More cars on the road means more spare parts as well as spare part supplier will bring in more spare parts.

Compared Forte 2.0L vs Inspira 2.0L, these 2 are still exact match as the new K3 Cerato will be sold under Japanese C-segment range.

Forte is Korean made but DNA for its engine & tech from MMC, reliability & durability proven. Spare parts also cheap and highly available. Handling could beat Inspira with help from VSC. Maintenance is also cheaper using conventional 6AT that has stronger gears for startup from idle. FC wise, Forte wins by at least 0.3km/L city driving difference.
Kerb weight 1293kg (lighter due to torsion beam)
0-100km/h 9.8s

Inspira is using Lancer chassis, detuned GL engine + standard CVT JATCO gearbox with smaller gears. Other than these, the rest of the parts are built by P1. The suspension is not the same as in Lancer GT. What I dislike about CVT, ATF fluid change not exceeding 60,000km interval and have to pay RM400.
Kerb weight 1335kg
0-100km/h 10.5s

Verdict is, go test drive both kawkaw and check which 1 do you prefer. Personally I love the Lancer GT but I like the Forte now. Dun like Inspira as the bumpers, steering and some of the non-ori MMC parts seems cheap.

hi edison1437 & ironthomas,

There is local owners organised club that organise racing at Sepang racetrack. Forgot what club, looks like Forte club vs Lancer club vs Inspira club vs Civic club. You can find them pitting against each other in Civic FD, Lancer, Forte, Inspira. I think that club should have expanded further to include Elantra and new Civic. At that time, never seen Inspira win much for standard NA engine category.

Without VSC, for FF car with multi-link rear, if the back is not heavy enough and lack the real wide stance to counter the weight distribution in front, it will go into understeer when hard cornering at over certain speed limit eg. 100km/h or 120km/h. Forte 2.0L despite torsion beam, the VSC prevents it from understeer allowing it to take hard corner at higher speed than Inspira.

The Lancer/Inspira CVT ATF fluid change maintenance is correct, you can check with SC if you doubted my comment. When Inspira introduced, the original Lancer could still sell mainly because many of the parts in Inspira are not MMC made. Check RV for Lancer, it is still ok though not as strong as back then reason being people buy it for its better suspension, handling and build quality. If Inspira handling and quality are somewhere close to Lancer, it could have defeated Lancer like how Perdana RM80k killed off Galant RM110k in 1994.


kcng,

Refer N-brand defensive driving course held in 2007/2008 and you'll understand what people talking here. All the N-brand models participated at that time failed the handling part and went into understeer dangerously. THis is due to poor suspension setup and no VSC. Having flat side stance, only bent by less than 5 degree angle on the spring.

This post has been edited by jayraptor: Jun 29 2013, 12:09 AM

hi khusyairi,

Turbolag only happens in older wastegate turbocharger. Turbolag means the exhaust gas pressure suddenly not enough to spin the turbine when there's sudden deceleration or abrupt sudden brake and then floor the pedal again. The newer type such as VGT and twinscroll turbocharger came up with low pressure and high pressure mode to eliminate lag.

If you meant sluggish at lower speed eg. turbocharger activates only from 1600rpm, at less than 1600rpm that is at 800-1599rpm would rely on the engine own strength to pull. The Merc 200kompressor is actually powered by 1.8L engine and its kerb weight at >1500kg. Like that sure engine feels weaker when turbo not activated.

If you look at Mondeo 2.0T, its 2.0L engine itself generate torque 200Nm on its own therefore, it is not a problem even if its VGT turbocharger activate at 4000rpm onwards. As long as the engine itself is not too small for the chassis weight, you won't feel weak at low end.

-------------------------------------------------------------

kimsim,

You said Sylphy at low Hp, but in high torque

Engine type: MR20DE 1,997cc, 4-cylinder electronic fuel injection system (ECCS), DOHC with CVTC, balancer shaft and drive-by-wire technology
Max. Power: 131hp @ 5,200rpm
Max. Torque: 191Nm @ 4,400rpm
Just slightly accleerate on up hill only, never feel the lack power of CVT.

