Jump to content
  • Welcome to AutoLanka

    :action-smiley-028: We found you speeding on AutoLanka Forums without any registration! If you want the best experience, please sign in. Safe driving! 

Sign in to follow this  
kosaladissa

CHR 1200cc colombo city Fuel consumption per liter

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, vitz said:

Why on earth, someone spend 7.5 million rupees on a car,  worry about spending 20 rupees to run 1 km!!!!!!

This is just like the secret formula that gvt use to revise the fuel prices !!!!!

This is a serious answer : because people in SL spend every single dime they have in buying a car (often one that is beyond their means) that after paying the lease and paying for the basics...they do not have cash pump petrol and maintain it. 

 

18 hours ago, matroska said:

pissuda Ewa thel suwandatath yanawa. Wine red(Marun ) with Beige interior (baaj intariyal) is the most fuel efficient. Doctor owned nam thawath hondai . Doctor Owned Marun Pramio with baaj intariyal does 23.956 KMPL in heavy traffic.

Say this at a hospital car park...you will be given free consultations for the rest of your life (well..atleast until the next permit cycle when they all move on to a different car badge)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, vitz said:

Why on earth, someone spend 7.5 million rupees on a car,  worry about spending 20 rupees to run 1 km!!!!!!

This is just like the secret formula that gvt use to revise the fuel prices !!!!!

This is subjective right ? People pay 7.5Million for a car with a small engine and they expect it to do it's job (In OPs case) as going from A-B in a "comfortable" "economical" manner . Some people would like to stop at petrol stations less. You don't pay 7.5 Million say one of those performance Subaru cars and expect it to be economical, you expect different things from it. Some people also import convertible cars for the same sort of money and expect completely different things from it.

 

There is nothing wrong with a person paying a lot of money for a vehicle and expecting things THAT person wants from it :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...so to bring the discussion back in to context...

The CHR would do 8ish in Colombo traffic..and 12ish on the open road. At the end of the day this is pretty much what you will get with any 1500cc car. So would an Allion/Premio be more efficient than the CHR ? Not really...so now the question is what will suit your usage needs better ? A CHR or a Allion/Premio ? (didn't someone say the new Civic too was in this range..maybe a bit higher with engine start/stop, etc ?)

You could go for a bit larger car and you will get a fuel economy a little bit lesser than the fore mentioned cars. For the slight drop in fuel consumption you will end up getting a lot more car.

If you want significantly better fuel efficiency....then you would need to look in to Hybrids or something like a kei car. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually iRage this is what i would think of it,

 

Toyota CHR 1.2T weights ~1400KG and produces around 114HP.

Toyota Premio 1.5 weights around ~1200KG and produces around 110HP. Both cars have CVT trannies so no contest there.

 

Plus the CHR is turbo charged, A turbo vehicle is very bad on fuel while on boost (More air into the cylinders, more fuel/air mix etc etc). I know this case i have a swift RS Turbo. The smaller engine (1.2T) will have to do a lot of work compared to the NA 1.5 engine to  pull the car quickly. The CHR is also considerably heavier than the premio while providing a mere 4hp more albeit having more torque cause of the turbo. If you keep the throttle like 10-30% all of the time it will do better than the premio that's for sure, but it never happens.

 

Due to this, overall the premio/allion will be a more fuel efficient vehicle. Although not significant like a Hybrid as you mentioned, it will still be considerably better on fuel. Also a car's aerodynamics will be always better than a crossover which will aid fuel efficiency even further.

Edited by TheFlyingFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheFlyingFox- "The smaller engine (1.2T) will have to do a lot of work compared to the NA 1.5 engine to pull the car quickly. "

What does it really mean by "a lot of work" in this scenario (1.2L Turbo vs NA 1.5)? Isn't the turbo engine supposed to get more power with a smaller engine by turbo-technology compared to an NA engine with greater capacity?

On a different note, a direct comparison of CH-R vs Premio/Allion petrol consumption is not a correct measurement, isn't it? The latter having an NA engine does what it supposed to do whilst the turbo-engine does what it meant to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheFlyingFox said:

Actually iRage this is what i would think of it,

Toyota CHR 1.2T weights ~1400KG and produces around 114HP.

Toyota Premio 1.5 weights around ~1200KG and produces around 110HP. Both cars have CVT trannies so no contest there.

Plus the CHR is turbo charged, A turbo vehicle is very bad on fuel while on boost (More air into the cylinders, more fuel/air mix etc etc). I know this case i have a swift RS Turbo. The smaller engine (1.2T) will have to do a lot of work compared to the NA 1.5 engine to  pull the car quickly. The CHR is also considerably heavier than the premio while providing a mere 4hp more albeit having more torque cause of the turbo. If you keep the throttle like 10-30% all of the time it will do better than the premio that's for sure, but it never happens.

