before this gets banned from skunkslist : Toyota Runx Aero :-)

I don't have one but been researching into one for next year, it uses the 2ZZ engine 1800cc that develops 180bhp with either a 6 speed close ratio manual gearbox or 174 bhp with 4 speed auto. The engine is designed by toyota and yamaha. Some weeks ago, I managed to test an toyota altezza beams, whaaa! I think the Runx is nice compared to Toyota IST V V Ti though IST has a better interior and designed for economy. IST uses the 1NZE engine so 1500cc = 105bhp. Anyone with a RunX Aero with 2 ZZ engine, share some thots.... :-) -- Sign on my car is " L " plates : c#.net

How much are you sellingit? Any PICS I am tired of Motorbike On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM, aki <aki275@googlemail.com> wrote:
I don't have one but been researching into one for next year, it uses the 2ZZ engine 1800cc that develops 180bhp with either a 6 speed close ratio manual gearbox or 174 bhp with 4 speed auto. The engine is designed by toyota and yamaha. Some weeks ago, I managed to test an toyota altezza beams, whaaa! I think the Runx is nice compared to Toyota IST V V Ti though IST has a better interior and designed for economy. IST uses the 1NZE engine so 1500cc = 105bhp.
Anyone with a RunX Aero with 2 ZZ engine, share some thots.... :-)
-- Sign on my car is " L " plates : c#.net
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks Other services @ http://my.co.ke Other lists ------------- Announce: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks-announce Science: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/science kazi: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/admin/kazi/general

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM, aki <aki275@googlemail.com> wrote:
I don't have one but been researching into one for next year, it uses the 2ZZ engine 1800cc that develops 180bhp with either a 6 speed close ratio manual gearbox or 174 bhp with 4 speed auto. The engine is designed by toyota and yamaha. Some weeks ago, I managed to test an toyota altezza beams, whaaa! I think the Runx is nice compared to Toyota IST V V Ti though IST has a better interior and designed for economy. IST uses the 1NZE engine so 1500cc = 105bhp.
Anyone with a RunX Aero with 2 ZZ engine, share some thots.... :-)
Incidentally, I have the Fielder Z (ZZE123G) which shares the same engine (2ZZ-GE) with the RunX Aero. I have in my possession the 6 speed manual and the auto/tiptronic one. One of them needs to go to a willing buyer:-) I love the power I get from the car, much more the control I get with the 6 speed manual but tell you what? I hate the interior!! Having tested a friend's NZE, I love the comfort you get inside the NZE. ZZE is more like a sports car. I hate the shiftmatic system (the buttons on the steering) because it forces you to hold the steering with hands if you changed to "manual" mode. -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "If you have nothing good to say about someone, just shut up!." -- Lucky Dube

Top Gear - brought to you by Skunkworks :) I have always wondered what benefits one gets of EFI vs VVTi -I tried to research one day if the engine capacity does correlate to the fuel consumption but came up with naught... -I found out that there are more factors to consider [like efficiency] which could make a 3 litre engine consume the same fuel as the 2 litre engine over 100km.
case and point the comparison of RAV4 2008/09 vs RAV4 2003/4 vs RAV4 2001/2
-Does anyone mind to illuminate ? How would one identify a fuel cost effective vehicle by looking at consumption per x km/h ?

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:38 PM, ndungu stephen<ndungustephen@gmail.com> wrote:
Top Gear - brought to you by Skunkworks :)
I have always wondered what benefits one gets of EFI vs VVTi
These are two totally different things, so you're not comparing like for like. An EFI engine may or may not have VVT, a VVT engine may or may not be EFI. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injection and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_valve_timing to better understand the two and how they affect performance/economy.
-I tried to research one day if the engine capacity does correlate to the fuel consumption but came up with naught...
At a basic level, it does...
-I found out that there are more factors to consider [like efficiency] which could make a 3 litre engine consume the same fuel as the 2 litre engine over 100km.
case and point the comparison of RAV4 2008/09 vs RAV4 2003/4 vs RAV4 2001/2
True.
-Does anyone mind to illuminate ? How would one identify a fuel cost effective vehicle by looking at consumption per x km/h ?
Just by looking at the numbers. For example, a vehicle that will give you 100km for 10 litres of fuel is more economical/cost effective than that which gives you 80km for the same amount of fuel, under the same driving conditions. BR, S

