Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
kamakazi wrote:There are a couple of components that go into this but I will try and highlight what I have pieced together.
hp numbers by themselves are a waste of time. (Eg. 160hp) the number by itself doesn't tell you anything about how the engine producers this power. Adding information like engine size, fuel type, FI or NA, compression ratio, torque, # of cylinders etc. fills in pieces of the puzzle, and this is only for the engine side.
There is also the transmission, which has various types, different gear ratios with different torque multiplication characteristics. Add to this different Tyre sizes with varying weight and also the weight of the entire vehicle.
Just saying that you think 100hp is not enough or you don't think it is enough kinda ignores the entire picture.
Maybe the vehicle is light, with a transmission that has high torque multiplication characteristic and geared a bit short (numerically larger ratios) or a very wide range of gear ratios (CVT).
agent007 wrote:You're a bit overzealous there Joshie! No mention of Toyota NA superiority or arguments for and against FI vs NA. The point was quite simple and is one that was noted because it deserved mention. Toyota did well to offer us a NA engine that can produce 170hp without the use of a turbo. Actually, IIRC, this is the 2nd most powerful 2.0 NA motor to ever be imported into this country in a vehicle from the authorized dealership and the most powerful 2.0 ever to be imported by TTTL.
You're right though, its equally as impressive to have small displacement engines putting out the power of larger displacement engines with better torque curve characteristics and I am sure most of us here would much rather FI vs NA but as of late, I am beginning to lean more on NA due to long term reliability, longevity and ease of maintenance.
agent007 wrote:Same way older SUVs made it with less powerful engines like the Nissan Patrol 2.4 from the 80's, the 99' Grand Vitara 5-door 1.6 (those vehicles are heavier than the Rush). The Voxy 1.8 minivan with 7 passengers hitting the north-south multiple times on a daily basis with no fuss and that is also heavier than a Rush. The Suzuki APV 1.6, those made it up to Maracas and Lady Young normal and those old Datsun 720 pickups with the L18 motor, somehow those were adequate and tuned for load!
The on-going love for HP has allowed vehicles to get more powerful over the years (marketing hype and manufacturers one-upping each other) but with advancements in transmission design, gearing, engine breathing (DOHC 16V twin VVT systems) etc has allowed the Rush to be adequate to conquer typical contemporary challenges of today. Don't forget, just 3 decades ago, having a DOHC 16V head with EFI was considered "exotic" and today's emissions and fuel economy regulations are tough on R&D and engineers. Imagine if we take those older engines I mentioned above like the Datsun L18 and apply the new testing standards to that, the posted HP and torque numbers might drop by 20% or even more.
So yeah, I'm not saying the Rush confirms its name, all i'm saying is that, its adequate and with all this grid-lock traffic on our roads coupled with speed enforcement by the TTPS and the entire motoring public are not sold on CNG and Hybrid technology as yet, the conventional ICE in the Rush with its very fuel efficient nature is something worth considering.
Gladiator wrote:agent007 wrote:Same way older SUVs made it with less powerful engines like the Nissan Patrol 2.4 from the 80's, the 99' Grand Vitara 5-door 1.6 (those vehicles are heavier than the Rush). The Voxy 1.8 minivan with 7 passengers hitting the north-south multiple times on a daily basis with no fuss and that is also heavier than a Rush. The Suzuki APV 1.6, those made it up to Maracas and Lady Young normal and those old Datsun 720 pickups with the L18 motor, somehow those were adequate and tuned for load!
The on-going love for HP has allowed vehicles to get more powerful over the years (marketing hype and manufacturers one-upping each other) but with advancements in transmission design, gearing, engine breathing (DOHC 16V twin VVT systems) etc has allowed the Rush to be adequate to conquer typical contemporary challenges of today. Don't forget, just 3 decades ago, having a DOHC 16V head with EFI was considered "exotic" and today's emissions and fuel economy regulations are tough on R&D and engineers. Imagine if we take those older engines I mentioned above like the Datsun L18 and apply the new testing standards to that, the posted HP and torque numbers might drop by 20% or even more.
So yeah, I'm not saying the Rush confirms its name, all i'm saying is that, its adequate and with all this grid-lock traffic on our roads coupled with speed enforcement by the TTPS and the entire motoring public are not sold on CNG and Hybrid technology as yet, the conventional ICE in the Rush with its very fuel efficient nature is something worth considering.
You shouldn't try to justify the Rush so hard... you sound like a Toyota salesman. For almost the same price you can get the Tucson with the 1.6T 170HP, much better looking and feature loaded. If you really need a 7 seater is better you buy a panel van.
mitsutt wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:mitsutt wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:kamakazi wrote:Thanks for the responses.
