Posted 2008-09-04 16:30:59
Hi -
Thinking seriously about getting a new Toyota Altis next month. This could well be my last vehicle so I have longevity and durability issues in mind, not necessarily performance although I do not like underpowered cars which are flat upon acceleration.
Any opinions on the pros and cons between the 1.6 and the 1.8 engines? The upgrade from the Altis 1.6G to the 1.8E is about 85,000 baht which I would rather not spend unless I receive strong opinions to do so). The current family car is a 1991 Toyota so this new car would likely also be the family vehicle for many years (probably even after I croak). Thanks for your opinions!
(For those of you following my other posts on other topics, I am still considering the lower priced new 2009 Honda City. It comes here next week and I'll check it out first but, sadly, it will probably be too small for my family [and myself  ] ).
Posted 2008-09-04 19:02:44
Many moons ago I read reviews of the altis. It stated there the 1.6 was a smoother more refined engine than the 1.8. It would be worthwhile driving both to see if the 1.6 is powerful enough. If you drive a lot in town the auto would do, but the manual will better usilise what power the engine has. I can't comment more than that as I've never driven either:) I've followed 1.6 altises in my 2.0 civic and I can tell you they are deciptively quick for their small engine size.
Posted 2008-09-04 20:52:39
 culicine, on 2008-09-04 08:02:44, said:
Many moons ago I read reviews of the altis. It stated there the 1.6 was a smoother more refined engine than the 1.8. It would be worthwhile driving both to see if the 1.6 is powerful enough. If you drive a lot in town the auto would do, but the manual will better usilise what power the engine has. I can't comment more than that as I've never driven either:) I've followed 1.6 altises in my 2.0 civic and I can tell you they are deciptively quick for their small engine size.
Hi Culicine -
Geez that could be really good news! I did, however, read somewhere that the 1.8 had been redesigned not long ago so maybe it is better now. In either event, it appears the 1.6 has a decent, or maybe even a very good reputation. Actually smoothness is more important to me personally than power. I love a smooth, quiet ride, but good to know the 1.6s in the Altis are peppy too. But durability has to be my foremost concern so we'll see what other posters may have to say. I'll definitely drive each before making the final decision. I'll stick with an automatic because I am afraid she and a clutch would not be the best of friends - scary!  Thanks for the reply and the information.
Posted 2008-09-05 01:07:42
A friend bought the current model and said that the 1.6 was just not powerful enough so he chose the 1.8. I can attest that the 1.8 auto is very smooth and both nice to drive and be chauffeured in.
Posted 2008-09-05 10:23:32
drove a friend's 1.6 yesterday and have to say it felt a bit underpowered if u pushed it a little. but quite a smooth and quiet ride for normal driving. no idea about the 1.8
Posted 2008-09-05 13:31:58
We have 1.8 in the family.
There's a noticeable difference at highway speeds, comparing to regular 1.6 taxis. 1.8 has reserves of power while taxis struggle over 120km/h.
Oh, if you step on the accelerator and rev up past 4,000 rpm, 1.8 flies off the handle, below 3,000 rpm it's just smooth and easy, unlike taxis that need and rpm boost everytime they try to overtake.
Still, I think 1.6 would be enough for most of day to day driving.
Posted 2008-09-05 13:36:56
tom yum goong, on 2008-09-04 23:23:32, said: drove a friend's 1.6 yesterday and have to say it felt a bit underpowered if u pushed it a little. but quite a smooth and quiet ride for normal driving. no idea about the 1.8
Thanks to you, Plus and torrenova for your experiences.
If the 1.6 is a bit underpowered (as I have heard others say), it is not a good sign regarding long term durability. This is because an engine which is underpowered for a vehicle the weight of the Altis means the engine has to labor to meet throttle demand. If it needs to labor or strain, it will add significant stress to many engine parts, especially to gaskets (head gaskets in particular), bearing wear, piston rings and valves. Back in the U.S. I had a number of collector cars which of course were aged. It was always the larger engine option models which best survived the test of time. But back then the quality of American made engines was not good at all, often literally wearing out after less than 150,000 km ESPECIALLY 4 CYLINDER engines. My assumption has been that Toyota and Honda engines remain superior in quality.
