 gallons, would be 5.25 gallons. My gauge seems to be fairly accurate and the EVIC is fairly accurate in its "prediction"; I got 21.3 mpg on that tankful and with 5.21 gallons left, I had about 110 miles to empty based on that tank's average, while the EVIC said I had 101 miles to empty. The disparity in the EVIC comes about because it uses "immediate" mpg data to calculate remaining range and I had just come through town with slower traffic and our one stop light which would have had a lower "immediate" mpg value. All in all, my fuel system seems to be quite accurate... I can't remember the last time I ever had a "Low Fuel" warning come on in a car I've been driving. We live way out in the sticks and if you get down to 3 gallons in most of my area, you'll be walking before you get to a gas station; I usually keep at least 1/2 tank and start to get nervous at 1/4 (that "habit" comes from my usual low mileage vehicles; Hemi Commander won't get to town on a 1/4 tank), so, I doubt if I'll ever see the "light" come on...and based on my numbers, I'll accept the manual's 21 gallon total capacity and the fuel gauge's markings to be pretty reliable (5.25 gallons / quarter) and I'll just go on faith that if I ever do get down to ~3 gallons, I'll see the "light".

I didn't pay anything for getting mine activated, but, when I ordered my R/T, I specifically told them I wanted them to be working. Initially they said it couldn't be done (I've got several posts in this thread), but, with some perseverence and some help from DodgeCares we did get them to work as they are supposed to. Now, that being said, I live in a rural area and I've bought more than a couple of vehicles over the years at my dealership and know most of the staff and we are on a first name basis. I'm sure that it is a billable work ticket...whether they actually charge for it, though, is up to the dealer. If they know what they are doing, it shouldn't take long and shouldn't cost that much if they do charge you. All you can do is ask...as with most of the dealerships, they will probably tell you it can't be done at all, but...

Glad you found the problems... I had a similar issue, once, with a 2000 Neon, but, my problem was I couldn't turn the car off or remove the key! The transmission in that car was such that if the car wasn't in neutral or park, it wouldn't let you turn the car off or take the key. Needless to say, the switch wasn't registering being in park or neutral and it wouldn't let me turn it off. I was out shopping at the time and fortunately I could use the remote FOB and lock the car with the key in the ignition and running while I finished my errands (I never figured out why nobody ever reported a car locked with the engine running sitting in the shopping center parking lot). Got my errands run, dropped everything off at the house and went to the dealership. Simple adjustment and I was good to go, but, when it first happened (outside a post office) I was in a near panic. BTW, I'm always jealous of you UK folks; you have the option of CRD's in your vehicles...when I had my Jeep Commander we were all up in arms that our friends across the pond had diesels and we didn't. Now I find out that you all have CRD Journeys! Sheesh...all the good stuff (but, you still drive on the wrong side of the road; I did get used to it when we were there, but, it wasn't "comfortable"!).

One of the advantages we've found with the "rear" ATC systems (the Commander had it also), is that those controls can be set separately from those in the front. In the winter, for instance, to provide for a quicker warming of the car, we set the rear controls to a much higher temperature and a higher manual setting of the fan. This produces more heat in the rear without "overheating" the front passengers or having to deal with a loud blower in the front and the net effect is that it warms the car faster and it warms it from the back to the front and it equalizes the temperature much more quickly than using the front ATC alone. Using it that way becomes less desirable if you have backseat occupants as they would get too warm for comfort, but, with just the wife and I in the front, we can afford to have the back end warmer than the front and then the front doesn't have to work as hard to maintain the temperature that she and I have set. On long trips, we've found that doing this lowers the air temperature of the front ducts...no "hot feet" from the front unit trying to work hard to fight the cold air as the air isn't that cold since it is warmed by the excess heat being produced in the back of the Journey. We played around a lot with the rear ATC when we had the Commander and are using the same "techniques" in the Journey. So, yes, besides the advantage of giving of giving those in the back of the vehicle control of their own environment, with a little "experimentation" you can augment and improve the front seat's environment by utilizing the extra venting and temperature controls. I never really compared the 5 seater vs the 7 seater, but, I don't think that they have the second set of ATC controls, nor the extra vents that are contained in the roof and the extra floor vent in the 3rd seat area. I know in the Commander it was like that. If you didn't have the 2nd & 3rd row option ATC it only had a floor vent (one under each front seat) to provide climate control for the 2nd row passengers and it was whatever the front passenger's temperature was set for. With the 3rd row ATC, you got the separate ATC controls to independently control fan speeds and temperatures for the second and third rows and additional venting to make the separate ATC effective (it wouldn't be very effective if it didn't have enough vents in the back to over-ride the air temperature from the front cabin area...). Since I don't have a 5 seater, someone that does will probably chime in with an "accurate" vent count