I was wondering about total cost of ownership of some vehicles as some might think that are saving by purchasing a relatively cheaper vehicle up front, but when parts need replacing (out of warranty) you can end up with very similar costs overall.
Colleague had a Hyundai that required a harmonic damper (crank pulley), wheel hub assembly (abs speed sensor) and other miscellaneous parts which are pretty pricey and not something I think requires changing often but... It needed changing.
My Civic (ek) was purchased at 169000kms and required a whole array of parts... But most were service items.
(Non service items were; idle air control valve, door lock actuator)
Hilux from New and now at 89000kms, only normal service (oil and filters).
Again think you for your responses
This could be a real issue people don't think about.
My current vehicle is a Hyundai Tucson and in 3.6 years I have had to -
1. Repair Thermostop for A/C - warranty
2. Change door actuator - warranty
3. Change A/C Evaporator - not warranty
4. There is a lingering issue with the steering that Massy can't seem to diagnose and I assume I will have to pay to get it checked on the outside
5. Changed battery twice - once on warranty and once after it ended
For a vehicle under 50k Kms and less than 4 years old I shudder to think what happens in a few more years. My brother bought a Qashqai same time I bought my Tucson and he had to change nothing or repair anything other than routine maintenance. Despite having a 2.0l engine as well the Qashqai servicing in Massy was a few hundred less than the Tucson right next door.
What’s the steering issue you are having?
When turning the steering wheel either left or right I hear a slight noise and feel a very very light feedback feeling as if there was resistance on the steering. It is a constant on turning the steering wheel.
Massy say nothing wrong but on turning the steering one should not hear a noise.
I have this same problem.
This man preach here! LoL @ tranny lifetime fluid. Madness...kamakazi wrote:I believe I mentioned this before... Each party is looking out for their own interest.
The manufacturer wants to sell cars so that market longer oil change intervals and say things like lifetime fluid/no fluid changes required to lower your perceived cost of ownership.
The dealer is trying to make as much money from you as possible so tell you the lowest possible mileage for service, and also tell you your warranty will be void if you don't service by them etc.
Personally I never went back by the dealer to have service done. I used to change oil every 5000kms using conventional oil (these days I'm going up to approx 6500). Don't think my nerve will hold to 10K.
People like to use the arguments of newer oil technology which is probably ok but please don't use the argument of this is what the manual said... cause for them it just has to last the warranty period. They say what they need to say to get cars sold but after the warranty period it is on you or whichever sob you sold it to.
BMW arbitrarily increased their intervals to 15k and then all the plastic parts in their engine started failing prematurely (just after this increase)
Rx-8 owners were recommended 5w20 conventional; so that Mazda could claim better nembers for CAFE. Almost everyone who followed this had to get an engine rebuild at the 100K mileage mark.
This is the new trend.... going after fuel economy; they have reached 0w16 viscosity.
I'm waiting to see how long an engine lasts with that flowing through it.
Who else believes that their transmission fluid is "lifetime" and doesn't need changing until 100000kms or even at all.
Use the manual as a guide but please don't follow it religiously if you want to keep your vehicle much longer than the warranty.
Morpheus wrote:This man preach here! LoL @ tranny lifetime fluid. Madness...kamakazi wrote:I believe I mentioned this before... Each party is looking out for their own interest.
The manufacturer wants to sell cars so that market longer oil change intervals and say things like lifetime fluid/no fluid changes required to lower your perceived cost of ownership.
The dealer is trying to make as much money from you as possible so tell you the lowest possible mileage for service, and also tell you your warranty will be void if you don't service by them etc.
Personally I never went back by the dealer to have service done. I used to change oil every 5000kms using conventional oil (these days I'm going up to approx 6500). Don't think my nerve will hold to 10K.
People like to use the arguments of newer oil technology which is probably ok but please don't use the argument of this is what the manual said... cause for them it just has to last the warranty period. They say what they need to say to get cars sold but after the warranty period it is on you or whichever sob you sold it to.
BMW arbitrarily increased their intervals to 15k and then all the plastic parts in their engine started failing prematurely (just after this increase)
Rx-8 owners were recommended 5w20 conventional; so that Mazda could claim better nembers for CAFE. Almost everyone who followed this had to get an engine rebuild at the 100K mileage mark.
This is the new trend.... going after fuel economy; they have reached 0w16 viscosity.
I'm waiting to see how long an engine lasts with that flowing through it.
Who else believes that their transmission fluid is "lifetime" and doesn't need changing until 100000kms or even at all.
Use the manual as a guide but please don't follow it religiously if you want to keep your vehicle much longer than the warranty.
