nope..

Wow..the kerb weight of the car is 1.3Ton, that around the exora...

R they sure that the IAFM+ can cope with the car weight yet still giving such good fc??

This post has been edited by Freakystein: Mar 15 2012, 09:59 AM

Anyone went for the proton event in bkt jalil d? Suppose start today rite?

Comparing inspira's overall dimension (4570 x 1760 x 1490) , this car is actually wider and higher.

Kerb weight also heavier than inspira, campro engine should not weigh more than inspira's 4B1x engine, means the new car's chassis is way way way more solid?

They didn't provide interior's dimension, don't they ?

started yesterday, bro.

CVT bro

the FC is so bullshit, i think the CFE has worst FC than the IAFM

How do you know?

Early early morning my SA call me up ajak me attend the power of 1 event, told him I already went yesterday Lololol

Anyway he also told me he received the fax from Proton re the specs and pricing - RM65.6k, RM68.5k and RM75.5k.

RM 65.6k must be the Manual

Do you know that for a fact? None of the Exora Bold CFE owners have complained about high FC, some even say it's pretty good.

The IAFM+ variant I'm more doubtful, since it will likely be underpowered, hence might actually consume more fuel and CFE.

---

Added on March 15, 2012, 10:51 amOf course lor.

But I dunno this is tentative pricing or final pricing. Won't be surprised if it is final. Last time I enquire about the FLX SE pricing before it was launch, he also gave it to me quite early.

This post has been edited by dares: Mar 15 2012, 10:51 AM

Agree with you bro, the powerful the engine the better the FC
For CFE, less amount of fuel needed to move a 1400kg car

Last time I used to think the lower the car displacement the lower the FC but no
my neo 1.3 auto summore, makan minyak twice than 1.3 myvi manual...I'm not kidding

ur NEO no VVT-i... maivee ada...

the FC spec is better then myvi SE, right?
is it because of the turbo?

i tot turbo will use more fuel >.<

Im quoting the FC on the spec sheet above, 6.5l/100km @90km, isn't this display a bullshit and nonsense. There is no proper evaluation method on their FC and they just put 6.5l/100km @90km, there should be an urban cycle as well i think quoting 6.5l/100km is very misleading. and base on the spec sheet, the IAFM engine consumes even less fuel at 6.1km/100km.

I never heard of any current IAFM owners saying that their FC is good, and base on the spec sheet. the CFE consumes more... so what does it tell me, FC is worse than the IAFM?

stats on paper are bullcrap, or achievable but only on highway. city drive i think no one puts up the stats unless its a hybrid lol. even honda hybrids can't achieve what's on the paper in city drive.

Not necessarily true. At under 2k RPM you can already go 90-100 km/h without engaging the turbo. Turbo tend to get high FC because ppl who drive turbo like to tekan.

Fair enough. I agree marketing figures are often misleading.

I misunderstood that you mean CFE must have higher FC than IAFM+.

The spec on paper looks very very competitive. But the chassis design Maybe not my cup of tea especially the rear god .. the keyhole

while most car manufacturer going for a bigger rear light design... this 1 going the other way round...