Perhaps strain on a 1.6 will not necessarily mean less durability over the long term, it just sounds logical. Maybe engine materials and design have improved so much that Japanese engines last almost forever (given correct maintenance) regardless of engine effort, with transmission damage (often as expensive as engine repair) or the body rusting out first which ultimately sends the car into the big junk yard in the sky. Any automotive engineers out there in TVland? - Please give us your thoughts. Otherwise, more driving experience from posters is appreciated. Thanks all.
Posted 2008-09-05 13:46:19
Plus, on 2008-09-05 02:31:58, said: We have 1.8 in the family.
There's a noticeable difference at highway speeds, comparing to regular 1.6 taxis. 1.8 has reserves of power while taxis struggle over 120km/h.
Oh, if you step on the accelerator and rev up past 4,000 rpm, 1.8 flies off the handle, below 3,000 rpm it's just smooth and easy, unlike taxis that need and rpm boost everytime they try to overtake.
Still, I think 1.6 would be enough for most of day to day driving.
Good point about the 1.6 taxis. One would think taxis using 1.6s would be a testimonial to their durability! Or perhaps the 1.8 simply is just too thirsty.
Posted 2008-09-07 09:17:27
I'd opt for the larger engine. Quite often the larger engine will be more efficient because it simply doesn't have to work as hard and as a result it will last longer.
Posted 2008-09-07 10:00:36
We think 1.8 is thristy, but we have nothing to compare it to. The difference would be minimal.
Do they even sell 1.6 engine in Europe or the US. I think it's Asian spec only.
Posted 2008-09-07 15:41:00
Lopburi99, on 2008-09-05 13:46:19, said: Good point about the 1.6 taxis. One would think taxis using 1.6s would be a testimonial to their durability! Or perhaps the 1.8 simply is just too thirsty.
Perhaps the 1.6 comes with the manual and the taxis prefer a manual for fuel savings? Even a difference of 1 km/l will justify a smaller engine as the mileage would be very high in a taxi.
Posted 2008-09-07 20:48:52
culicine, on 2008-09-07 03:41:00, said: Lopburi99, on 2008-09-05 13:46:19, said: Good point about the 1.6 taxis. One would think taxis using 1.6s would be a testimonial to their durability! Or perhaps the 1.8 simply is just too thirsty.
Perhaps the 1.6 comes with the manual and the taxis prefer a manual for fuel savings? Even a difference of 1 km/l will justify a smaller engine as the mileage would be very high in a taxi.
Hi Cul. That's true, the Altis is not offered in a manual transmission 1.8 although Toyota could possibly equip taxis on a special order basis but I doubt it. Another thought about fuel economy for taxis would be consumption during idle, which would likely be less for a smaller engine. But in BKK I would think taxis would go through clutches very quickly given the insane traffic situation there. Kinda surprising the drivers wouldn't insist on an automatic to prevent leg cramps! Sorry for the rambling - just some random thoughts. My current thoughts are leaning toward buying the 1.8 unless the bottom line additional cost is too much, otherwise the 1.6 would be fine I am sure. Bottom line IMHO, if the 1.6 is durable enough for millions of hours of use in BKK taxis it certainly is good enough for my casual driving - but I like the idea of the 1.8 not always downshifting to get more revs as often as the 1.6 would do every time I push the peddle more than a tad. But we'll see how the money issue sorts out. Regarding fuel economy between the 1.6 and the 1.8, for my type of driving I agree with Gary and Plus, the difference is probably minimal and not much of factor. Thanks guys.
Edited by Lopburi99, 2008-09-07 20:53:27.
#13
Who, me ?
Posted 2008-09-07 21:07:44
I have a 1.6 liter fitted with LPG
Nothing to complain about, in town, short trip, or long drive
Posted 2008-09-08 11:55:42
All taxis convert to LPG or NGV, fuel economy between 1.6 and 1.8 is not an issue.
Why there are no 1.8 taxis? I don't know. Possibly because of the legal requirements - there's a narrow spec range to qualify as a taxi. Sure some drivers can convert anything to a taxi, but you won't get "official" Toyota taxi model.
This year they'd come with factory installed NGV kits, btw. Don't know if they'd sell them to the general public, though.
Posted 2008-09-11 11:55:17
Lopburi99, on 2008-09-07 08:48:52, said: culicine, on 2008-09-07 03:41:00, said: Lopburi99, on 2008-09-05 13:46:19, said: Good point about the 1.6 taxis. One would think taxis using 1.6s would be a testimonial to their durability! Or perhaps the 1.8 simply is just too thirsty.
Perhaps the 1.6 comes with the manual and the taxis prefer a manual for fuel savings? Even a difference of 1 km/l will justify a smaller engine as the mileage would be very high in a taxi.
Hi Cul. That's true, the Altis is not offered in a manual transmission 1.8 although Toyota could possibly equip taxis on a special order basis but I doubt it. Another thought about fuel economy for taxis would be consumption during idle, which would likely be less for a smaller engine. But in BKK I would think taxis would go through clutches very quickly given the insane traffic situation there. Kinda surprising the drivers wouldn't insist on an automatic to prevent leg cramps! Sorry for the rambling - just some random thoughts. My current thoughts are leaning toward buying the 1.8 unless the bottom line additional cost is too much, otherwise the 1.6 would be fine I am sure. Bottom line IMHO, if the 1.6 is durable enough for millions of hours of use in BKK taxis it certainly is good enough for my casual driving - but I like the idea of the 1.8 not always downshifting to get more revs as often as the 1.6 would do every time I push the peddle more than a tad. But we'll see how the money issue sorts out. Regarding fuel economy between the 1.6 and the 1.8, for my type of driving I agree with Gary and Plus, the difference is probably minimal and not much of factor. Thanks guys.
Well, I finally made my decision. I ordered a 1.6G (which includes the leather seats I want). By the way, I found out Toyota financing will not include optional accessories as part of the amount to be financed. The extras are directly added to the required down payment. With the beautiful wood panel treatment, front grill chrome trim pieces, rear trunk chrome trim, rear parking sensor, and fog lamps my extras were a little over 20,000 baht. Adding this to the required down payment was a bit of a disappointment but at least now my monthly payments will be somewhat less. My new (silver metallic) Altis will be here in about 4 weeks. After I get it, I'll post a followup regarding my impressions of the 1.6 engine in this vehicle.
Edited by Lopburi99, 2008-09-11 11:56:55.
Posted 2008-09-11 12:33:26
The new ALTIS does look allright. I particularly like the "muscular" back. cough.
Right now, I have a 6 year old, 185k, Altis 1.8e auto (rental). The automatic whines alittle when driving slowly, but it is a very nice car, smooth cruising, comfortable, good A/C and not underpowered. Its got an ECT power button for the trans, meaning it upshifts at 6000 under WOT and reacts quicker to your rightfoot. Mine's a bit heavy....
Cruising at 140-150 on the Bang Na-Trat is noooo problem. Fuel consumption: about 440-450km per fill up, about 36 to 38 ltrs.
My fiancee is scared when I drive 
I shall not start a rant on motosais
I shall not start a rant on motosais
I shall not start a rant on motosais
I shall not start a rant on motosais 
Posted 2008-09-11 16:07:34
Lopburi99, on 2008-09-11 11:55:17, said: With the beautiful wood panel treatment, front grill chrome trim pieces, rear trunk chrome trim, rear parking sensor, and fog lamps my extras were a little over 20,000 baht.
So how much fog do you get in Lopburi?
Posted 2008-09-11 19:15:30
rixalex, on 2008-09-11 05:07:34, said: Lopburi99, on 2008-09-11 11:55:17, said: With the beautiful wood panel treatment, front grill chrome trim pieces, rear trunk chrome trim, rear parking sensor, and fog lamps my extras were a little over 20,000 baht.
So how much fog do you get in Lopburi?
 OK,OK,OK ... You're right, another stupid auto-related purchase by this free-spending auto lover! But Rix, they are sooo kewl looking !!! 
Posted 2008-09-11 19:25:45
Lopburi99, on 2008-09-11 19:15:30, said: rixalex, on 2008-09-11 05:07:34, said: Lopburi99, on 2008-09-11 11:55:17, said: With the beautiful wood panel treatment, front grill chrome trim pieces, rear trunk chrome trim, rear parking sensor, and fog lamps my extras were a little over 20,000 baht.
So how much fog do you get in Lopburi?
OK,OK,OK ... You're right, another stupid auto-related purchase by this free-spending auto lover! But Rix, they are sooo kewl looking !!!
LOL. Well at least you are honest!
I had a fog-lamp-fettish when i was a youngster too, but it faded just like my stick-on go-faster stripes!
Posted 2009-06-12 21:20:29
Update after 8 months of driving the 1.6:
The 1.6 is just fine. No regrets about not getting the 1.8. These are tiny little engines anyway, far smaller than the V6s and V8s I've had in my previous life. The 1.8 could have 20% or more power and I doubt if it would have made much of a difference to me. I like low end torque which only a V6 or V8 can deliver.
The engine is smooth and quiet. Acceleration is adequate, as are passing capabilities. Fuel economy is fabulous, a consistent 16-18 km/l on the road.
One note on the fuel however. One day we mistakedly filled with benzine instead of gasohol. I can truthfully say I did notice a difference. I bit more tourque and pep. But, I'd rather save the money so back to gasohol we went. FYI
One other thing. The car has had absolutely NO problems of any kind. And Detroit can't figure out why so many foreign cars are sold in the States?
Edited by Lopburi99, 2009-06-12 21:23:02.
Posted 2009-06-13 09:18:21
We've been driving a 1.8 for about 4 years with no issues and good power. Just ordered a new Altis with a 2.0 due for delivery the end of June.
Posted 2009-06-14 18:23:53
Plus, on 2008-09-07 10:00:36, said: We think 1.8 is thristy, but we have nothing to compare it to. The difference would be minimal.
Do they even sell 1.6 engine in Europe or the US. I think it's Asian spec only.
In US they sell 1.8 liter and 2.4 liter in the Altis. How can be thirsty with only 200 cubic more in compare with the 1.6? Gary is right, as underpowered cars use more gasoline then the ones with the bigger engine, because everytime you need to "floor" the pedal when you accelerating. This uses more fuel.
Posted 2009-06-14 18:38:23
stingray, on 2009-06-14 07:23:53, said: Plus, on 2008-09-07 10:00:36, said: We think 1.8 is thristy, but we have nothing to compare it to. The difference would be minimal.
Do they even sell 1.6 engine in Europe or the US. I think it's Asian spec only.
In US they sell 1.8 liter and 2.4 liter in the Altis. How can be thirsty with only 200 cubic more in compare with the 1.6? Gary is right, as underpowered cars use more gasoline then the ones with the bigger engine, because everytime you need to "floor" the pedal when you accelerating. This uses more fuel.
Yes, I believe sometimes this is correct. Perhaps if I'd bought the 1.8 my fuel economy would be the same or better. Smaller engines definitely use more fuel under certain load conditions. But now as an old fogey, I rarely use much pedal anymore anyway.
I only started this thread because I had/have minimal funds available and didn't want to spend more than necessary for my new car. Had I the money I used to have, I would have bought the largest engine available without hesitation. But in the case of the Altis, the 1.8 model was much more costly and came with options I really didn't want or need. I was worried about the 1.6 being underpowered and I am relieved this has proven out, in my case, not to be true.
Posted 2009-06-15 11:06:07
Have someone heard anything about the new 2.0L altis?
Is is good, or is it bad?
Posted 2009-06-15 11:28:24
Nothing so far.
There was a short intro in BP Motoring section a few weeks ago, they stressed that the engine was only 138 hp, less than any competitors.
Somehow I doubt Toyota would bother with building a new engine unless it performs better than Honda's.
My guess is that it is extremely quick in the city and lack of power manifests only over 180km/h, and it handles better, too, though probably not as well as Mazda or Ford.
|
Sponsored by ...
|
0