This is simply not valid. Independent testing of taxi fleets in Dallas, LA, Miami, and NYC on fleets with vehicles tested to over 100,000 miles individually has shown that maintenance intervals of 5000 miles (8000 km) was conservative and that 8000 miles (12800 km) was more realistic for severe duty, dusty conditions, high temps, and grid lock traffic.agent007 wrote:SLVR1 you are on point!
Concerning the 5,000 change interval for some dealers, they say that T&T is classified as "severe weather conditions" with:
1. A lot of grid lock traffic
2. Poor roads
3. Dusty environment/atmosphere
4. A lot of short stops
5. Temperatures here can get really hot
And many more...
They say the above is hard on oil viscosity and thus justifies the short change interval.
IMO, with true synthetic motor oil, under severe conditions, you can stretch your interval to 7,500kms at the minimum.
Anomaly:
Massy says 5,000kms for their Hyundai's
SS says 7,500kms for their Kia's
Both have the same engines except Kia did not get the 1.6t yet but for the 1.6 Gamma, 2.0 Nu and 2.4 Theta 2 engines, they are shared between the rest of the Hyundai-Kia lineup including the 2.2 td found in the Santa Fe and Sorento.
Try asking for an explanation from the two powers that be and you will come out confused.
Note: I'm assuming SS kept their service interval policy because as at 2016 into 2017, it was at 7,500.
Can you locate that article... There are so many that use NY taxi cabsadnj wrote:This is simply not valid. Independent testing of taxi fleets in Dallas, LA, Miami, and NYC on fleets with vehicles tested to over 100,000 miles individually has shown that maintenance intervals of 5000 miles (8000 km) was conservative and that 8000 miles (12800 km) was more realistic for severe duty, dusty conditions, high temps, and grid lock traffic.agent007 wrote:SLVR1 you are on point!
Concerning the 5,000 change interval for some dealers, they say that T&T is classified as "severe weather conditions" with:
1. A lot of grid lock traffic
2. Poor roads
3. Dusty environment/atmosphere
4. A lot of short stops
5. Temperatures here can get really hot
And many more...
They say the above is hard on oil viscosity and thus justifies the short change interval.
IMO, with true synthetic motor oil, under severe conditions, you can stretch your interval to 7,500kms at the minimum.
Anomaly:
Massy says 5,000kms for their Hyundai's
SS says 7,500kms for their Kia's
Both have the same engines except Kia did not get the 1.6t yet but for the 1.6 Gamma, 2.0 Nu and 2.4 Theta 2 engines, they are shared between the rest of the Hyundai-Kia lineup including the 2.2 td found in the Santa Fe and Sorento.
Try asking for an explanation from the two powers that be and you will come out confused.
Note: I'm assuming SS kept their service interval policy because as at 2016 into 2017, it was at 7,500.
But you will meet the recommended interval so that you do not void your warranty.
There are quite a few stories and even more testing of fleets by the OEMs to assess the longevity of engine oil. Manufacturers have moved recommended intervals to 10,000 and 15,000 miles (16,000 and 24,000 km) on many vehicles. Here is a NYC taxi fleet test that recommended 7500 miles (12,000 km) using conventional oil from 1996.kamakazi wrote:Can you locate that article... There are so many that use NY taxi cabsadnj wrote:This is simply not valid. Independent testing of taxi fleets in Dallas, LA, Miami, and NYC on fleets with vehicles tested to over 100,000 miles individually has shown that maintenance intervals of 5000 miles (8000 km) was conservative and that 8000 miles (12800 km) was more realistic for severe duty, dusty conditions, high temps, and grid lock traffic.agent007 wrote:SLVR1 you are on point!
Concerning the 5,000 change interval for some dealers, they say that T&T is classified as "severe weather conditions" with:
1. A lot of grid lock traffic
2. Poor roads
3. Dusty environment/atmosphere
4. A lot of short stops
5. Temperatures here can get really hot
And many more...
They say the above is hard on oil viscosity and thus justifies the short change interval.
IMO, with true synthetic motor oil, under severe conditions, you can stretch your interval to 7,500kms at the minimum.
Anomaly:
Massy says 5,000kms for their Hyundai's
SS says 7,500kms for their Kia's
Both have the same engines except Kia did not get the 1.6t yet but for the 1.6 Gamma, 2.0 Nu and 2.4 Theta 2 engines, they are shared between the rest of the Hyundai-Kia lineup including the 2.2 td found in the Santa Fe and Sorento.
Try asking for an explanation from the two powers that be and you will come out confused.
Note: I'm assuming SS kept their service interval policy because as at 2016 into 2017, it was at 7,500.
But you will meet the recommended interval so that you do not void your warranty.
m sport right?agent007 wrote:Unfortunately no, however I was just advised that the 2019 BMW 330i is $635k
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests