danone Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indothai Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danone Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 indothai: what about the mileage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indothai Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danone Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now