@ Steve Yes, thanks for the info.. though on the last question - what pointers or calculations would you use to identify that a vehicle is fuel cost economical ? Take for example, you are shopping to import a car on a japanese website - and you are comparing an old RAV4 model 2001-2005 that has 2 litre engine VS a latter generation model that has 2.4 litre engine [both are 4 cylinders] To take it further - logically, one would assume that as the years go by, the fuel economy is increasing as research puts forth more powerful vehicle for the same amount of fuel... But the latest models are now using 2.5 litre engines.... going higher, but consuming more or less ? I would also assume that a model permanently on 4 wheel consumes more that the one you can switch btn 2 and 4 wheel - But what about a manual vs automatic gear drive ? One would assume that automatic gears should be more fuel cost efficient because - well, they are automatic, they are supposed to know what they are doing -- but ooh no, this is sadly not the case.

Yes, thanks for the info.. though on the last question - what pointers or calculations would you use to identify that a vehicle is fuel cost economical ? Take for example, you are shopping to import a car on a japanese website - and you are comparing an old RAV4 model 2001-2005 that has 2 litre engine VS a latter generation model that has 2.4 litre engine [both are 4 cylinders]
I would get the technical specs of the engines - they usually have the details of the engine power & torque, and even fuel consumption.
I would also assume that a model permanently on 4 wheel consumes more that the one you can switch btn 2 and 4 wheel -
I think so too
But what about a manual vs automatic gear drive ? One would assume that automatic gears should be more fuel cost efficient because - well, they are automatic, they are supposed to know what they are doing -- but ooh no, this is sadly not the case.
Tech specs again - imply that manual would give u more fuel efficiency. I think this is also very dependant on the person behind the wheel... -- Josiah Mugambi On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, ndungu stephen <ndungustephen@gmail.com>wrote:
@ Steve
Yes, thanks for the info.. though on the last question - what pointers or calculations would you use to identify that a vehicle is fuel cost economical ?
Take for example, you are shopping to import a car on a japanese website - and you are comparing an old RAV4 model 2001-2005 that has 2 litre engine VS a latter generation model that has 2.4 litre engine [both are 4 cylinders]
To take it further - logically, one would assume that as the years go by, the fuel economy is increasing as research puts forth more powerful vehicle for the same amount of fuel...
But the latest models are now using 2.5 litre engines.... going higher, but consuming more or less ?
I would also assume that a model permanently on 4 wheel consumes more that the one you can switch btn 2 and 4 wheel -
But what about a manual vs automatic gear drive ? One would assume that automatic gears should be more fuel cost efficient because - well, they are automatic, they are supposed to know what they are doing -- but ooh no, this is sadly not the case.
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks Other services @ http://my.co.ke Other lists ------------- Announce: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks-announce Science: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/science kazi: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/admin/kazi/general

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Josiah Mugambi<jmugambi@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, thanks for the info.. though on the last question - what pointers or calculations would you use to identify that a vehicle is fuel cost economical ? Take for example, you are shopping to import a car on a japanese website - and you are comparing an old RAV4 model 2001-2005 that has 2 litre engine VS a latter generation model that has 2.4 litre engine [both are 4 cylinders]
I would get the technical specs of the engines - they usually have the details of the engine power & torque, and even fuel consumption.
Josiah's right - read the spec sheets. Thoroughly. Including the fine print, if any.
I would also assume that a model permanently on 4 wheel consumes more that the one you can switch btn 2 and 4 wheel -
I think so too
No, not IMHO. On some models that are designed to run all-wheel drive, the opposite is true - because, like mentioned before, they're specifically designed to run all-wheel drive, with mechanisms like dynamic torque-split managing where the power gets sent to depending on speed, cornering or straight, surface (eg gravel) etc. I once tried disabling AWD to see if I'd get better economy and found it was actually worse because I was driving the car harder, in order to get the same performance on 2WD. Plus it was a compromise on safety.
But what about a manual vs automatic gear drive ? One would assume that automatic gears should be more fuel cost efficient because - well, they are automatic, they are supposed to know what they are doing -- but ooh no, this is sadly not the case. Tech specs again - imply that manual would give u more fuel efficiency. I think this is also very dependant on the person behind the wheel...
Again, specs. Manual totally depends on the person behind the wheel. Auto also does, to some extent - the gearbox does what you tell it to do. Slam down hard on the gas pedal and keep your lead foot there - and it won't shift like it would if you hadn't. Some advanced auto gearboxes have great features that can help you save fuel. For example: Subaru GT Spec B auto trans has these features: Mode 1 (full auto) is great for town driving, heavy traffic etc. Not good for highways where you have to keep slowing down then accelerating to some high speeds. Mode 2 is manual (tiptronic/sportshift) gives you control over upshift during acceleration, so you can hold higher gears when overtaking without shifting down when you don't really need the kick. Great economy on the highway. Mode 3 (power/sport mode) holds gears longer before shifting up, and shifts down dramatically when you brake, giving you a total sports car feel without having to go manual. Terrible for your wallet. It also features Hold mode, a combination of Mode 1/2 above that's meant for driving in snow/mud. Use this the wrong way and you mess up the trans/diff. Of the three, Mode 2 can be the most economical, as long as you remember to shift up early and don't over-rev. Then again, if you're not aware what your trans is capable of, either you'll never make use of the features.....or you could screw up something. Specs, specs, RTFM, and you'll get your math right. BR, S

