porno türk porno rokettube
Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 137

Thread: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

  1. #1
    Ext User(Marts) Guest

    Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    Missus has her eye on a Captiva LX diesel. Seems to tick all the boxes.
    Just wondering what people here think of the car.

    This one's a used 2011 Series II model.

    Dealer has it on the lot for about $30k.



  2. #2
    Ext User(Xeno Lith) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 21/07/2013 6:54 PM, Marts wrote:
    > Missus has her eye on a Captiva LX diesel. Seems to tick all the boxes.
    > Just wondering what people here think of the car.
    >
    > This one's a used 2011 Series II model.
    >
    > Dealer has it on the lot for about $30k.
    >
    >

    A friend had one as a work vehicle, about 2009 or 2010 model. His only
    complaint was that, with roof racks fitted, it was too tall for many
    undercover shopping centre car parks. A nuisance for him since he was an
    industrial/commercial fridgie!

    --

    Xeno

  3. #3
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 21/07/2013 6:54 PM, Marts wrote:
    > Missus has her eye on a Captiva LX diesel. Seems to tick all the boxes.
    > Just wondering what people here think of the car.
    >
    > This one's a used 2011 Series II model.
    >
    > Dealer has it on the lot for about $30k.
    >
    >

    You can get new petrol models for less than that.
    I know someone who has a near new petrol 2wd model and they are very
    happy with, I also know someone who had one of the early diesels and it
    snapped a cam shaft which was fixed under warranty and it had no more
    problems, haven't heard much else good or bad about them.

    --
    Daryl

  4. #4
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 21/07/13 6:54 PM, Marts wrote:
    > Missus has her eye on a Captiva LX diesel. Seems to tick all the boxes.
    > Just wondering what people here think of the car.
    >
    > This one's a used 2011 Series II model.
    >
    > Dealer has it on the lot for about $30k.


    I don't think there's anything overly bad to say about them, other than
    for that kind of money it'd want to be *very* low mileage and in *very*
    mint condition.

    You haven't mentioned if it's a 5 or 7 seat version, but if it's the 7
    seater and you're specifically wanting to use all 7 seats then I'd look
    for something else as the third row of seats is only suitable for small
    children or amputees.

    My advice, for what it's worth, would be to not close the deal on a
    Captiva without first looking at a Hyundai Santa Fe or Kia Sorento of
    the same vintage.

    They can both be had for around that kind of money, and they share a
    brilliant mechanical platform that includes an absolute *cracker* of a
    turbo diesel engine. They also have a lot of features that make the
    Captiva look pretty sedate, which includes a useful 7 seat configuration
    that can accommodate 7 adults fairly comfortably.





    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  5. #5
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    D Walford wrote:
    > On 21/07/2013 6:54 PM, Marts wrote:
    >> Missus has her eye on a Captiva LX diesel. Seems to tick all the boxes.
    >> Just wondering what people here think of the car.
    >>
    >> This one's a used 2011 Series II model.
    >>
    >> Dealer has it on the lot for about $30k.
    >>
    >>

    > You can get new petrol models for less than that.
    > I know someone who has a near new petrol 2wd model and they are very
    > happy with, I also know someone who had one of the early diesels and it
    > snapped a cam shaft which was fixed under warranty and it had no more
    > problems, haven't heard much else good or bad about them.
    >


    Yeah same, most people seem happy with the later ones.

    I think the early ones may have had a few issues but most were fixed
    under warranty as you say.

    Fit and finish wasn't great on the early ones either but I've heard they
    addressed that and it's much better now.

    Not seen the newer ones to compare for myself though.

  6. #6
    Ext User(Marts) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 2013-07-21 09:53:13 +0000, Noddy said:

    >
    > You haven't mentioned if it's a 5 or 7 seat version, but if it's the 7
    > seater and you're specifically wanting to use all 7 seats then I'd look
    > for something else as the third row of seats is only suitable for small
    > children or amputees.


    Full details. 2011 Captiva 7 LX turbo diesel with 22,000 km.

    > My advice, for what it's worth, would be to not close the deal on a
    > Captiva without first looking at a Hyundai Santa Fe or Kia Sorento of
    > the same vintage.