As khusyairi said, that is 10 years ago tech engine. New Sentra 2013 don't use that. Even US Sentra MR20DE engine with EGR tuned to >140ps. You need to park the Sylphy on steep slope like certain part of Cameron Highland or Genting Highland with a Forte 2.0 next to you. Then both start to move up from zero, you'll find the Sylphy sluggish like it's struggling to move a bit. Try with reverse as well, it'll be worse.

I doubt you even try and compare these cars properly. FYi, I tried them all with 5 full size adults onboard with proper measurement and calculation in torque test aka with load + cargo and see how much the strength deteriorated. Forte 2.0 is not underpowered yet it proven stronger than Civic FD2 2.0.

Forte is proven successful worldwide. Only bunch of marketing staff here would prevent any facts on better cars from going public. The 1 that should close production are the non-qualified C & D segment that are meant for 3rd nation. Only Globally accepted cars should be allowed to bring in.

If what you said is true about Lancer, its RV would have drop like flies long ago. However it did not and remain healthy despite existence of Inspira. Fact is Inspira is just using Lancer chassis and less ingredient Lancer GL with non-MMC suspension handling and build quality.

Civic 1.8/2.0 engine lacks torque badly. The FD2 2.0L only rely on more aerodynamic design and lower height to achieve 0-100km/h in 9.2s. The newer Civic 2.0 shredded 100kg on lighter chassis to come up with 0.1s better.

You seems to be looking at 0-100km/h to determine underpower. Forte 2.0 could hit 100km/h in 9.8s with 6AT while the older 4AT gets 10.5s. Whatever underpower you say is opposed to not just my evaluation but also Edmunds' report. Also, there are almost no Forte 2.0 test unit available, wonder where do you get to test that in the first place. Unless you owned 1 or you have some1 that owned 1 willing to let you try it. Probably you took the 1.6SX to assume then that is not right.

Forte 2.0
output 156ps@6200rpm
torque 194Nm@4300rpm

Civic 2.0 FD2
output 155ps@6500rpm
torque 188Nm@4500rpm

Civic 2.0S 2013
output 155ps@6500rpm
190Nm@4300rp

The Accord 2.0 G7/G8 are fitted with Civic FD2 and new Civic engine respectively. THe acceleration fell from 9.2s to 12s. Compared to Sonata/Optima with the same Theta engine could achieve 10.8s, deteriorated only by 1s. The torque matters.

This post has been edited by jayraptor: Jul 3 2013, 10:56 PM

You didn't read properly, mentioned clearly in comment that already performed torque test on all these cars in real driving. Seems more like you can't accept facts instead. The Forte 2.0 is 1 of best C-segment for price range below RM130k but NAZA placed no effort in marketing for not having even 1 test unit end up not many knows its true capability.

Lancer is best car when it came out in '07 and until today, its handling is still good enough to beat many C-segments. Inspira at the other hand, is not a direct clone but just mere using the chassis with much P1 parts. Only the engine & gearbox are ori from Lancer GL.


edison1437,
Besides aerodynamic, height of the car could determine acceleration. If you have a C-segment car height 1395mm with aerodynamic body having only 136horsepower 4AT gearbox could propel to 100km/h in just 10s.

Haven't you go find out that local raceclub where you can find them pitting against each other at Sepang? Rather than you just blindly doubt here and there, I already provided you hints where to start looking and see for yourself.

Lancer GL is a lower spec variant of Lancer GT/EX with more normal car suspension (softer, smaller & lighter) meant for comfort rather than handling. It is sold in other countries. You can refer Singapore Lancer 1.5GL and I think they have it in Thailand. The engine top is slightly different from our Lancer GT with less. Do not mix up with the earlier Lancer GL that was phased out as it was known as GLS elsewhere.

Lancer 2.0GT:
output 155ps@6000rpm
torque 199Nm@4250rpm

Inspira 2.0:
150ps@6000rpm
197Nm@4250rpm

Spot the difference?

Not sure what is MMC here up to at the moment. From what I know, Lancer 2.0GT from 2007 until the last time I still follow up with them, the tuning for GT and later EX has always been output 155ps@6000rpm and torque 199Nm@4250rpm.

jnick,
Details on Lancer GL I got it from overseas ofcourse. Not here. In fact, MMC in that country sells 1.5GLX, 2.0GL/GLS/GT that they even have heightened suspension variant with overall height from 1490mm up to 1505mm.