Due to this, overall the premio/allion will be a more fuel efficient vehicle. Although not significant like a Hybrid as you mentioned, it will still be considerably better on fuel. Also a car's aerodynamics will be always better than a crossover which will aid fuel efficiency even further.

The Premio puts out 107hp, and the C-HR 114. Yes..the Premio is rated higher than the C-HR.  The CHR is a crossover after all and the comparison is not that fair to begin with. The 1.2L turbo charged engine in the previous Auris was rated the same as the 1.5L Premio/Allion (both cars weighed more or less around the same, Auris a bit more ?).

The thing is..between the CHR and the Premio; in the real world there really is not much there to split between the two.  Almost all 1.5L cars out there on average are within the same "RANGE" (i.e. less than 10kmpl) with slight variances depending on weight, tech, etc...

Toyota's 1.5L cars are coming with 1.2L Turbo charged engines now.  I always say...if you are worried about 1 kmpl difference between cars...buy the car you want, eat healthier, join a gym or go jogging and lose weight. you will make up for that difference in cost.

As for drag...well...I am pretty sure the CHR would more or less would have an equal CD of the boxier Premio/Allion, so the biggest disadvantage would be the weight. IT IS a crossover after all.

So for a car that falls in to the same fuel efficiency "bracket" as the C-HR; with  a platform that is a decade old with technology plugged in as a second thought; the Premio.Allion is actually a pretty poor choice.  Only positive would be the shiny bits and the upholstery color (if one is in to that).

EDIT : I did not include driving enjoyment because whoever looks at  Premio/Allion 1.5 would not care about it. 

Edited by iRage
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, iRage said:

The Premio puts out 107hp, and the C-HR 114. Yes..the Premio is rated higher than the C-HR.  The CHR is a crossover after all and the comparison is not that fair to begin with. The 1.2L turbo charged engine in the previous Auris was rated the same as the 1.5L Premio/Allion (both cars weighed more or less around the same, Auris a bit more ?).

The thing is..between the CHR and the Premio; in the real world there really is not much there to split between the two.  Almost all 1.5L cars out there on average are within the same "RANGE" (i.e. less than 10kmpl) with slight variances depending on weight, tech, etc...

Toyota's 1.5L cars are coming with 1.2L Turbo charged engines now.  I always say...if you are worried about 1 kmpl difference between cars...buy the car you want, eat healthier, join a gym or go jogging and lose weight. you will make up for that difference in cost.

As for drag...well...I am pretty sure the CHR would more or less would have an equal CD of the boxier Premio/Allion, so the biggest disadvantage would be the weight. IT IS a crossover after all.

So for a car that falls in to the same fuel efficiency "bracket" as the C-HR; with  a platform that is a decade old with technology plugged in as a second thought; the Premio.Allion is actually a pretty poor choice.  Only positive would be the shiny bits and the upholstery color (if one is in to that).

EDIT : I did not include driving enjoyment because whoever looks at  Premio/Allion 1.5 would not care about it. 

Very true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iRage said:

The Premio puts out 107hp, and the C-HR 114. Yes..the Premio is rated higher than the C-HR.  The CHR is a crossover after all and the comparison is not that fair to begin with. The 1.2L turbo charged engine in the previous Auris was rated the same as the 1.5L Premio/Allion (both cars weighed more or less around the same, Auris a bit more ?).

The thing is..between the CHR and the Premio; in the real world there really is not much there to split between the two.  Almost all 1.5L cars out there on average are within the same "RANGE" (i.e. less than 10kmpl) with slight variances depending on weight, tech, etc...

Toyota's 1.5L cars are coming with 1.2L Turbo charged engines now.  I always say...if you are worried about 1 kmpl difference between cars...buy the car you want, eat healthier, join a gym or go jogging and lose weight. you will make up for that difference in cost.

As for drag...well...I am pretty sure the CHR would more or less would have an equal CD of the boxier Premio/Allion, so the biggest disadvantage would be the weight. IT IS a crossover after all.

So for a car that falls in to the same fuel efficiency "bracket" as the C-HR; with  a platform that is a decade old with technology plugged in as a second thought; the Premio.Allion is actually a pretty poor choice.  Only positive would be the shiny bits and the upholstery color (if one is in to that).

EDIT : I did not include driving enjoyment because whoever looks at  Premio/Allion 1.5 would not care about it. 

10

Truth well said.

IMHO, there is no real point for comparing a C-HR & Sedan. C-HR is a radical design and fun-to-drive vehicle, whereas Premio/Allion as iRage put it "a decade old with technology plugged in as a second thought; the Premio.Allion is actually a pretty poor choice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VecLa said:

TheFlyingFox- "The smaller engine (1.2T) will have to do a lot of work compared to the NA 1.5 engine to pull the car quickly. "

What does it really mean by "a lot of work" in this scenario (1.2L Turbo vs NA 1.5)? Isn't the turbo engine supposed to get more power with a smaller engine by turbo-technology compared to an NA engine with greater capacity?

On a different note, a direct comparison of CH-R vs Premio/Allion petrol consumption is not a correct measurement, isn't it? The latter having an NA engine does what it supposed to do whilst the turbo-engine does what it meant to.

In this case a smaller engine has to do a "lot of work" meaning it has a turbo and the turbo stresses the engine (feeding in more air, making it a lot hotter, making it work harder) to get the same sort of power of a bigger engine. Where as the bigger engine doesn't have to sweat that much. In this case fuel efficiency goes down the drain at high revs, this applies to petrol engine and diesel turbos efficiency works different.

 

Of course it is not fair but isn't that what the OP wanted ? No, a person who pays a lot of money for a car with a small engine (1.5 and 1.2 both apply here) would expect that car to be economical. Whether it has a turbo or not is irrelevant. A lot of manufactures nowadays make small engines with turbos and they are really gems in certain areas. In terms of efficiency it will be either great if you don't step on it, very bad if you do. There is nothing in between.  a NA engine doesn't have this problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iRage said:

The Premio puts out 107hp, and the C-HR 114. Yes..the Premio is rated higher than the C-HR.  The CHR is a crossover after all and the comparison is not that fair to begin with. The 1.2L turbo charged engine in the previous Auris was rated the same as the 1.5L Premio/Allion (both cars weighed more or less around the same, Auris a bit more ?).

The thing is..between the CHR and the Premio; in the real world there really is not much there to split between the two.  Almost all 1.5L cars out there on average are within the same "RANGE" (i.e. less than 10kmpl) with slight variances depending on weight, tech, etc...

Toyota's 1.5L cars are coming with 1.2L Turbo charged engines now.  I always say...if you are worried about 1 kmpl difference between cars...buy the car you want, eat healthier, join a gym or go jogging and lose weight. you will make up for that difference in cost.

As for drag...well...I am pretty sure the CHR would more or less would have an equal CD of the boxier Premio/Allion, so the biggest disadvantage would be the weight. IT IS a crossover after all.

So for a car that falls in to the same fuel efficiency "bracket" as the C-HR; with  a platform that is a decade old with technology plugged in as a second thought; the Premio.Allion is actually a pretty poor choice.  Only positive would be the shiny bits and the upholstery color (if one is in to that).

EDIT : I did not include driving enjoyment because whoever looks at  Premio/Allion 1.5 would not care about it. 

Then you do agree that there is a difference. Everyone knows its a unfair comparison but that was the question of the OP. If the premio or allion gives him a overall better figure in economy (which it will for sure) then i don't see anything wrong in that, His money, he can always see the pros and cons from this thread and make a decision. Only positive will be the shiny bits ? What about it being very comfortable ? The CHR or any crossover/SUV will have the center of gravity higher than any car. It will always be more wobbly unless its something like a range rover sport :D. While have traveled on a CHR and a premio i can certainly say that the premio is a very comfortable and a stable car. Correct there is very little driving pleasure on it.

 

10 year old tech doesn't necessarily mean its bad, its a proven platform which even today its quite good in terms of reliability, efficiency and comfort. 

 

Fitting 1.2T engines instead of 1.5 units might be because of manufacturing costs/emissions etc. and yes the driving pleasure one can get from a 1.2T will be greater with a lot of usable torque being available. But for a heavy car like the CHR, efficiency goes down the drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheFlyingFox said:

In this case a smaller engine has to do a "lot of work" meaning it has a turbo and the turbo stresses the engine (feeding in more air, making it a lot hotter, making it work harder) to get the same sort of power of a bigger engine. Where as the bigger engine doesn't have to sweat that much. In this case fuel efficiency goes down the drain at high revs, this applies to petrol engine and diesel turbos efficiency works different.

 

Of course it is not fair but isn't that what the OP wanted ? No, a person who pays a lot of money for a car with a small engine (1.5 and 1.2 both apply here) would expect that car to be economical. Whether it has a turbo or not is irrelevant. A lot of manufactures nowadays make small engines with turbos and they are really gems in certain areas. In terms of efficiency it will be either great if you don't step on it, very bad if you do. There is nothing in between.  a NA engine doesn't have this problem.  