wow - thanks - that clarifies a lot.

@Ndungu : Steve and Josiah have raised good points. For economy tests, look for urban stop-go cycles that the manufacturer uses to rate it. Some economy driving tips on autos: Never floor the throttle, maintain engine revs as low as possible as the gears change based on road resistance. If you have a turbo engine, maintain revs below 2500rpm as the turbo picks at these revs and more fuel is injected to prevent meltdown. On highways, keep average speed at around 105kms, this gives 5 gear 2000rpm on most. If you have twin turbo, economy is not an option. Steve mentioned about Subaru GT/B. The B stands for Bilstein which means the suspensions were uprated by Bilstein Company. Thus such a car out of the showrrom is already GT standards. AWD cars consume more than FWD or RWD ones and maintainence is more. Look for a vehicle that allows disengagment of the setup. I tested a Nissan X Trail, lovely car it is and I think the best in its SUV class, has this electronic option. I particularly liked the Xtrail over Rav 4 because it is the only SUV that has 4 disc brakes, and X Trail has what other no car I've seen so far. In the dashboard, there are two slotted panels and you can drop your tin can drink like Red bull, tusker etc into them and switch on the AC. It will cool the drinks for you..... Tyres sizes are important and affect fuel economy. bigger tyres less economy and more wear/tear on ball joints, suspensions. Fitting those nasty oversize spacers to raise the car is another bad thing, affect the centre of gravity of the car. On softer suspensions, create more body roll and dangerious. I see some toyota saloons looking like 4WD cars but the life of such is not more than 3 years before they become. Finally, if looking for extreme power, find 100 octane fuel ( wilson airport or rally people ) but dont push the engine as competition specs. I can tell you I've created a punch pack using 100 octane with 114 Nitro octane booster and the valves gave up in less than 2000kms of engine life. Its great but comes at a cost. If you want extreme power, start with an extreme engine that was designed to be pushed. Rgds.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:21 AM, aki<aki275@googlemail.com> wrote: [...]
If you have twin turbo, economy is not an option.
Depends on your ECU mapping. You can detune, performance drops just a bit, but get more miles for your gas.
Steve mentioned about Subaru GT/B. The B stands for Bilstein which means the suspensions were uprated by Bilstein Company. Thus such a car out of the showrrom is already GT standards.
Not all GT/B's have the transmission I described - that one belongs to the GT/B E-Tune II, forgot to mention that. BR, S

Im impressed by what Ive learnt about cars right here.....i guess this one is not getting banned. On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Steve Muchai <smuchai@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:21 AM, aki<aki275@googlemail.com> wrote: [...]
If you have twin turbo, economy is not an option.
Depends on your ECU mapping. You can detune, performance drops just a bit, but get more miles for your gas.
Steve mentioned about Subaru GT/B. The B stands for Bilstein which means the suspensions were uprated by Bilstein Company. Thus such a car out of the showrrom is already GT standards.
Not all GT/B's have the transmission I described - that one belongs to the GT/B E-Tune II, forgot to mention that.
BR, S _______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks Other services @ http://my.co.ke Other lists ------------- Announce: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks-announce Science: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/science kazi: http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/admin/kazi/general
-- