QUOTE(Matrix @ Jun 9 2014, 02:12 PM)
1.6 FLX FC quite similiar to 1.3 FLX1.6 FL probably higher than 1.3 FL.
Saga Fl Auto, Buying 2nd hand
|
|
Jun 9 2014, 02:22 PM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
834 posts Joined: Jul 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2014, 07:44 PM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
834 posts Joined: Jul 2011 |
|
|
|
Jun 11 2014, 01:01 PM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
834 posts Joined: Jul 2011 |
QUOTE(JinLeon @ Jun 10 2014, 05:43 PM) so meaning flx win fl in all condition right? but how come manual flx is better than manual fl? engine and gearbox are the same QUOTE(Jane's @ Jun 10 2014, 10:22 PM) I believe the Manual FL uses a Getrag GB, whereas a FLX uses an Aichi-Kikai unit (or the other way round). The biggest difference is ofc the gear ratios between the two manual units. And yes, the FLX triumphs over the FL in all departments, even in the handling (stiffer, but overcame the sagging issue with BLMs at the rear) FL engine is Campro IAFM where as FLX uses the Campro IAFM+. Key difference being the IAFM module and engine tuning, as well as some internal parts.The gearbox are also different: FL Auto = Mitsubishi 4AT FL manual = Aichi Kikai 5MT FLX Auto = Punch powertrain CVT FLX manual = Getrag 5MT FLX also have stiffer springs and thicker front antiroll bar (21mm vs FL's 19mm). This post has been edited by dares: Jun 11 2014, 01:02 PM |
|
|
Jun 11 2014, 02:03 PM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
834 posts Joined: Jul 2011 |
QUOTE(ericmaxman @ Jun 11 2014, 01:31 PM) kenjilew measured his own BLM and his customer's FLX in his workshop....unless FL has the FLX ARB instead of the BLM's la.No idea why the parts list has the same part number This post has been edited by dares: Jun 11 2014, 02:05 PM |
|
|
Jun 11 2014, 02:07 PM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
834 posts Joined: Jul 2011 |
|
|
|
Jun 12 2014, 01:47 AM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
834 posts Joined: Jul 2011 |
|
|
|
Jun 12 2014, 02:00 AM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
834 posts Joined: Jul 2011 |
QUOTE(JinLeon @ Jun 12 2014, 01:52 AM) -With the IAFM, the 1.3L engine used in the Proton Saga now produces 98 bhp (73 kW) @ 6,500rpm.[6] The maximum torque is slightly reduced to 113.2 N·m (83.5 ft·lbf) Their output are similiar, the main difference is that the IAFM+ reaches peak torque and horsepower at lower RPMs. More torque at lower RPMs means better acceleration at lower speeds. If you are using CVT that means the engine is always kept at the optimum RPM.-1.3L IAFM+ engine produces 94 bhp (70 kW) @ 5,750 rpm of horsepower and 120 N·m (89 ft·lbf) of torque It seen so similar. took from wikipedia This post has been edited by dares: Jun 12 2014, 02:01 AM |
| Change to: | 0.0163sec
0.60
6 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 11th December 2025 - 10:42 PM |