Chery and Haval real feedback?

@epah Serious question; which brands do you actually recommend?

In another thread you told me to stay away from Maruti cars. Chinese cars are bed. Renault/Nissans are bad. Those little 3-cylinder turbos are ticking timebombs (Does this include the VW and Hyundai 1.0T offerings?)
 
My guess would be gear ratios,besides engine tech.

Chinese battled with their Russian jet engine clones, to get them reliable decent power and efficiency. It's as similar case here too.

I'm assuming alot of the drive train is off the shelf stuff ,which would explain why all the brands use the same or similar engines and boxes.

I don't think their gearboxes are tailored to the vehicle it's put into. Iv seen more established brands even struggle with gear ratios on their boxes and this could be a huge factor in fuel economy. Putting the engine into a Rev range that's not optimal for efficiency.

But it's just my 2c.
 
epah said:
Yeah I know manufacturer claims are BS. but in the real world those small SUVs still arent doing 9L/100km. Only the chinese versions seem to be achieving those horrible figures without even trying. 9L would be acceptable for something the size of a Chery 8pro, but not a tiggo 4.
Click to expand...

Citation needed. Which small SUV's?

These may seem small but they have the aerodynamic efficiency of a brick.
 
epah said:
But no seriously guys, lets figure this out, Someone shopping for a small car with a budget of R270k is not expecting 9L/100km. I mean logically speaking, or am I crazy here?
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct. They are on a budget and this would include wanting something fuel efficient.

I am literally this person. Upped my budget to around the R220 - R250K mark second hand and fuel economy is a major factor in my decision-making.
 
SauRoNZA said:
What do we consider the German / Japanese competition for the Tiggo 4 Pro?

Mazda CX5 averages 9.4+ l/100 - https://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5

VW Tiguan 8.7 l/100 - https://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/tiguan

I think people look at the stickers with laboratory fuel consumption too much and don't live in reality.
Click to expand...
These are not Tiggo 4 Pro competitors. You should be comparing the CX3 & T-Cross.

In my Kia Seltos I average urban 7.4km/l & 6.5km/l freeway (120km/h). Combined 7.1 km/l.

In my opinion the Tiggo 4 Pro does offer value for money at approx. R100k cheaper than some of it's competitors. The only issue for me would be long term reliability (mileage >150k km? and resale value after 5 years.
 
Curt889 said:
My guess would be gear ratios,besides engine tech.

Chinese battled with their Russian jet engine clones, to get them reliable decent power and efficiency. It's as similar case here too.

I'm assuming alot of the drive train is off the shelf stuff ,which would explain why all the brands use the same or similar engines and boxes.

I don't think their gearboxes are tailored to the vehicle it's put into. Iv seen more established brands even struggle with gear ratios on their boxes and this could be a huge factor in fuel economy. Putting the engine into a Rev range that's not optimal for efficiency.

But it's just my 2c.
Click to expand...

Gearing is a big one.

I know the Maruti offerings - Vitara Breeza/Urban Cruiser - are geared for the Indian market, so shorter ratios for the god awful traffic over there. Then they come over to South Africa, and while our traffic can be brutal as well, those shorter ratios do not translate so well on our freeways and economy suffers as a consequence.
 
thestaggy said:
@epah Serious question; which brands do you actually recommend?

In another thread you told me to stay away from Maruti cars. Chinese cars are bed. Renault/Nissans are bad. Those little 3-cylinder turbos are ticking timebombs (Does this include the VW and Hyundai 1.0T offerings?)
Click to expand...
Maruti cars are fine, but they are just 20 years old outdated and highly over priced. Renault/nissan are bad, always have been.

VW/kia/Hyundai 1.0L turbos are a hoot, reliable, Fuel efficient and will embarrass most NA cars with 6 cylinders or less.
 
epah said:
Sorry but 10l/100km for a hatchback is downright outrageous, no where near acceptable. So what was it doing before the ''Scam software update'' 15l/100km? that is V8 territory. A car the size of a tiggo 4 should be doing 6L/100km or less.
Click to expand...
My v6 does around 8.6 and my v8 does 13l/100 in town and lower than 10 on the open road. Both of these are ancient tech compared to today's stuff. I agree it's unacceptable

Another thing manufacturers don't care about anymore is drag coefficient, both those cars have a 0.27.last I saw new cars were getting worse figures.
Do manufacturers even post the coefficient anymore?, or is it just what tech it has.
 