    We looked at them too. The equivlanet Highlander Santa Fe was a few
    grand more and the earlier models aren't as "loaded" as the Captiva.

    And yes, the 6th and 7th seats aren't all that practical but may be
    useful. In any case, I'm told that the 5 is a bit shorter so if the 7
    has more room then that'll be handy for us.

    >
    > They can both be had for around that kind of money, and they share a
    > brilliant mechanical platform that includes an absolute *cracker* of a
    > turbo diesel engine.


    What makes the Hyundai/Kia engine better than the Captiva's? I've
    driven both and they seem to be similar in performance. Other than that
    I don't know what either are like, although there are some questions
    over how good the Captiva's engine's DPF works and how it's re-gen'ed.

    Whatever, we still have to make the final decision, and it's hard to go
    past the Captiva at this stage given its price point, level of
    equipment and availability compared to the Sorento and the Santa Fe.


  7. #7
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 22/07/13 3:37 PM, Marts wrote:

    > We looked at them too. The equivlanet Highlander Santa Fe was a few
    > grand more and the earlier models aren't as "loaded" as the Captiva.


    What does the 2011 Sorento/Santa Fe lack that the same vintage Captiva has?

    > And yes, the 6th and 7th seats aren't all that practical but may be
    > useful. In any case, I'm told that the 5 is a bit shorter so if the 7
    > has more room then that'll be handy for us.


    If they're anything like the ones in our Territory, they'll spend their
    entire lives folded up for more cargo space :)

    > What makes the Hyundai/Kia engine better than the Captiva's?


    More power & torque and better economy I expect.

    > I've driven both and they seem to be similar in performance. Other than that I don't
    > know what either are like, although there are some questions over how
    > good the Captiva's engine's DPF works and how it's re-gen'ed.


    I don't know. I've only ever driven one Captiva and it left me
    underwhelmed.

    > Whatever, we still have to make the final decision, and it's hard to go
    > past the Captiva at this stage given its price point, level of equipment
    > and availability compared to the Sorento and the Santa Fe.


    If it floats your boat then go for it, but from what I've seen the fit &
    finish of the Captiva isn't in the same ballpark of Kia/Hyundai.

    Maybe try a few web forums to see if you can find any owner/user reviews.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  8. #8
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 22/07/2013 4:27 PM, Noddy wrote:
    > On 22/07/13 3:37 PM, Marts wrote:
    >
    >> We looked at them too. The equivlanet Highlander Santa Fe was a few
    >> grand more and the earlier models aren't as "loaded" as the Captiva.

    >
    > What does the 2011 Sorento/Santa Fe lack that the same vintage Captiva has?
    >
    >> And yes, the 6th and 7th seats aren't all that practical but may be
    >> useful. In any case, I'm told that the 5 is a bit shorter so if the 7
    >> has more room then that'll be handy for us.

    >
    > If they're anything like the ones in our Territory, they'll spend their
    > entire lives folded up for more cargo space :)
    >
    >> What makes the Hyundai/Kia engine better than the Captiva's?

    >
    > More power & torque and better economy I expect.


    Considerably more.
    Captiva diesel has 123kw and 230nm, Santa Fe 145kw and 436nm, the
    Captiva torque figure seems too low to be true but I double checked
    Holdens web site.
    Captiva 8.8lts/100km, Santa Fe 7.3lts/100km so they Hyundai wins by a
    country mile on all the numbers, 206nm more torque would be very
    noticeable especially when loaded or climbing hills.

    --
    Daryl

  9. #9
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 22/07/13 5:40 PM, D Walford wrote:

    > Considerably more.
    > Captiva diesel has 123kw and 230nm, Santa Fe 145kw and 436nm, the
    > Captiva torque figure seems too low to be true but I double checked
    > Holdens web site.
    > Captiva 8.8lts/100km, Santa Fe 7.3lts/100km so they Hyundai wins by a
    > country mile on all the numbers, 206nm more torque would be very
    > noticeable especially when loaded or climbing hills.


    I expect they've ****ed that torque figure up, but still. The 2.2 in the
    Sorento/Santa Fe (they both share the same mechanical platform) is an
    awesome engine that gets quite outstanding mileage in a two tonne car.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  10. #10
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    D Walford wrote:
    > On 22/07/2013 4:27 PM, Noddy wrote:
    >> On 22/07/13 3:37 PM, Marts wrote:
    >>
    >>> We looked at them too. The equivlanet Highlander Santa Fe was a few
    >>> grand more and the earlier models aren't as "loaded" as the Captiva.

    >>
    >> What does the 2011 Sorento/Santa Fe lack that the same vintage Captiva
    >> has?
    >>
    >>> And yes, the 6th and 7th seats aren't all that practical but may be
    >>> useful. In any case, I'm told that the 5 is a bit shorter so if the 7
    >>> has more room then that'll be handy for us.

    >>
    >> If they're anything like the ones in our Territory, they'll spend their
    >> entire lives folded up for more cargo space :)
    >>
    >>> What makes the Hyundai/Kia engine better than the Captiva's?

    >>
    >> More power & torque and better economy I expect.

    >
    > Considerably more.
    > Captiva diesel has 123kw and 230nm, Santa Fe 145kw and 436nm, the
    > Captiva torque figure seems too low to be true but I double checked
    > Holdens web site.
    > Captiva 8.8lts/100km, Santa Fe 7.3lts/100km so they Hyundai wins by a
    > country mile on all the numbers, 206nm more torque would be very
    > noticeable especially when loaded or climbing hills.
    >


    The 2.2L Captiva Diesel has 400nm of torque and 135kw. Fuel economy is
    8.2L/100km.

    Not that much in it. I haven't checked but I think the Captiva is a bit
    lighter then the Kia.


  11. #11
    Ext User(John_H) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    D Walford wrote:
    >
    >Captiva 8.8lts/100km, Santa Fe 7.3lts/100km so they Hyundai wins by a
    >country mile on all the numbers, 206nm more torque would be very
    >noticeable especially when loaded or climbing hills.


    How come?

    Even if those figures were correct, torque at the drive wheels is a
    product of power. If you can follow simple arithmetic the formula
    is.... Torque = 9549 x Power / r. Where r is the rotational speed of
    the drive wheels, not the engine.

    Flywheel torque means jackshit in the absence of other relevant
    information, since it isn't transferred directly to the wheels,
    whereas power is (less a small loss due to friction). IOW torque is
    directly affected by the final drive ratio whereas power isn't.... If
    the final drive ratio happens to be 4.3:1 then there'll be 4.3 times
    more torque at the drive axles than the flywheel but power remains the
    same.

    Contrary to the popular myth, acceleration and pulling abiltity is
    determined by the vehicle's power to weight ratio and gearing.

    The only significance of a high torque figure quoted in isolation from
    the engine revs at which it's produced is that it tends to indicate a
    wide power band, which isn't necessarily the case either.

    All of which suggests that you probably need to brush up on some very
    basic engine theory! :)

    --
    John H

  12. #12
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 23/07/13 7:35 AM, John_H wrote:

    > Flywheel torque means jackshit in the absence of other relevant
    > information, since it isn't transferred directly to the wheels,
    > whereas power is (less a small loss due to friction). IOW torque is
    > directly affected by the final drive ratio whereas power isn't.... If
    > the final drive ratio happens to be 4.3:1 then there'll be 4.3 times
    > more torque at the drive axles than the flywheel but power remains the
    > same.
    >
    > Contrary to the popular myth, acceleration and pulling abiltity is
    > determined by the vehicle's power to weight ratio and gearing.
    >
    > The only significance of a high torque figure quoted in isolation from
    > the engine revs at which it's produced is that it tends to indicate a
    > wide power band, which isn't necessarily the case either.
    >
    > All of which suggests that you probably need to brush up on some very
    > basic engine theory! :)


    Theory is fine, but it doesn't translate into reality as it suggests
    that torque makes no difference in and of itself and it most certainly does.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  13. #13
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 23/07/2013 1:41 AM, Clocky wrote:
    > D Walford wrote:
    >> On 22/07/2013 4:27 PM, Noddy wrote:
    >>> On 22/07/13 3:37 PM, Marts wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> We looked at them too. The equivlanet Highlander Santa Fe was a few
    >>>> grand more and the earlier models aren't as "loaded" as the Captiva.
    >>>
    >>> What does the 2011 Sorento/Santa Fe lack that the same vintage Captiva
    >>> has?
    >>>
    >>>> And yes, the 6th and 7th seats aren't all that practical but may be
    >>>> useful. In any case, I'm told that the 5 is a bit shorter so if the 7
    >>>> has more room then that'll be handy for us.
    >>>
    >>> If they're anything like the ones in our Territory, they'll spend their
    >>> entire lives folded up for more cargo space :)
    >>>
    >>>> What makes the Hyundai/Kia engine better than the Captiva's?
    >>>
    >>> More power & torque and better economy I expect.

