2007 Kia Carens [ARCHIVE]

**vinrem** · November 25th, 2007 06:50 PM

I bought a LX a/t cherry black, the tire is hankook optimo, cant give you feedback on how it performed coz i drove it only for half a day and bumalik na ako ulit dito sa china

Originally Posted by wavecxs

Sa mga nakakuha ng LX variant, just curius, anong brand ng tire naka kabit? I remember (if im not mistaken) when I was test driving the unit that it came with Kumho brand tires. The unit that we got came with Hankook Optimo brand/model. I remember reading a review complaining about the stock tire being noisy, having less grip etc.

After a couple of days driving, I would say that the stock tire's (hankook) performance of our unit is not that bad. I've tested it on wet asphalt road, tried it running at high speed (120+ kph) So iniisip ko lang, di kaya yung kumho tire yung subject for complain? o pareho lang ba yun ng hankook? ... o mababa lang standard ko sa tire performance? (please be honest, i wont be offended

)

comment naman sa hankook or kumho tires mga experts!

**vinrem** · November 25th, 2007 06:54 PM

Hmmmm, di ko rin alam to ah, what i know is meron syang vent for the foot sa front seat passenger but for the 2nd row.....di ko alam to, i will ask my wife to check it for me

Originally Posted by itlog na pula

like wavecxs, this too is new to me. although siyempre wala pa yung unit namin. walang binanggit kasi yung salesman. only what i saw. pero kung ganun nga, i think it's a welcome, but at the same time, disconcerting piece of info. kasi kung floor level siya, hindi kaya yung dirt from the floor (coming from our shoes) will eventually make its way into the aircon system and create problems in the end?

**vinrem** · November 25th, 2007 07:34 PM

OT: Guys, my carens is only 1wk old, now im kinda bothered by my FC, i only got 1L= 5.7km city driving

, mag iimprove pa kaya ito when i have my 1st PMS??? i got a LX a/t btw and my family is living in bacolod, and di naman gaano ka traffic doon. I was surprise lang kasi of the higher FC i got, i was expecting kasi around 8-9km/L and now ganito lang pala

**niky** · November 25th, 2007 07:45 PM

What variant, diesel or gas?

The diesel manual only gets about 7 km/l in city traffic... I suppose 5.7 is about right for the automatic... pero it depends on how long your trips are. Gas or diesel, kung short yung trips, talagang magiging matakaw sa fuel.

**vinrem** · November 25th, 2007 08:07 PM

Mine is diesel, short trip most of the time kasi malapit lang naman ang house namin sa school ng mga kids, sorry for my ignorance kasi this is my 1st time to own an a/t, i usually drive a m/t. If you say that the diesel manual only gets 7km/l in city then i assume that the FC that i got is normal. Thanks for the info!!!

I really love this car!!! wala akong complains sa ride and i like the interior and the power that i get from the engine.

Originally Posted by niky

What variant, diesel or gas?

The diesel manual only gets about 7 km/l in city traffic... I suppose 5.7 is about right for the automatic... pero it depends on how long your trips are. Gas or diesel, kung short yung trips, talagang magiging matakaw sa fuel.

**itlog na pula** · November 25th, 2007 10:56 PM

wow, this is indeed worrisome....

we're getting our ex crdi at hopefully this week and i'm beginning to wonder if i made the right choice. i chose crdi purposely for the fc. but if this is THE true fc, medyo nakakapagtaka. i was expecting something better than those figures... are you absolutely sure about this?

i think my neighbor's tucson crdi is getting 16km/l highway.

also, i noticed some posts in other kia forums, they have better fc as the kilometers accumulate. why is this so?

**wavecxs** · November 26th, 2007 10:39 AM

yesterday i took the carens for its longest trip so far, 240 kms. I started from a full tank, the fuel gauge was at a little less than 3/4 full when I got back home. So based on this I'd say I got ~14 km/l, i drove 70% highway, 20% city and occational trucks/trycycle slow drives.

observations:
- she (the carens), as far as FC is concern, seems to do VERY GOOD on highways
- FC is so-so on city, I think 7 km/l is average (I once experience a bad-bad traffic on SLEX and there is a substantial decrease in the fuel gauge when I got home)
- The crosswind seems to be better in terms of FC (2.5 non turbo diesel)
- What she seems to lack in terms of FC performance she compensates very very well in terms of power, torque is very strong she flies with a slight press of the accelerator, you will appreciate this when overtaking long, slow trucks on highways (0-100 in 11 sec is easy). Don't get me wrong though, FC is not very bad as I said, "FC is very good on highways, so-so on (bumper-to-bumber) city.
- I don't know if its just me but FC seems to be improving since we got her.

So if the FC is a bit (yes, just a bit) of a turn-off, the torque-y-ness is a very good reason to get the crdi vs the petrol imho.

(ride is LX m/t crdi, 760 km on odo)

**niky** · November 26th, 2007 01:09 PM

Older turbodiesels were tuned for more low-end torque, so a Crosswind has great fuel consumption, because you can really short-shift it and lug it at low rpms.

By giving their new CRDis a smoother and wider powerband, some manufacturers have had to sacrifice low-end torque, which is really telling on automatic variants... many modern CRDis have no "poke" below 2000 rpms... and with soft engine mounts, will shudder if you try to lug them... (this is seen on the Hyundai Getz as well).

Ford's 2.0 TDCi Focus has much better consumption in the city, but then, it's got more low-end torque, a better transmission (6 speed for the win!) and it's some 200 kilograms less than the somewhat heavy Carens (about 1.6 tons).

Just take it as this: You're getting the power of a 2.5 liter gasoline engine with consumption that's about on par with a 1.6 liter gasoline engine. Sure, it's not as good as a Crosswind... but that drinks like a 1.3 gasoline engine and has the overtaking power of an 800cc tractor...

**IMm29** · November 26th, 2007 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by niky

By giving their new CRDis a smoother and wider powerband, some manufacturers have had to sacrifice low-end torque, which is really telling on automatic variants... many modern CRDis have no "poke" below 2000 rpms... and with soft engine mounts, will shudder if you try to lug them... (this is seen on the Hyundai Getz as well).

The Gen 3 Starex suffers from this same problem as well. Until 2000 to 2500 rpm, the engine doesn't respond too well. But get it into its sweet spot, and you'll have fun.

Originally Posted by niky

Older turbodiesels were tuned for more low-end torque, so a Crosswind has great fuel consumption, because you can really short-shift it and lug it at low rpms.

Just take it as this: You're getting the power of a 2.5 liter gasoline engine with consumption that's about on par with a 1.6 liter gasoline engine. Sure, it's not as good as a Crosswind... but that drinks like a 1.3 gasoline engine and has the overtaking power of an 800cc tractor...

Well, the Crosswind should be ok for bumper to bumper traffic, thanks to its low end torque. But on open roads, you can forget about it.

**niky** · November 26th, 2007 03:47 PM

Yup. With the Starex CRDi, you really have to bury the pedal to access its power. It's great on inclines, but at low rpms (below 2000), it's kinda limp. Because of the furious pedal action, we got pretty poor consumption in Baguio.

Upshot? it wasn't as slow as molasses, and the trip was pretty short considering the traffic.