QUOTE(luckykid5 @ Feb 19 2012, 01:23 AM)
my gawd. RM92 for 370km only? that is super costly, for a 1.6L car. moreover majority of your travel is in highway.
i wonder the CPS FC will be better without turbo?
My friend nissan livina 1.8L, for RM80, can go at least 450km onwards.
have to think twice before getting this car now
im 100% city driving. Rpm around 2-3k. Haven't do my 1st service yet. So that's y a bit high fc I think.i wonder the CPS FC will be better without turbo?
My friend nissan livina 1.8L, for RM80, can go at least 450km onwards.
have to think twice before getting this car now
Will report back how's the fc improve after the service.
Added on February 19, 2012, 8:26 am
QUOTE(Optiplex330 @ Feb 19 2012, 07:45 AM)
Generally speaking, a turbo charged engine is SUPPOSED to be using about 5% more fuel than a non-turbo version of the same engine. In exchange for that extra 5% fuel consumption, you can look forward to getting about 20% more power.
So in this case, the turbo charged 1.6 liter engine can look forward to performance similar to a 1.92 liter engine but uses less fuel than a normal aspirated 1.92 engine. A good deal.
Well, that's the theory anyway.
Cps with turbo + cvt should be more fuel saver I think.So in this case, the turbo charged 1.6 liter engine can look forward to performance similar to a 1.92 liter engine but uses less fuel than a normal aspirated 1.92 engine. A good deal.
Well, that's the theory anyway.
But my sa told me, according to the manufacture technical said, its using old campro engine addon with turbo. The cps engine cannot add turbo otherwise will crash the engine. that's what he told me la.
This post has been edited by vinorgouki: Feb 19 2012, 08:30 AM
Feb 19 2012, 08:19 AM

Quote
0.0207sec
0.69
6 queries
GZIP Disabled