Since when I say copy? Stated clearly earlier, P1 got license from MMC to build Inspira using Lancer GL chassis, engine + gearbox with local parts. When Inspira launched in 2011, Lancer EX/GT engine output/torque still superior. They are using the same engine block.

The JATCO CVT gearbox with 6speed gear ratio = 2.349~0.394 and reverse gear 1.750.
Comparing to other makes first gear:
Altis - 2.847
Civic - 2.666
Mazda 3 - 3.620
Elantra/Forte - 4.162

Always start with small gear turn big gear. The bigger the first gear, the easier engine to turn the axle. Earlier, manual gearbox is stronger than auto gearbox because of larger first few gears. Manual begins with >3.0 while auto starts with 2.x. Current technology, auto first few gears could go as big as its manual counterpart and now grew even bigger that could be fitted in pickup trucks.



This post has been edited by jayraptor: Jul 7 2013, 12:56 AM

You replied too soon before I could edit my comment in replying to your second comment.

In '07, from what I could recall, the Lancer GL has beige interior, smaller rims around 16" and minus the skirting and spoiler at RM107k while GT at RM112k before revised to RM115k then RM117k and finally in '09 to RM123k. No difference on engine at that time. EX is a GT without bodykit & smaller rims selling at RM115k while GT at RM123k.

The overseas variant, other than detuned engine in GL, it has smaller lighter multi-link rear. Also, they have more variants on interior colour, not just black.

No, the gearbox gears are standard. That CVT gearbox model from JATCO with moveable face begins at 2.3 ratio, the next is around 1.2, and so on with the 6th at 0.394 size.

This post has been edited by jayraptor: Jul 7 2013, 01:05 AM

I am using less technical explanation. Less item in the whole rear suspension aka smaller & eventually lighter.

CVT gearbox is using moveable face to represent gears. Not virtual but using reels to enlarge/reduce size of moveable face on the drive gear. Ofcourse, the same CVT gearbox is fitted in Lancer GL/GT/GLS and Inspira. The steel belt is there holding the drive and driven moveable face and allowing them to move within limit.

What makes CVT sluggish is it takes time for the moveable face to add/reduce the reels to represent 1st, 2nd, 3rd,...6th gears upshift/downshift. Conventional gearbox is still mechanical, you want first gear, shift and engage. 2nd, 3rd, etc, the mechanism just release, disengage/engage the gears therefore more responsive.

Back then, they find it difficult to come up with more gears in conventional AT & would become heavy so they come up with CVT at lower cost. Now that they could build 6AT, 7AT and 8AT and with dual clutch + smooth shifting, CVT is loosing popularity. Audi once turned to CVT and they now revert back to conventional AT for reliability & lower maintenance.

This post has been edited by jayraptor: Jul 7 2013, 01:26 AM

Hard to describe, you just jack both cars up and compare and see for yourself. Next, get both to Sepang racetrack and try to take hard corner at 80km/h, 100km/h, 110km/h, 120km/h and so on until you can't perform the turn. Then you'll know what I'm talking about.

About the localised parts, you ask yourself the difference between Wira 1.6GLI and Lancer 1.6GL '93 other than the outside wraparound, what are the localised parts inside. Ofcourse they use local ingredient to mould the parts. Whatelse. The suspension, it is from P1 tuned by Lotus as claim. Not from MMC.

Ofcourse I have been driving CVT. You paddleshift to 1,2,3,4,5 or 6, the CVT gearbox moveable face will still enlarge and shrink the size to represent the gears you shift to anyway. I am talking about the activity in the CVT gearbox. CVT use moveable face to represent gears as fulcrum/medium for the crankshaft to driveshaft moving the axles. Conventional AT has physical gears as fulcrum/medium for driveshaft.

Main point is, Lancer is still alive today because it has something that Inspira don't and that is why RV of Lancer still ok. Else, Lancer would have wind up and got killed by Inspira like how Wira killed Lancer and Perdana killed Galant in 1994.

This post has been edited by jayraptor: Jul 7 2013, 01:50 AM