I have a Ford MAV 2L. I used it in Taipei on weekends to go to Ilan to surf.
Now I’ve moved to the country and I have a 60km roundtrip work and back. I have a shop in town and I live halfway up the mountains on a small plot.
My current car does about 500km per tank, on around a 60 litre tank.
I’ve been thinking of trading it for a VW Lupo or a Suzuki Solio.
Does anyone own one of these two? If so, I would like to clear up a few things? … in order of importance
Fuel economy
Service cost at agent
Cornering
power/mass ratio (got a 15km uphill home - to work I freewheel 15km )
[quote=“k4mik4zered”]I have a Ford MAV 2L. I used it in Taipei on weekends to go to Yilan to surf.
Now I’ve moved to the country and I have a 60km roundtrip work and back. I have a shop in town and I live halfway up the mountains on a small plot.
My current car does about 500km per tank, on around a 60 litre tank.
I’ve been thinking of trading it for a VW Lupo or a Suzuki Solio.
Does anyone own one of these two? If so, I would like to clear up a few things? … in order of importance
Fuel economy
Service cost at agent
Cornering
power/mass ratio (got a 15km uphill home - to work I freewheel 15km )[/quote]
I have a 2005 Solio and often drive it out to Pingxi and back to Taipei–also about 60km round trip with around 15km mostly uphill from Shiding to Pingxi so very similar to your situation. For this type of ‘mountain driving’ it gets around 11-12 km/l–pure highway (say going down south) can be as high as 16. Fill ups are usually ~34l and km/tank ~425. Upkeep cost is so far very low since no major problems have come up with the engine or key components. I have it serviced at the Neihu affiliated garage (formerly an official Suzuki one, but not now) and the cost is average $1000 per 5000km service (I bring my own oil).
Cornering is better than expected but certainly not amazing. It’s a little bit floaty, but since it’s a small car w a short wheel base it can get by. I hear you can put wider tires on it to improve handling at the expense of fuel economy. It is somewhat underpowered, however. The A/C noticeably saps engine power in lower gears or when accelerating from a stop for example, and you have to gun it to get the RPM up if you want to climb up steeper hills fast. That said, it can certainly get up no problem (I’ve driven over Hehuan Mt. twice), but you’ll be pushing the engine and losing fuel economy. Personally, I just drive up hills at a more stately pace.
If you plan to park outside in wet mountain area, rust may be an issue (especially w pre 2004 models). Mine has begun rusting around the engine firewall under the windshield. Anyways, Lupo will probably be a better ride, but it will cost more to own. Why not look at a used Yaris/Tiida? My
Is your Solio VVT? I see the Solio 1.3 has more horses than the Lupo.[/quote]
No. It’s the original one. I believe the vvt has about 10 more horses, but if you want that you’ll need to get a 2008 or newer. They only made the VVT in Taiwan for a couple years before Prince Motors folded, so there are far more of the older version on the roads and on the used market.
Is your Solio VVT? I see the Solio 1.3 has more horses than the Lupo.[/quote]
No. It’s the original one. I believe the vvt has about 10 more horses, but if you want that you’ll need to get a 2008 or newer. They only made the VVT in Taiwan for a couple years before Prince Motors folded, so there are far more of the older version on the roads and on the used market.[/quote]
Thanks.
By the way nice tiger avatar. I’m one too.
urodacas may be right, I do need the torque to climb. Nonetheless I do want a lighter car soon. How would I tell if the Solio is VVT or not? Would it stipulate anywhere?
I think only 2008+ models have vvt. Cosmetically, the new ones have roof rack rails, a slightly different grill, and pleather seat material, but to be sure you’d have to look under the hood.
Does anyone own one of these two? If so, I would like to clear up a few things? … in order of importance
Fuel economy
Service cost at agent
Cornering
power/mass ratio (got a 15km uphill home - to work I freewheel 15km )[/quote]
Well firstly, I would say stop freewheeling. It’s costing you more fuel than keeping it in gear downhill. The engine requires fuel to idle when in neutral whereas it requires no fuel when being spun by the gearbox, by the wheels.
The Solio is a great little car for what it is, but in Taiwan it is fitted with the most ridiculous low profile tyres, which offer almost no dampening at all. They commonly suffer wheel rim damage and early suspension wear, especially when being used on many mountain road surfaces.
The Lupo? Stay away. Very poor build quality, high depreciation, expensive parts, difficult repairs, and poor reliability.
