Is it meant to be a notch above the Preve. But anyway I did test drive Preve Premium and though it is a better car than any previous Proton, it does have quite a number of things that hints at its 'DNA' and 'heritage'. Small things, but definitely adds up. I can't wait for my long holiday to test drive the Suprima S.

Since you mention the weight, the Preve have a better load capacity (Gross weight - Kerb weight). The design of the frame maybe changed a bit (at the back particularly), can't expect it to just be a sedan having its back hacked off.

BTW...this was the one rumoured to have a manual box, I don't see it in Proton's specs.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 19 2013, 10:31 AM

If only someone is crazy enough and rich enough to convert the Preve/Suprima S to manual themselves.
Unfortunately I only have the crazy part covered.

Suprima R maybe?

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 19 2013, 10:50 AM

I know, but I don't see it as impossible. Only expensive and time consuming...and stressful and can break friendships and family bonds.

Really? I'd imagine it'd be a bit chaotic for the ECU. Or did he modify the ECU circuit, moving a few things around etc.? I'd like to know how.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 19 2013, 02:04 PM

Yeah, just because it has a "turbo" doesn't mean it was made to be a devil's chariot.

The turbo is tamer, that's it. It doesn't lag, it doesn't produce excess power (and wasting fuel), it did good for a bit of overtaking and hill climb....at least from my experience, comparing it to a Waja CPS. From specs at least the CFE isn't consuming a whole lot of extra fuel for an extra 13hp, and much much much more torque.

That being said, my only complaint so far with the Suprima S without ever driving it nor looking at it in the flesh, is the daft "Turbo" label at the back. Stick with just CFE like the Preve, because we all know it won't be close to other real hot hatches with 200++ horsepower.

Is the red the one used previously on the Preve before it was pulled out?

If so, they must've rectified it.

I have read about a 'Naturally Aspirated' CPS delivering 180hp at the wheel, with 180+Nm torque. It was heavily modified with a lot of strengthening and electronic meddling and cam-lift wizardry, but it shows the potential of the S4PH.

There is a problem with most turbo engines for fuel efficiency, it's hard to drive them as such to get fuel efficiency. There is a car that did have a slight fuel advantage while having a bigger engine performance, and it did that by having a bit of turbo lag so drivers can feather the throttle and not have the turbo spool up and increasing FC when it's not needed to. I'm all up for that, but how many people would appreciate that to save fuel?

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 25 2013, 02:53 PM

The chassis feels like it can handle a bit more doesn't it?

Rarely does a turbo engine aimed for fuel efficiency are actually fuel efficient. On paper it'll work flawlessly, there's no reason for it not to. However, taking the driver into account, how well the engine stays at the right power band, what is the right power band, how and when the turbo kicks in, there's a lot to be engineered. The transmission takes the brunt of the blame when it comes to FC in my opinion.

I've never heard of NFE, that's new to me.

That's how it's supposed to work, but it works by adding more air and thus more fuel to increase torque/power. They work good in theory, but in the real world not many manufacturers get it right, and even Ford's EcoBoost get marginally better FC figures, but that is when driven by hyper-milers.

VW has got it right with the TSi. It's a turbo 1.4 with the power of a CFE 1.6! However.....it has a DSG gearbox and weighs slightly less. The engine,turbo, and gearbox were mated so harmoniously to get that figure.

The one I compared it to was the one without the supercharger (not the twincharger version with ~160hp). It's a fair comparison, and showing where most engines are compared to the TSi.

The only 2 difference in stats are the torque figure and engine capacity. The 1.4 TSi surprisingly producing over 40Nm of torque at lower rpms. VW is smarter in mating turbos and gearboxes to their engines and that was the whole point.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 26 2013, 03:19 AM

From that torque figure he mentioned, maybe it's the 3.6 non turbo? Though I have no idea of older models offered here in Malaysia. For all I know it could be the V10 and he was mistaken.

I remembered one Touareg overtook me while climbing a hill on the way to Kundasang (Sabah highlands).

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 26 2013, 12:19 PM

Proton doesn't have to resort to DSG, but they can tune the CVT to better respond to the engine and driver input for better economy. The Preve I tested had a very good sporty feel, but defeats the purpose of having a CVT in the first place. Proton should implement a fuel economy mode.

Brighter DRL means more fuel consumption. Every bit counts, and when running DRL for 4-5 hours a day every day, the emissions difference is apparent. In some countries, a DRL cannot exceed 200 candela when looked straight on.

I forgot to mention the safety side, but yes 200 candela is to avoid the blinding effect. Imagine all cars having bright DRLs in the middle of the day. It'll be dizzyingly bright, as if we don't have enough light pollution in the night. The on on the Preve would be quite bad if it were to travel in packs. Yes it does make the car more visible, but the point is to not make it so visible that it obscures your vision of everything else around it.

But 1% extra fuel consumption, multiplied by 10 million cars would still be significant to the environment, and countries abiding by Kyoto Protocol or the latest Euro emissions standards have strict penalties for cars like those. as if more powerful electronics and ICEs weren't enough the engine now has to charge the batteries even more since it has more lights to run every single time it is driven and not just during the night. Anything that is still measurable still counts when it comes to emissions.