    >>
    >> Considerably more.
    >> Captiva diesel has 123kw and 230nm, Santa Fe 145kw and 436nm, the
    >> Captiva torque figure seems too low to be true but I double checked
    >> Holdens web site.
    >> Captiva 8.8lts/100km, Santa Fe 7.3lts/100km so they Hyundai wins by a
    >> country mile on all the numbers, 206nm more torque would be very
    >> noticeable especially when loaded or climbing hills.
    >>

    >
    > The 2.2L Captiva Diesel has 400nm of torque and 135kw. Fuel economy is
    > 8.2L/100km.
    >
    > Not that much in it. I haven't checked but I think the Captiva is a bit
    > lighter then the Kia.
    >

    I got the torque figure from Holdens web site and I did think it was
    wrong, possible its the number for the smaller petrol engine.

    --
    Daryl

  14. #14
    Ext User(John_H) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    Noddy wrote:
    >On 23/07/13 7:35 AM, John_H wrote:
    >
    >> Flywheel torque means jackshit in the absence of other relevant
    >> information, since it isn't transferred directly to the wheels,
    >> whereas power is (less a small loss due to friction). IOW torque is
    >> directly affected by the final drive ratio whereas power isn't.... If
    >> the final drive ratio happens to be 4.3:1 then there'll be 4.3 times
    >> more torque at the drive axles than the flywheel but power remains the
    >> same.
    >>
    >> Contrary to the popular myth, acceleration and pulling abiltity is
    >> determined by the vehicle's power to weight ratio and gearing.
    >>
    >> The only significance of a high torque figure quoted in isolation from
    >> the engine revs at which it's produced is that it tends to indicate a
    >> wide power band, which isn't necessarily the case either.
    >>
    >> All of which suggests that you probably need to brush up on some very
    >> basic engine theory! :)

    >
    >Theory is fine, but it doesn't translate into reality as it suggests
    >that torque makes no difference in and of itself and it most certainly does.


    It makes a difference in that a high torque figure often indicates a
    wider power band, beyond which power is the number that counts.

    You only need to drive a similar car with a naturally aspirated petrol
    engine compared to a forced induction diesel with a much higher
    maximum torque figure. The engine with the greatest power, typically
    the petrol engine, will blow the other into the weeds unless there's
    something wrong with the gearing.

    Diesels also tend to be lower geared (higher final drive ratio), which
    creates the false impression that their top gear performance is due to
    flywheel torque.

    --
    John H

  15. #15
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 23/07/2013 7:35 AM, John_H wrote:
    > D Walford wrote:
    >>
    >> Captiva 8.8lts/100km, Santa Fe 7.3lts/100km so they Hyundai wins by a
    >> country mile on all the numbers, 206nm more torque would be very
    >> noticeable especially when loaded or climbing hills.

    >
    > How come?
    >
    > Even if those figures were correct, torque at the drive wheels is a
    > product of power. If you can follow simple arithmetic the formula
    > is.... Torque = 9549 x Power / r. Where r is the rotational speed of
    > the drive wheels, not the engine.
    >
    > Flywheel torque means jackshit in the absence of other relevant
    > information, since it isn't transferred directly to the wheels,
    > whereas power is (less a small loss due to friction). IOW torque is
    > directly affected by the final drive ratio whereas power isn't.... If
    > the final drive ratio happens to be 4.3:1 then there'll be 4.3 times
    > more torque at the drive axles than the flywheel but power remains the
    > same.
    >
    > Contrary to the popular myth, acceleration and pulling abiltity is
    > determined by the vehicle's power to weight ratio and gearing.
    >
    > The only significance of a high torque figure quoted in isolation from
    > the engine revs at which it's produced is that it tends to indicate a
    > wide power band, which isn't necessarily the case either.
    >
    > All of which suggests that you probably need to brush up on some very
    > basic engine theory! :)
    >