I would agree that you need a greater power to weight ratio if driving mountain roads regularly. If I were to suggest a reasonably reliable, economic mountain traveller, then I might suggest any number of cars, but not these small motors.
You know, I’m so fascinated by the fact that, something seemingly so logical to me, can be so the contrary. Thanks dude.[/quote]
No problem. Freewheeling works on some old cars, especially the ones with carbs as, as long as there is a vacuum, then fuel is mixed in with the in-rushing air. Not with a modern injection system though.
Theres one steep hill on my drive home that allows me to pop the gear in neutral and coast at speeds up to 100kph for about 2 miles until the next stop light. I did that few times and saw my rpm drop from 3000 at 100kph (60 mph) in fifth (top gear) to idle at 500rpm.
However, I stopped doing that because on my car once or twice i did that (luckily not on this particular slope) the engine cut off and i had to restart. And when the engine cuts out my steering becomes extremely heavy and same for the brakes. I cant imagine losing brakes and turning power on this one tight turn and steep descent. I would probably crash and it wont be pretty.
But I didnt know that i wouldnt be saving any fuel even tho the engine is at 3000rpm by popping it into neutral?
[quote=“tommy525”]Theres one steep hill on my drive home that allows me to pop the gear in neutral and coast at speeds up to 100kph for about 2 miles until the next stop light. I did that few times and saw my rpm drop from 3000 at 100kph (60 mph) in fifth (top gear) to idle at 500rpm.
However, I stopped doing that because on my car once or twice i did that (luckily not on this particular slope) the engine cut off and I had to restart. And when the engine cuts out my steering becomes extremely heavy and same for the brakes. I cant imagine losing brakes and turning power on this one tight turn and steep descent. I would probably crash and it wont be pretty.
But I didnt know that i wouldnt be saving any fuel even tho the engine is at 3000rpm by popping it into neutral?[/quote]
This is how I deciphered my freewheeling prior to being told otherwise. Idle is around 800 on my van. I’m about, 2k plus rpm going downhill at 100kph (don’t hold me to that). The engine, regardless of being in gear or not - to me - should still be firing in some sort of way, to stay alive. :loco: So I took for granted that there was no way it could use less fuel than on idle.
So as I’m no spanner junkie, I understand it now as :
In gear the wheels drive the drivetrain, so sparks still fly, but no gas is getting consumed.
On idle, it has to keep the engine grinding so sets up a gas plus air formula to keep it on idle rpm.
I sure would not have appreciated the circumstances of a cutout during my freewheeling, which I no longer perform.
Plus being in neutral you don’t have power to zip away from an accident situation, and isn’t going into low gear down slopes recommended?
Bear Grillis did an episode in one of his shows of driving a car with brake failure down a mountainside, looked absolutely terrifying and he said whatever whatever you do don’t let the engine cut out if you can help it as the steering does become very difficult .
Low gear will certainly help you ‘engine brake’, but you have to ask yourself whether you want to wear out your $drivetrain/transmission$ first, or some cheap brake pads.
Low gear will certainly help you ‘engine brake’, but you have to ask yourself whether you want to wear out your $drivetrain/transmission$ first, or some cheap brake pads.[/quote]
I’d go with the engine and drivetrain over brake pads.
There is little and negligible wear to the engine and drive train in such circumstances. Roughly eighty percent of engine wear is made on cold startup.
You know, I’m so fascinated by the fact that, something seemingly so logical to me, can be so the contrary. Thanks dude.[/quote]
No problem. Freewheeling works on some old cars, especially the ones with carbs as, as long as there is a vacuum, then fuel is mixed in with the in-rushing air.[/quote]
Phew!
For a minute there I thought I might have been making a TERRIBLE MISTAKE all these years.
Of course I’ve heard it too, longer ago than I can remember, but it occurred to me that it was an unusually quantitative statement in the motor oil context, more generally characterised by unsupported opinion and advertising copy, and it wouldn’t be an especially easy determination to make.
I did a quick google of “80% of the wear occurs on startup”. Shore nuff, 3,120,000 results. I only looked through the first couple of pages, but it was mostly being used to sell oil, oil additives, or (more rarely) prelube systems. Always an unsourced and unqualified statement.
I’d think/hope that there was originally some research to back this up, but it was probably a long time ago, and might not apply to current oils, which could be better, or worse.
Here’s some arguments for why they might be worse:
)
)[/quote]
