Toyota Vitz

[raaajit]

Hi Guyz,

I've looked to buy a Toyota Vitz KSP90 for a reasonable price from a quite a long time.Recently I have founded a 2007 unregistered 1 for about 22lakhs but it have a milage nearly to 100,000 km.So is it worthy to buy such a car? coz it seems ok in outside.Need your Expert opinions.

[SREE]

Machan,

If the seller has changed the ODO meter to 30k Km you will definitely not ask this question and go for it.Dont you??

So cant rely on those figures machan,just go with a mechanic and buy the vehicle if it is good!!

[kelum_wj]

  On 1/26/2011 at 6:33 AM, raaajit said:

Hi Guyz,

I've looked to buy a Toyota Vitz KSP90 for a reasonable price from a quite a long time.Recently I have founded a 2007 unregistered 1 for about 22lakhs but it have a milage nearly to 100,000 km.So is it worthy to buy such a car? coz it seems ok in outside.Need your Expert opinions.

1000cc or 1300cc ?

[raaajit]

  On 1/26/2011 at 6:53 AM, kelum_wj said:

1000cc or 1300cc ?

Thanxzz For Ur Advises Guyz ita a 1000 cc 1 bro

[raaajit]

  On 1/26/2011 at 6:48 AM, SREE said:

Machan,

If the seller has changed the ODO meter to 30k Km you will definitely not ask this question and go for it.Dont you??

So cant rely on those figures machan,just go with a mechanic and buy the vehicle if it is good!!

Thanxz in advance matchan...

[kelum_wj]

  On 1/26/2011 at 7:21 AM, raaajit said:

Thanxzz For Ur Advises Guyz ita a 1000 cc 1 bro

But u'll have to spend a bit bro

Change the timing Belt, might be shocks etc and I feel the 1000cc vitz is underpowered just my 2 cents

[nexus]

  On 1/26/2011 at 8:26 AM, kelum_wj said:

But u'll have to spend a bit bro

Change the timing Belt, might be shocks etc and I feel the 1000cc vitz is underpowered just my 2 cents

+1 1000cc is underpowered go for 13000cc

[raaajit]

  On 1/26/2011 at 8:26 AM, kelum_wj said:

But u'll have to spend a bit bro

Change the timing Belt, might be shocks etc and I feel the 1000cc vitz is underpowered just my 2 cents

Thnxz for Ur Advise Bro

[heavyD]

Going OT here, but the Vitz is built primarily to be a economical car. So why would anyone want to buy a 1300cc (which I assume burns more fuel) over a 1000cc? Sure it may be underpowered but what person would want power from such a small econobox?

[kelum_wj]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:06 AM, Big_D said:

Going OT here, but the Vitz is built primarily to be a economical car. So why would anyone want to buy a 1300cc (which I assume burns more fuel) over a 1000cc? Sure it may be underpowered but what person would want power from such a small econobox?

bro the 1000cc produces 67bhp while the 1300cc produces 85bhp

so the 1300 has better power to weight ratio

so the 1300 needs less revving to pickup which will result in less petrol consumption

Correct me if I am wrong

Edited January 26, 2011 by kelum_wj

[nexus]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:18 AM, kelum_wj said:

bro the 1000cc produces 67bhp while the 1300cc produces 85bhp

so the 1300 has better power to weight ratio

so the 1300 needs less revving to pickup which will result in less petrol consumption

Correct me if I am wrong

+1 it's like carina ti and si. si been 1.8 it's have better fuel mileage and good power to weight ratio than 1.5 ti.

[heavyD]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:18 AM, kelum_wj said:

bro the 1000cc produces 67bhp while the 1300cc produces 85bhp

so the 1300 has better power to weight ratio

so the 1300 needs less revving to pickup which will result in less petrol consumption

Correct me if I am wrong

Well yeah, a 1300cc may have better power to weight, but I doubt a Vitz driver would care about that. I mean, since fuel economy is top priority, what's stopping them from crawling like snails to their desired speed? The engine would be sipping fuel at that rate.

Besides, if the 1300cc is indeed better on fuel, why would the manufacturer even sell a 1000cc car?

Edited January 26, 2011 by Big_D

[kelum_wj]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:32 AM, nexus said:

+1 it's like carina ti and si. si been 1.8 it's have better fuel mileage and good power to weight ratio than 1.5 ti.

[kelum_wj]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:33 AM, Big_D said:

Well yeah, a 1300cc may have better power to weight, but I doubt a Vitz driver would care about that. I mean, since fuel economy is top priority, what's stopping them from crawling like snails to their desired speed? The engine would be sipping fuel at that rate.

yah bro

Anyway its better to buy a 1300cc than a 1000cc isnt it

[jaga]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:33 AM, Big_D said:

Well yeah, a 1300cc may have better power to weight, but I doubt a Vitz driver would care about that. I mean, since fuel economy is top priority, what's stopping them from crawling like snails to their desired speed? The engine would be sipping fuel at that rate.

Besides, if the 1300cc is indeed better on fuel, why would the manufacturer even sell a 1000cc car?

Two of my friends bought two VITZ recently and one is 1000cc and the other one is 1300cc. 1300 is better on fuel according to their calculations. Also 100cc one has only 3 cylinders and 1300 one has got 4 cylinder vvt engine.

[nexus]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:33 AM, Big_D said:

Well yeah, a 1300cc may have better power to weight, but I doubt a Vitz driver would care about that. I mean, since fuel economy is top priority, what's stopping them from crawling like snails to their desired speed? The engine would be sipping fuel at that rate.

Besides, if the 1300cc is indeed better on fuel, why would the manufacturer even sell a 1000cc car?

LOL

to sale the car at lesser price

[heavyD]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:39 AM, jaga said:

Two of my friends bought two VITZ recently and one is 1000cc and the other one is 1300cc. 1300 is better on fuel according to their calculations. Also 100cc one has only 3 cylinders and 1300 one has got 4 cylinder vvt engine.

Do you know how much better it is? By a large margin?

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:52 AM, nexus said:

to sale the car at lesser price

Ah yeah, true. Silly me.

[kelum_wj]

  On 1/26/2011 at 9:52 AM, nexus said:

LOL

to sale the car at lesser price

[The Don]

I think in the context of economy, power to weight ratio should be considered against the ideal figure for a particular car.

I mean for example, if I say a Honda Civic Type R has a better power to weight ratio than the standard Honda civic, that statement would be true, but which of the two is the most economical?

The only thing you can derive from the power to weight ratio is that a car with better power to weight ratio will have better acceleration. It's not really an indicator of economy.

I mean the old Vitz came with a 998CC engine. I've not heard any complaints about the economy in that.

But Big_D seems to have discovered that on this occasion the 1.3CC is more efficient, which probably means the 1.0CC is a little bit under powered. But a lot of this down to driving style. I wonder if the story would be different if the 1.0CC is driven a bit more gracefully (keeping the revs low with gradual acceleration)

[heavyD]

  On 1/26/2011 at 3:16 PM, The Don said:

I think in the context of economy, power to weight ratio should be considered against the ideal figure for a particular car.

I mean for example, if I say a Honda Civic Type R has a better power to weight ratio than the standard Honda civic, that statement would be true, but which of the two is the most economical?

The only thing you can derive from the power to weight ratio is that a car with better power to weight ratio will have better acceleration. It's not really an indicator of economy.

I mean the old Vitz came with a 998CC engine. I've not heard any complaints about the economy in that.

But Big_D seems to have discovered that on this occasion the 1.3CC is more efficient, which probably means the 1.0CC is a little bit under powered. But a lot of this down to driving style. I wonder if the story would be different if the 1.0CC is driven a bit more gracefully (keeping the revs low with gradual acceleration)

Haven't discovered anything machan, was just going on what the guys above me were saying. So yeah, high rpms are the last thing on a person's mind when on a frugal run. So why spend the extra cash on a 1300cc? That is unless, the 1000cc is quite badly underpowered.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Big_D

[The Don]

  On 1/26/2011 at 4:23 PM, Big_D said:

Haven't discovered anything machan, was just going on what the guys above me were saying. So yeah, high rpms are the last thing on a person's mind when on a frugal run. So why spend the extra cash on a 1300cc? That is unless, the 1000cc is quite badly underpowered.

I think some of it is probably down to social perception. In 1992 when my family wanted to buy a new car my dad refused to even consider a 1500CC claiming it was not fuel efficient. But now everybody wants the 1500CC cars.

The fact that we run air conditioning constantly probably plays a role in this thinking, plus in some cars like the Carina and the K11 March/Micra there definitely is a case of the bigger engined car is more fuel efficient. But we should not get into the habit of using that as a rule of thumb because it isn't !

It'll be nice to have some figures on paper, on what the quoted fuel economy figures are.

[jaga]

  On 1/26/2011 at 10:10 AM, Big_D said:

Do you know how much better it is? By a large margin?

2 km/lt diff. in rush hours driving.

[kelum_wj]

  On 1/26/2011 at 3:16 PM, The Don said:

I think in the context of economy, power to weight ratio should be considered against the ideal figure for a particular car.

I mean for example, if I say a Honda Civic Type R has a better power to weight ratio than the standard Honda civic, that statement would be true, but which of the two is the most economical?

The only thing you can derive from the power to weight ratio is that a car with better power to weight ratio will have better acceleration. It's not really an indicator of economy.

I mean the old Vitz came with a 998CC engine. I've not heard any complaints about the economy in that.

But Big_D seems to have discovered that on this occasion the 1.3CC is more efficient, which probably means the 1.0CC is a little bit under powered. But a lot of this down to driving style. I wonder if the story would be different if the 1.0CC is driven a bit more gracefully (keeping the revs low with gradual acceleration)

Bro

If we gradually accelerate and keep the revs low in colombo city,Specially in rush hours we would be creating traffic isn't it

So as u said better power to weight ratio=better acceleration. The 1.3 needn't be revved as hard as the 1.0 to gain acceleration

So in that case little bit of fuel is saved

[kelum_wj]

  On 1/26/2011 at 3:16 PM, The Don said:

I mean the old Vitz came with a 998CC engine. I've not heard any complaints about the economy in that.

Bro,

The old vitz was 820kgs and the new one is 990kgs (got the specs from the net)

And the old one had a 1SZ-FE engine which developed 71 bhp and the new one has a 1KR-FE engine which develops 67 bhp

Also the 1SZ-FE is 4 cylinder and the 1KR-FE is 3 cylinder. So the new one is little bit nosier too

[heavyD]

  On 1/27/2011 at 5:03 AM, kelum_wj said:

Bro

If we gradually accelerate and keep the revs low in colombo city,Specially in rush hours we would be creating traffic isn't it

So as u said better power to weight ratio=better acceleration. The 1.3 needn't be revved as hard as the 1.0 to gain acceleration

So in that case little bit of fuel is saved

That's what everyone on the road does anyways. It's such a headache getting anywhere on time. But the argument here is that the 1000cc can be as fuel efficient as the 1300cc if driven properly. And according to jaga's example, it appears that the difference between the two is just 2kmpl, and that too in rush hour traffic.

But as The Don said, it would be better to have some proper figures on paper.