    Hilux has 343nm and the lighter Forester has 229nm, Hilux weighs 1710kg,
    Forester 1475kg both have 126kw so the Forester has a better power to
    weight ratio.
    Hilux diff is 4.56, Forester is 4.444.
    When it comes to towing or climbing hills the Hilux wins by a huge
    margin, the Hilux effortlessly climbs hills in 5th gear but the Forester
    needs to be down shifted to maintain speed, there is a slight difference
    in the final drive which should be offset by lighter weight, the main
    difference is engine torque.

    --
    Daryl

  16. #16
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    On 23/07/13 9:21 AM, John_H wrote:

    > It makes a difference in that a high torque figure often indicates a
    > wider power band, beyond which power is the number that counts.


    It can do, but it's not a given.

    > You only need to drive a similar car with a naturally aspirated petrol
    > engine compared to a forced induction diesel with a much higher
    > maximum torque figure. The engine with the greatest power, typically
    > the petrol engine, will blow the other into the weeds unless there's
    > something wrong with the gearing.


    That's generally true in my experience, but then there are a few out
    there today with similar power outputs for both petrol and diesel and
    you notice the difference in those cases as well.

    > Diesels also tend to be lower geared (higher final drive ratio), which
    > creates the false impression that their top gear performance is due to
    > flywheel torque.


    Let me run a hypothetical past you.

    If I took a prime mover with a 500hp diesel that made 1500ft/lb of
    torque (just for argument's sake) and replaced the engine with a car V8
    that made 500hp and 500ft/lb of torque, and changed nothing else, what
    kind of performance hit would you expect and why?


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  17. #17
    Ext User(Jason James) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    John_H wrote:
    > D Walford wrote:
    >>
    >> Captiva 8.8lts/100km, Santa Fe 7.3lts/100km so they Hyundai wins by a
    >> country mile on all the numbers, 206nm more torque would be very
    >> noticeable especially when loaded or climbing hills.

    >
    > How come?
    >
    > Even if those figures were correct, torque at the drive wheels is a
    > product of power. If you can follow simple arithmetic the formula
    > is.... Torque = 9549 x Power / r. Where r is the rotational speed of
    > the drive wheels, not the engine.
    >
    > Flywheel torque means jackshit in the absence of other relevant
    > information, since it isn't transferred directly to the wheels,
    > whereas power is (less a small loss due to friction). IOW torque is
    > directly affected by the final drive ratio whereas power isn't.... If
    > the final drive ratio happens to be 4.3:1 then there'll be 4.3 times
    > more torque at the drive axles than the flywheel but power remains the
    > same.
    >
    > Contrary to the popular myth, acceleration and pulling abiltity is
    > determined by the vehicle's power to weight ratio and gearing.
    >
    > The only significance of a high torque figure quoted in isolation from
    > the engine revs at which it's produced is that it tends to indicate a
    > wide power band, which isn't necessarily the case either.
    >
    > All of which suggests that you probably need to brush up on some very
    > basic engine theory! :)


    Torque times RPM =Power. If you add another gear-set in the gear-box,
    with the driven gear having 1/4 the amount of teeth than the gear it's
    driving, revs will drop to 1/4 of what they were, but torque will
    quadruple bringing the formula back to the same power out.

    Years ago I was given a 3 on the tree Falcon XT ute to travel up the
    Blue mountains to Katoomba. What I didn't bank on was how goey the ute
    was. Put it back to 2nd, and it'd rocket up the passing lane. It had a
    200 cube 6 IIRC, and it wasn't till later, a mechanic in the mechanical
    service bay, told me its secret [the XT that is] It had a commercial
    ratio diff in it,..circa 4.3 : 1. I was suitable impressed by my
    new-found knowledge.

    Another time, we had a trainee from SY come out to do some
    field-training with us. He had an HQ ute with a 350 4bbl carby and
    headers,..and a welded diff. Perma LSD ! He drove this ute around Sydney
    like this,..incredible. Coming up to exit underground car-parks was a
    scream literally.