Personally, I hate the idea of DRL. People will grow up to become more dependant on IDIOTIC (there I said it) safety features that they will become lazy to protect themselves actively.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 29 2013, 07:27 PM

Any extra load on the alternator is extra turning, meaning extra fuel. Especially now with all the extra speakers and more powerful ICE, drive-by-wire, touch screen navigation, in car Wi-fi. If the car gets electric power steering it gets even worse. DRLs don't need to be bright if they are to be there. They just need to be bright enough for you to notice a few cars are in front or behind you, but not too bright that a convoy would just be a major distraction. We're not trying to watch a parade of floats.

Having DRLs just created a solution for a problem that wasn't really big at all in the first place. In motorcycles certainly, since they are a lot smaller and dark colours are popular for motorcycles. There is value to it, and DRL (on cars) has its place but not in broad daylight. They should rather be called, "Visibility Enhancer Lights". They really should only be used in low light conditions like haze, fog, heavy rain, dimly lit indoor parking.

The higher cause of accidents are inattentiveness and lack of road discipline and ethics. I'd hate to see the day when people are found guilty on the basis that their DRL was not on, and a bright red colour outside, on a sunny day at noon "wasn't enough to see the vehicle". Grey coloured cars are less visible, but that's not a license for them to pollute daytime with over-bright artificial lighting either.

For Preve owners, please leave the DRL's brightness alone. They are really already quite visible.

Yes, that's the way it should be.

I'm aware of how an alternator works. I took it apart more than a few times myself and replaced a few, studied about them too. The alternator spins all the time but is not charging all the time. The laws of physics also states that whenever you need to draw more from an alternator, the more torque you need to apply to it. Simply put, you can't ask for more for free; conservation of energy.

Fuel efficiency doesn't have to be the SOLE reason a DRL should not be used all the time, but for now it is one of them. 1% extra fuel from half a billion vehicles later on will show its mark. That's better spent on more sensible safety features, like distance sensors and auto brakes. The bigger picture is, DRL is just plain unnecessary in most situations and should be used sparingly, for safety and pollution (the biggest concern is artificial light pollution). Use them sparingly and at the right brightness, or not at all.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 30 2013, 10:53 AM

Then the Europeans shouldn't worry should they?...But actually they are. There is a balance between safety (too distracting, too bright, just right, etc.) and extra fuel (too many DRLs in one car, too bright, etc.). I'm not talking about one car here. A few cents extra, 0.002l per car, so what ay? No, that few extra cents/millilitres will turn into tens of millions of tons of extra CO2 when you multiply the hundreds of millions of cars in the future having them. In the mean time, fuel saving technology is slowing down, car sales will still be accelerating. Unless of course LED headlights will come to the rescue and be fitted standard to every car from then on, and more energy efficient speakers and such.

And wattage rating isn't everything. I can have a 100W bulb and have it on a fraction of a second and consume basically nothing. A DRL will be on about 2 hours a day, pretty much everyday of the year.

Look, let's just forget about this, I guess not everyone shares the same concern about the environment as I do. I am a hyper-miler, and I do recycle, I save water, I save electricity, so there you go.

So back to topic. @hariznordin:
If your budget is under 80k, then the Surpima S may be the right thing but you absolutely have to see it with your own eyes first. The Suprima S is cutting it a bit close to your budget, so if I were you, I'd look at a top variant Preve or a good second hand car with good history.

Then again, buying a second hand car in a hurry might cause you trouble. A new car with proper warranty will suit you better. My final suggestions for you to CONSIDER...Suprima S (lower variant), Preve (top variant), Myvi Extreme (you didn't say what type so there you go)...mmmmaaaayyybe a Jazz. Those are the cars I have known people to own (except Suprima S of course) so they're good.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 31 2013, 05:49 AM

Nope.
You can wait for the 6 speed manual coming soon for premium CFE models.

The R3 racer is it?
It's actually pretty good. I don't know the times for a racer of its class, but I do recall times of around sub 2:50 for road cars like Subarus WRX STi's and Evos. I thnk it can be competitive against other racers in its class.
It supposedly has 178 hp. Very powerful for a 1.6 NA, but not the most powerful (the SR16..somethingorother holds that record), but it has quite a lot of torque (225Nm), and unlike many engines with high specific output it got that torque at a modest rpm as well (4000 rpm). On paper at least the engine is very good.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Mar 10 2014, 01:08 AM

Yup, seen it.
Can't they make a detuned version of that engine for a limited time...maybe in a hot hatch version of the Global Small Car...say 160 hp?

oh and just saw a video of the Preve R3 of last year. It had less power but does a sub 2:40, so we have yet seen the full potential of the Suprima S racer.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Mar 10 2014, 01:34 AM

Could be the CVT. The ECU upgrade probably fixed it a bit. It uses a wet-plate clutch instead of the conventional torque converter, more efficient. But like a manual it needs time to engage the clutch. It's a bit weird since it's not you who is doing the engaging. But I found a sweet spot between light throttle and clutch engagement, no need to be too frisky with the throttle. You're essentially "yelling" at the CVT if you do.