Not sure what's the 'problem' in 1.2L Turbo engine and with similar engines today. Sure Toyota must have learned lessons from the past, and engineered well to address any issues that early turbo engines had. There are many 1L turbo variants by today's renowned auto-makers, and sure they have done the R&D to overcome early turbo technology issues. Having said that no matter what, machines can have issues, be it auto or anything. Of curse with different technologies can result in different fuel efficiencies, but customers select their options based on what matters to them most. 

Agree with you on average car users' concern about fuel efficiencies. But, it would be reasonable to compare apple with apple. On a personal note- I have driven, Premio/Allion/C-HR, and my liking is for C-HR, and C-HR is really a fun vehicle to drive in its class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, VecLa said:

Not sure what's the 'problem' in 1.2L Turbo engine and with similar engines today. Sure Toyota must have learned lessons from the past, and engineered well to address any issues that early turbo engines had. There are many 1L turbo variants by today's renowned auto-makers, and sure they have done the R&D to overcome early turbo technology issues. Having said that no matter what, machines can have issues, be it auto or anything. Of curse with different technologies can result in different fuel efficiencies, but customers select their options based on what matters to them most. 

Agree with you on average car users' concern about fuel efficiencies. But, it would be reasonable to compare apple with apple. On a personal note- I have driven, Premio/Allion/C-HR, and my liking is for C-HR, and C-HR is really a fun vehicle to drive in its class.

Not sure if you got how a turbo engine works from my previous post , There is absolutely no problem with the 1.2T. Its not a design flaw, It’s the turbocharged nature which makes it overall less efficient On fuel than a naturally aspirated engine of similar power, on top of this the CHR is heavier than the premio which makes it work even harder to pull the car. They tend to do this to achieve better Emmission standards and the smaller the engine , less it costs to make. 

 

Yes you my friend will prefer driving pleasure more in a vehicle. There are other people who would just like to “drive” the car with the best economy in mind. The CHR is a good car in many ways. However it’s fuel efficiency, looks and wind/road noise in high speeds are not for everyone. The tech features it packs are really great compared to other cars. The premio is like a analogue phone in comparison with regards to that department 😃. However the premio/Allion still shines in many ways as well. Again we all know it is not fair , we are not shooting in the dark here , OPs questions are being debated and answered for him to make a decision 😊

Edited by TheFlyingFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheFlyingFox said:

Then you do agree that there is a difference. Everyone knows its a unfair comparison but that was the question of the OP. If the premio or allion gives him a overall better figure in economy (which it will for sure) .......10 year old tech doesn't necessarily mean its bad, its a proven platform which even today its quite good in terms of reliability, efficiency and comfort....Fitting 1.2T engines instead of 1.5 units might be because of manufacturing costs/emissions etc. and yes the driving pleasure one can get from a 1.2T will be greater with a lot of usable torque being available. But for a heavy car like the CHR, efficiency goes down the drain.

There will always be a difference even between the same car ! One person's C-HR getting 8 does not mean every one's C-HR getting 8 ! Again.the 1.2T engine is rated the same range as the 1.5L engine....so what you would get from a C-HR would be within the same range as what you would get from a Premio/Allion. The Premio/Allion is decent but it is not that "ground-breakingly" comfortable.the seats are pretty plush, ride is pudgy. I did not like the Allion/Premio in mountainous roads (in Japan) because the soft suspension meant the body was in a constant pendulum like sway. The RAV4 with the stiffer suspension was more bearable.

There is a lot wrong with a 10 year platform (in fact the 260's is older than that because it was a modified version of what the 240 was); for starters its CD is appalling (Allion is a bit better); it is not as strong/secure as most of Toyota's own newer models, most of the mandatory safety features were stuck on as an after thought just to keep the model afloat and there are concerns that the platform really cannot utilize the safety features to its optimum; it barely meets even the latest Japanese eco standards. The 1NZ engine first came out in 1997 and over 20 years it has had  many updates that it possibly can handle. A new 1.5L is not being further developed because for the same efficiency (in pretty much all other dimension); the 1.2T matches up.

If you are in Japan you would realize that the Allion/Premio is not a very popular car (I swear you see more Allions/Premios in Colombo than in Japan), and it has not been doing well for a long time. (once went to spec out a Premio and the car sales person just showed me a Mark X and said to buy that as its cheaper and better :) 

If you think only a Range Rover, etc.. is stable and comfortable as a SUV/Crossover in your book. Then I do feel sorry for you. 

You say that because the 1.2T was fitted to the CHR the fuel efficiency went down the "drain", well..depends on how deep your drain is. The same engine on the Auris was pretty much the same as the Premio/Allion but the same engine in the  the new Corolla sport is the same as the C-HR when it comes to fuel economy. So there is a little bit more to it than just doing a comparison of the weight (both Auris and Corolla sport weigh 1300kg for the manual and 1315 or something for the CVT) 

The E100 Corolla is proven platform too..so are you saying that the E100 Corolla is actually better ? 

Pointless continuing this discussion because I think you just proved that you are like one of those Doctors someone mentioned where they rant about how good there Premio is than all other cars :)

So...to answer the OP's question....7-8 is natural....a Premio/Allion or any other 1.5L car would be within this range (8ish on average..9 at most). So..do not buy an Allion/Premio thinking that is is undoubtedly going to get better gas mileage just because people claim it to be (it can go either way depending on your own circumstances). 7-8 kmpl for a pure gasoline cross over is pretty good. If the OP wants a car that does significantly better on fuel...go for a Hybrid...

Edited by iRage
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, iRage said:

There will always be a difference even between the same car ! One person's C-HR getting 8 does not mean every one's C-HR getting 8 ! Again.the 1.2T engine is rated the same range as the 1.5L engine....so what you would get from a C-HR would be within the same range as what you would get from a Premio/Allion. The Premio/Allion is decent but it is not that "ground-breakingly" comfortable.the seats are pretty plush, ride is pudgy. I did not like the Allion/Premio in mountainous roads (in Japan) because the soft suspension meant the body was in a constant pendulum like sway. The RAV4 with the stiffer suspension was more bearable.

There is a lot wrong with a 10 year platform (in fact the 260's is older than that because it was a modified version of what the 240 was); for starters its CD is appalling (Allion is a bit better); it is not as strong/secure as most of Toyota's own newer models, most of the mandatory safety features were stuck on as an after thought just to keep the model afloat and there are concerns that the platform really cannot utilize the safety features to its optimum; it barely meets even the latest Japanese eco standards. The 1NZ engine first came out in 1997 and over 20 years it has had  many updates that it possibly can handle. A new 1.5L is not being further developed because for the same efficiency (in pretty much all other dimension); the 1.2T matches up.

If you are in Japan you would realize that the Allion/Premio is not a very popular car (I swear you see more Allions/Premios in Colombo than in Japan), and it has not been doing well for a long time. (once went to spec out a Premio and the car sales person just showed me a Mark X and said to buy that as its cheaper and better :) 

If you think only a Range Rover, etc.. is stable and comfortable as a SUV/Crossover in your book. Then I do feel sorry for you. 

You say that because the 1.2T was fitted to the CHR the fuel efficiency went down the "drain", well..depends on how deep your drain is. The same engine on the Auris was pretty much the same as the Premio/Allion but the same engine in the  the new Corolla sport is the same as the C-HR when it comes to fuel economy. So there is a little bit more to it than just doing a comparison of the weight (both Auris and Corolla sport weigh 1300kg for the manual and 1315 or something for the CVT) 

The E100 Corolla is proven platform too..so are you saying that the E100 Corolla is actually better ? 

Pointless continuing this discussion because I think you just proved that you are like one of those Doctors someone mentioned where they rant about how good there Premio is than all other cars :)

So...to answer the OP's question....7-8 is natural....a Premio/Allion or any other 1.5L car would be within this range (8ish on average..9 at most). So..do not buy an Allion/Premio thinking that is is undoubtedly going to get better gas mileage just because people claim it to be (it can go either way depending on your own circumstances). 7-8 kmpl for a pure gasoline cross over is pretty good. If the OP wants a car that does significantly better on fuel...go for a Hybrid...

What is rated and what is actual is totally different, Small engine turbo manufactures have "rated" their economy and failed to keep up to their word to consumers why? Cause of what i have been explaining on my previous posts. Ford says Ecoboost for these sort of engines, there is  catch. It is either Eco or Boost at a time. Conclusion what they rate for these engines are well not possible with overall driving conditions. It might not be grown breakingly comfortable and i never said anything like that :S. I said it is more comfortable than a CHR. Why is it so complicated to understand i don't know.

To me, a proven platform means it has come its peak at refinement. Usually they will amend all the previous problems, make improvements etc etc, Emission standards wont matter in SL for a long time with our ancient testing systems.

Ha ha, maybe, Japan and SL are completely different countries hence what people like will differ completely. Developed country, 3rd world country.

 

I have spoken of the CHR and Premio not the corolla or Auris. and yes i will still say the 1.2T unit for a car that weights 1400KG will not be efficient as a 1.5 unit fitted to a 1200KG car. If you really want to go somewhere on a CHR it will be on boost, there goes your efficiancy. Which is why people are claiming it doing ~7 and the premio/allion ~9. 

 

See its like this

Keep the throttle 80% most of the time the premio will benefit

Keep the throttle 50% most of the time still the premio will benefit

Keep the throttle less than 30% most of the time, the CHR will benefit.  You out of all the people with experience will know how thirsty any petrol engine will be on boost, turbo being big or small.  Let alone the car being heavy and stuff.

 

Well, i was comparing something like a Prado and a Discovery. Ride quality of the Discovery being light years ahead. I'm not for a moment saying the CHR is nonsense. Just that in this case, the car (Premio) is better in terms of ride quality, at least to me.

 

iRage, koheda yanne malle pol. I was comparing the 260, facelift and pre and a CHR. where on earth did a E100 corolla come from ? and to answer the question yes, it is also a great car, but asking if it is better is ridiculous don't you think.

 

Yeah there is no point, while you have proven that you don't care about what happens and what people want in this country, at least in terms of vehicles. Japanese and the Srilankans are a lot different :)

 

People don't claim the premio has better economy, it is a fact! Here in "Sri Lanka" :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iRage said:

There will always be a difference even between the same car ! One person's C-HR getting 8 does not mean every one's C-HR getting 8 ! Again.the 1.2T engine is rated the same range as the 1.5L engine....so what you would get from a C-HR would be within the same range as what you would get from a Premio/Allion. The Premio/Allion is decent but it is not that "ground-breakingly" comfortable.the seats are pretty plush, ride is pudgy. I did not like the Allion/Premio in mountainous roads (in Japan) because the soft suspension meant the body was in a constant pendulum like sway. The RAV4 with the stiffer suspension was more bearable.

There is a lot wrong with a 10 year platform (in fact the 260's is older than that because it was a modified version of what the 240 was); for starters its CD is appalling (Allion is a bit better); it is not as strong/secure as most of Toyota's own newer models, most of the mandatory safety features were stuck on as an after thought just to keep the model afloat and there are concerns that the platform really cannot utilize the safety features to its optimum; it barely meets even the latest Japanese eco standards. The 1NZ engine first came out in 1997 and over 20 years it has had  many updates that it possibly can handle. A new 1.5L is not being further developed because for the same efficiency (in pretty much all other dimension); the 1.2T matches up.

If you are in Japan you would realize that the Allion/Premio is not a very popular car (I swear you see more Allions/Premios in Colombo than in Japan), and it has not been doing well for a long time. (once went to spec out a Premio and the car sales person just showed me a Mark X and said to buy that as its cheaper and better :) 

If you think only a Range Rover, etc.. is stable and comfortable as a SUV/Crossover in your book. Then I do feel sorry for you. 

You say that because the 1.2T was fitted to the CHR the fuel efficiency went down the "drain", well..depends on how deep your drain is. The same engine on the Auris was pretty much the same as the Premio/Allion but the same engine in the  the new Corolla sport is the same as the C-HR when it comes to fuel economy. So there is a little bit more to it than just doing a comparison of the weight (both Auris and Corolla sport weigh 1300kg for the manual and 1315 or something for the CVT) 

The E100 Corolla is proven platform too..so are you saying that the E100 Corolla is actually better ? 

Pointless continuing this discussion because I think you just proved that you are like one of those Doctors someone mentioned where they rant about how good there Premio is than all other cars :)

So...to answer the OP's question....7-8 is natural....a Premio/Allion or any other 1.5L car would be within this range (8ish on average..9 at most). So..do not buy an Allion/Premio thinking that is is undoubtedly going to get better gas mileage just because people claim it to be (it can go either way depending on your own circumstances). 7-8 kmpl for a pure gasoline cross over is pretty good. If the OP wants a car that does significantly better on fuel...go for a Hybrid...

Hi @iRage Side question. Can you please explain the difference between allion and premio? I thought they are the same car with different badges.

Edited by BlueRaiden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheFlyingFox said:

Not sure if you got how a turbo engine works from my previous post , There is absolutely no problem with the 1.2T. Its not a design flaw, It’s the turbocharged nature which makes it overall less efficient On fuel than a naturally aspirated engine of similar power, on top of this the CHR is heavier than the premio which makes it work even harder to pull the car. They tend to do this to achieve better Emmission standards and the smaller the engine , less it costs to make. 

 

Yes you my friend will prefer driving pleasure more in a vehicle. There are other people who would just like to “drive” the car with the best economy in mind. The CHR is a good car in many ways. However it’s fuel efficiency, looks and wind/road noise in high speeds are not for everyone. The tech features it packs are really great compared to other cars. The premio is like a analogue phone in comparison with regards to that department 😃. However the premio/Allion still shines in many ways as well. Again we all know it is not fair , we are not shooting in the dark here , OPs questions are being debated and answered for him to make a decision 😊

Mate, I understand the basic principle of turbo vs NA engines. I also understand that SL car users mainly fall into 2 classes. One (I guess majority) class' main concern is '?km/l' of petrol and other class who enjoy what they drive (my class). Whilst honouring your points in that regard, my inclination is with iRage's balanced (in fact it is the reality) answer to OP's question. By all means, I would suggest C-HR over Premios/Allions, if anyone asks what new car to buy around 8mil. But, if a person wants to go with traditional 'econo'-box (concept of 'econo' depends on many factors) with beige interior and feels great that s/he drives a Premio, go for it. After all one should be happy with one drive. But, I am not for comparing apples with wood-apples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheFlyingFox said:

.....

 

Oh boy..this is going around in circles

1. I mentioned the E100 Corolla to show to you that just because a platform is "proven" it does not mean it is timely/relevant as the world moves on.

2. Yes..I know what "ratings" are. and yes..everyone knows that real world figures are different. The reality is, although not a hundred percent...cars that are rated around the same in a JC08 cycle do for the most part end up within the same range in real world as well. With older models the variance between the JC08 rating and real world outcomes were pretty significant but the newr models do seem to have lesser variances in the two.

3. I know you were not talking about the Auris...my point in bringing up the two was to show YOU, that whilst weight does contribute to engine efficiency there is more to it (the example was a car that weighs the same with the same engine in two different variants having two different efficiency figures). So just saying the 1.2T is not efficient because it is in a crossover is just a blind swing in the dark.

4. I was not saying Japanese have the same tastes and priorities as Sri Lankans. It was to indicate to you that Toyota who made a model just for Japan had no intention of improving the Premio/Allion because no one cared about it (Japan had moved on). It was NOT because the platform and the model was such a technological marvel In fact Toyota kepy on saying there would be a new model for te last 5~7 years but they kept on pushing it back until in 2017 they finally hinted it would  be getting axed (good time to be a psychiatrist in SL when that comes around...think of all the new permit doctors needing therapy). So sorry....the platform was not changed because they didn't want to invest money in it not because it had reached peak refinement. Yes...some things are refinements, most things were just add ons. The latter did not make the car better. For example, Japanese cars (especially Toyotas) until sometime ago were really not that good at overlap crashes. To improve it some manufactures put re-enforcements in certain areas of the frame and/or put additional airbags. the reality is things like that did not actually make it any better because the rest of the car was not designed to properly respond and absorb the shock for things like the extra airbags to be effective. n the other hand...additions of bells and whistles like lane departure warning, auto braking, etc..did work.  Thermal efficiency improvements in the engine worked half way....

5. I do know what Sri Lankans unfortunately do want, like you yourself has shown, it is not eco friendliness, it is not safety, it is not driving pleasure. Its all about kmpl bragging and english plates, gold badges, interior color, etc...all focused on feeling good about impressing the neighbors. Comfort is there which is fair enough as it is a personal preference.

6. Make up your mind..you first said the Allion/Premio is economical and then in your last message you say no one says it is economical...huh ?

Edited by iRage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BlueRaiden said:

Hi @iRage Side question. Can you please explain the difference between allion and premio? I thought they are the same car with different badges.

They are sister cars and sold through two different sales channels. Underneath they are both the same car.

They are kind of the descendants of the Carina and Corona family. The Allion was supposed to be for the youthful buyer and give an overall "experience" in being sporty and also refined and comfortable. The Premio was targeted for the more mature and refined customers who just wanted a bit of comfort. Well...the Allion had different body panels to try look youthful and the Premio kind of took design queues from the Crown to try to look luxurious...but neither car was "sporty" (at least not in stock form). They were reasonably comfortable econo-cars for its time and were pretty well received AT THE TIME. The true luxurious versions were as expensive as cars like the Mark X and Camry so even Toyota didn't promote its sales that much. So what you see mostly are the average econo versions with the bells and whistles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...so rather than going around in circles can we come to an agreement to just end this here for the OP's benefit ? OP has all the info he needs to answer his question. If he does not want to go through a million posts..the gist of it is that :

On one hand (at least I, myself) it is that

  • 7-8kmpl is acceptable for a mini crossover and is pretty much the range you could expect from any 1.5L car.  So if you go run to buy a 1.5L sedan thinking it will do significantly more than 7-8kmpl....don't run too fast. It is not a guarantee that your 1.5L sedan would do more than this range.
  •  If you want significantly better fuel consumption...then you will have to either look at a Hybrid or Kei car. 
  • If you are willing to sacrifice fuel consumption then there are quite a few other cars that are larger and more comfortable. 
  • 1.2 turbo charged engines are replacing Toyota's 1.5L engine range because they are more eco friendly and pretty much measures up to the performance of the current 1.5L Toyota engines.
  • People run to Allion/Premio because of stories of high fuel economy but again, it is not a guarantee and the model is based on a 10+ year old platform with new tech stuck on to it to meet basic Japanese regulations. Toyota never bothered to develop the car or even change the model because the the tech and the platform could not compete with other sedans of its class and also the fact that the Japanese market was shifting away from sedans .

The other side is (as TheFlyingFox indicates)  is that:

  • The Allion/Premio is guaranteed to be better on fuel (although he also states it is not "economical" ? here in "Sri Lanka"); because the weight of the CHR and the Turbo technology disadvantages the engine and its fuel efficiency.
  • Allion/Premio being 10+ years old is a good thing because that to him suggests it has reached its peak refinement.
  • The Allion/Premio has "shiny bits" (as I called it), but as TheFlyingFox added, its also comfortable (more than the CHR)

Finally as VecLa said...if you want a contemporary car in the 8mil bracket...go for the CHR (which is a crossover..and would still be in the same range as an Allion/Premio). Or if you want to own a Premio/Allion for wanting to own a Premio/Allion and keep up with the local "trend" then go for an Allion/Premio.

So can we bring this to a close and just let the OP continue if he/she has any further questions ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let me know  how  Primeo    giya durak  ... Problem with Toyotas are not actually the cars but the owners :D

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iRage said:

7-8kmpl is acceptable for a mini crossover and is pretty much the range you could expect from any 1.5L car.  So if you go run to buy a 1.5L sedan thinking it will do significantly more than 7-8kmpl....don't run too fast. It is not a guarantee that your 1.5L sedan would do more than this range.

My personal experience with our family vehicles economy in Colombo traffic

Wagon R Hybrid (660cc)    52+3 bhp         10 - 11 kmpl

Kia Picanto (1.0L)                    67 bhp            8 - 9 kmpl  

Corolla 141(1.6L)                   105 bhp            7 -8 kmpl   

Honda CRV 2013 (2.0L)        150 bhp           6 - 7 kmpl

Porsche Macan (2.0L)           252 bhp          6 - 7 kmpl

Engine capacity, power, Turbo, Hybrid does not significantly matter in heavy traffic. If you really want to improve economy is to avoid traffic. If you leave home 15 minutes early you could improve economy by 20-25% with a corresponding saving of travel time and driving stress.

Stop wining on the vehicle change your time table.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iRage apologies , no 6. What I meant was people here just don’t claim it being economical. It actually is economical 😊  

 

Edit : just because I speak for the people who want a premio doesn’t mean I like the same things lol. I had the option of the new Vitz and the swift, I chose the swift cause of its driving characteristics and tech features such as adaptive cruise. 

 

On on the other side there absolutely nothing wrong with a person buying a Vitz for economy , resale value , comfort etc etc (typical gold badge Srilankan in your words lol). one should always look at how someone else will see things in life. This just doesn’t apply to vehicles. If everyone thought like you , the world would be a very empty place with 1 brand of car, 1 brand of milk 😃

 

Peace 😊

Edited by TheFlyingFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 10:16 PM, TheFlyingFox said:

Actually iRage this is what i would think of it,

 

Toyota CHR 1.2T weights ~1400KG and produces around 114HP.

Toyota Premio 1.5 weights around ~1200KG and produces around 110HP. Both cars have CVT trannies so no contest there.

 

You are forgetting the peak RPM those figures you have mentioned are achieved at

Premio produces 109PS at 6,000RPM and 136NM of torque at 4,800RPM

CHR produces 116PS at 5200-5600RPM and 185NM of torque at 1500-4000RPM

Hence the 200kg of additional weight would be combated by higher torque at lower revs and achieving a higher PS figure at lower RPM as well

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Magnum said:

You are forgetting the peak RPM those figures you have mentioned are achieved at

Premio produces 109PS at 6,000RPM and 136NM of torque at 4,800RPM

CHR produces 116PS at 5200-5600RPM and 185NM of torque at 1500-4000RPM

Hence the 200kg of additional weight would be combated by higher torque at lower revs and achieving a higher PS figure at lower RPM as well

 

 

Yes but the CHR achieves this through a “turbocharger” which is not efficient while on boost ! There efficiency curve of a NA engine will be close while the turbo engine will vary a lot ! These small engine turbos boost on low rpm not like those days where you get a sudden burst of power at around 4000RPM. 

 

 

Edited by TheFlyingFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Register for a new account in our community. It's easy and FREE!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×