    Jason





  18. #18
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?


    "Jason James" <h6tgf22l@outlook.com> wrote in message
    news:kskgto$s3i$1@dont-email.me...

    > Years ago I was given a 3 on the tree Falcon XT ute to travel up the Blue
    > mountains to Katoomba. What I didn't bank on was how goey the ute was. Put
    > it back to 2nd, and it'd rocket up the passing lane. It had a 200 cube 6
    > IIRC, and it wasn't till later, a mechanic in the mechanical service bay,
    > told me its secret [the XT that is] It had a commercial ratio diff in
    > it,..circa 4.3 : 1. I was suitable impressed by my new-found knowledge.


    Perhaps.

    Apart from the GT there were 4 ratios in the Falcon/Fairlane range in those
    days, and they were 2.93, 3.23, 3.5 and 4.0:1. 4.0 was about the physical
    limit of what would fit in a Borg Warner "tin hat" housing at the time and
    there was nothing shorter than that. Ratios varied according to the model,
    but there were options available.

    The number of permutations was considerable depending on the engine and
    trans combination, but basically the only ratio that *wasn't* available as
    standard in a commercial was the 3.23, which was reserved specifically for
    the 221 powered manual Falcon sedans and Fairlanes.

    As far as commercials go, the main difference was the axle housing itself,
    as it had thicker tubing material to accommodate the increased load
    capacity. Standard "off the shelf" ratios for utes and vans were 4.0 for
    the188 powered base models, 3.5 for the 221 powered "Falcon 500" models, and
    2.93 for the V8 jobs. Of those, the only one with an "official" option was
    the 221, which could be had with the 4.0 if you wanted it. Hardly anyone
    ever did, as a 4.0:1 rear axle in a Falcon ute or van gave it a freeway
    cruise of around 3500rpm @ 60 miles per hour, which would have been enough
    to drive anyone nuts in about 8 minutes :)

    Incidentally, the 200 cube engine finished it's production run in the XR
    Falcon range, so if that's what it had then it was an XR ute rather than an
    XT.

    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.








  19. #19
    Ext User(John_H) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    Noddy wrote:
    >
    >Let me run a hypothetical past you.
    >
    >If I took a prime mover with a 500hp diesel that made 1500ft/lb of
    >torque (just for argument's sake) and replaced the engine with a car V8
    >that made 500hp and 500ft/lb of torque, and changed nothing else, what
    >kind of performance hit would you expect and why?


    With the appropriate gearing I'd expect the performance to be exactly
    the same, but not for long.

    The reason being that heavy diesels work best from around 80% of their
    maximum power output, and need to be able to maintain that level of
    output continuously whereas most car engines can't. A suitably
    detuned petrol engine with the same power output, as typically used in
    aircraft, would be a vastly better basis for comparison and there'd be
    SFA difference in performance, other than fuel efficiency.

    It's the power to weight improvement associated with forced induction
    that has allowed diesels to compete with petrol engines in cars... not
    the increase in maximum torque which is necessary to attain similar
    power outputs from a similar weight engine, albeit at lower rpm.

    --
    John H

  20. #20
    Ext User(John_H) Guest

    Re: Holden Captiva - Opinions?

    D Walford wrote:
    >
    >Hilux has 343nm and the lighter Forester has 229nm, Hilux weighs 1710kg,
    >Forester 1475kg both have 126kw so the Forester has a better power to
    >weight ratio.
    >Hilux diff is 4.56, Forester is 4.444.
    >When it comes to towing or climbing hills the Hilux wins by a huge
    >margin, the Hilux effortlessly climbs hills in 5th gear but the Forester
    >needs to be down shifted to maintain speed, there is a slight difference
    >in the final drive which should be offset by lighter weight, the main
    >difference is engine torque.


    Nope, the difference is the rpm range over which the Forester produces
    it's useable power... which is the rev range between maximum torque
    output and its maximum power output. Keep the Forester within its
    power band and it'll shit all over the Hilux!

    I'd also surprised if the Forester didn't have a wider band than the
    Hilux, albeit at higher revs.

    The acceleration figures (ie 0-100kph, or 0-400 metre) will prove the
    point.

    --
    John H

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •