only testdrove the 2.0, no 2.4's around.

the 2.0 comes with a more economic sohc engine, the 2.4 with a dohc, consuming about 10 percent more gasoline, or so they say.

the 2.0 looks like underpowering ...

is there a noticeable difference between the two engines regarding acceleration, smoothness, noise?

or again mainly a marketing thingy such as the bigger the better?

in europe the 2.4 is not even available, but a 2.2 diesel is (manual).

in the US you only get the 2.4 ...

thailand has both choices - is it worth to pay the 200 grand more?

I have the 2.4. I've never really test drove the 2.0, the only time I drove the 2.0 was around the dealers parking lot going 5 km/h.

The 2.4 is peppy, it's not a Ferrari/BMW M3/SL500 AMG. Peppy to a point where I am definitely happy with it, actually a little suprised since the car looks heavy. I did the airport run today, picked up a family member with 3 full sized suitcases and a golf bag. The 3 bags and golf bag totaled 98 KG. Plus me and 2 other family member in the car, totalling 3.

Peppy is the word I'm going to use again... I had no problems overtaking when I had to... and I did a rough average of 100 - 110km/h on the highway.

All in all, I'm quite happy with the purchase very satisfied with the performance... 2.0 would probably do good, but I'm glad I got the 2.4.

indothai: what about the mileage?

indothai: what about the mileage?

Too early to say... I've been a little "heavy footed" in the city plus the traffic jams... I average "rough" 5 km/L.

The airport run, from gas station to highway then back to gas station, was about 10 km/L. Gas station was off the highway.

Shoot, I hope I'm getting the numbers right, I'm still used to mpg... If the numbers above are wrong, i'll re-post.

Still too early to tell though, I think I'll have better numbers after a week or so.

10 km/lt wouldnt be too bad for "interrupted" highway driving.

here's a converter:

http://www.onlineconversion.com/fuel_consumption.htm

in american gallons that would equal roughly 23 mpg.