Curt889 said:
My guess would be gear ratios,besides engine tech.

Chinese battled with their Russian jet engine clones, to get them reliable decent power and efficiency. It's as similar case here too.

I'm assuming alot of the drive train is off the shelf stuff ,which would explain why all the brands use the same or similar engines and boxes.

I don't think their gearboxes are tailored to the vehicle it's put into. Iv seen more established brands even struggle with gear ratios on their boxes and this could be a huge factor in fuel economy. Putting the engine into a Rev range that's not optimal for efficiency.

But it's just my 2c.
Click to expand...
Battled? They still haven't gotten the engines right, in fact they are still using the inefficient engines in their so called 5th gen
 
SauRoNZA said:
Citation needed. Which small SUV's?

These may seem small but they have the aerodynamic efficiency of a brick.
Click to expand...
A kia sonet, seltos, creta, Tcross, Fronx, grand vitara etc aren't getting 9L in the real world, all below that mark.
 
epah said:
But no seriously guys, lets figure this out, Someone shopping for a small car with a budget of R270k is not expecting 9L/100km. I mean logically speaking, or am I crazy here?
Click to expand...

Why not?

A Hyundai Venue which is the nearest competition starts at R309,900 for the 1.2 Manual, 61 kW of raw power. 115 Nm torque.

Chery Tiggo starts at R269,900 for the 1.5 which has 83kW and 138 Nm so you get a whole lot more for less while only paying a slight premium in fuel.

Hyundai Venue does 7.2 l/100 and lets say the Tiggo really does do 9l/100.

You'll need to use 1,874 litres before the pricing of the cars even level out...and this is before looking at any other features. That price difference was almost the entire fuel bill of my Kia Picanto it's in lifetime of ownership.
 
thestaggy said:
You are 100% correct. They are on a budget and this would include wanting something fuel efficient.

I am literally this person. Upped my budget to around the R220 - R250K mark second hand and fuel economy is a major factor in my decision-making.
Click to expand...
exactly.
 
epah said:
Stop gaslighting me, This is not about my hate for CCP cars. Logically you know very well 9L is high for a tiggo 4, just admit it then we can move on.
Click to expand...
I never said it wasn't high.. I said, not great but not bad when considering total cost of ownership vs German and Japanese cars...
 
epah said:
A kia sonet, seltos, creta, Tcross, Fronx, grand vitara etc aren't getting 9L in the real world, all below that mark.
Click to expand...

And they are all universally more expensive.

So how does "saving fuel" on those models equate to making more sense when you are spending more money overall?

Yes it's higher but the way people carry on you would swear it was double.

My very fuel efficient Kia Picanto averages 6.8l/100 over it's lifetime, the Tiggo 4 Pro is a far larger car with an engine that makes some real power.
 
epah said:
Maruti cars are fine, but they are just 20 years old outdated and highly over priced. Renault/nissan are bad, always have been.

VW/kia/Hyundai 1.0L turbos are a hoot, reliable, Fuel efficient and will embarrass most NA cars with 6 cylinders or less.
Click to expand...

I test drove a Breeza (not too bad, tbh) and one look under the hood told me it was ''old school''. Which in itself isn't a problem if it wasn't for the pricing, which I found a bit too heavy for a car that is overall more on the budget side in terms of finishing.
 
marco79 said:
These are not Tiggo 4 Pro competitors. You should be comparing the CX3 & T-Cross.

In my Kia Seltos I average urban 7.4km/l & 6.5km/l freeway (120km/h). Combined 7.1 km/l.

In my opinion the Tiggo 4 Pro does offer value for money at approx. R100k cheaper than some of it's competitors. The only issue for me would be long term reliability (mileage >150k km? and resale value after 5 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah I realised I was a bit off the mark on competitors.

I'm also not trying to argue it's anywhere near as efficient as those, just that it's not inefficient as such and that the purchase price negates the concern almost entirely.
 
Lupus said:
Battled? They still haven't gotten the engines right, in fact they are still using the inefficient engines in their so called 5th gen
Click to expand...
Yea flip true. Along with their stolen high speed train tech .which Germany ,Japan and France then blocked the sale of high precision train wheels to them as a repercussion

They attempted to manufacture them in house. Which they cannot get them right and have a massive issue with their trains vibrating.

This after bragging their trains are the fastest most advanced in the world.

Their new 6th gen fighter mock up is just there to get the rest of the world to waste money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X