i'm thinking between Preve Premium (RM7xk) and Forte 1.6 (RM8xk).

Both are quite similar in my opinion, except few things such as brandings, etc. Hope to hear more from this topic since you guys are actually driving Preve itself.

Preve Pros
Cheaper (around 10k) compare to Forte
Technology quite similar to Forte (not exactly same, but both with good qualities)

Preve Cons
Turbo engine still unsure on the performance/maintenance in long run, e.g. after 4-5 years
Proton Spare parts slightly more expensive

Forte Pros
Kia engine been there for years and proven to be more reliable (at least the review that I read so far from forum) IMHO
Forte spare parts slightly more cheaper thank Preve. I chk with some spare parts dealer, they kept quite a number of stocks due to huge demands.

Forte Cons
Pricier than Preve. Moreover, both Kia and Proton post sales services still quite bad IMHO. I'm comparing with Perodua only, cannot match at all.


So guys, can tips me a bit? I'm the type who drive a car 5-7 years before I change to a new one. So a good maintenance and worth the value will be my choice to choose one.

guys just wondering which car will have better petrol saving, between 1.6L and 2.0L.

Now to my understanding, 1.6L should be more petrol saving if
1) More to city drive (70%)
2) Less to highway drive (30%)

2.0L should be more petrol saving if
1) Less to city drive (30%)
2) More to highway drive (70%)

Now, of course other consideration are such as how you press the pedal, how often you break, your driving style, etc. So let say for general knowledge, is my understanding correct?

A friend told me that 2.0L is more petrol saving irregardless if you have more city or highway drive. his explanation was Forte is a heavy car and if you have more than 3 ppl sit inside your car, then 1.6L is underpower. Whereby 2.0L is powerful enough irregardless of the no of ppl sit inside.

I tried to reason saying that the petrol needed by 1.6L is lower, even though there are 3 ppl sitting inside the car.

so now, which is which?

so are you confirming to me that 1.6L is underpower for Forte?

or you just just telling me if underpower, then fuel consumption will be higher?


another question, if alot of stop and go at traffic light, will 2.0 makan more minyak compare to 1.6?

agree with you that final conclusion depending on the right leg. now let say right leg adjustment the same, and driving path also the same, between 1.6L and 2.0L, which one LOGICALLY will save more petrol?

both i can afford,just that i wanna buy a good FC consumption car only. So say 50KM difference, that 2.0L more petrol saving? or 1.6L?

i totally agree with you. 2.0 has more features and definately more powerful when i press on the pedal. no doubt about it. but one of your comment 1.6 to drive smoother, in what sense?

EPS is available for both 1.6 premium and 2.0 right? i do agree with you 2.0 has more safety features. but i'm just curious to find out on the FC.

i think you got me wrong. it's common sense that cars like myvi, fiesta, vios, etc have much better FC compare to C segment cars. after all, it's totally 2 different category. What I really wanna know is whether my own "common sense" is right or wrong. Meaning my own understanding is that 1.6L should be more petrol saving in city drive (assuming not more than 3 ppl in Forte) compare to 2.0 in city drive. But my friend's understanding was 2.0L should be more petrol saving in city drive (assuming not more than 3 ppl in Forte) compare to 1.6L in city drive. Now, which one of us are right?

Let's make assumptions i'm the driver, use the same leg, same speed, same route, etc. all the same, and only comparison goes back to 1.6 vs 2.0. Which one have better FC? If 1.6L, for example, for a full tank, maybe it will not be more than 50km different? another example? I'm curious to find out.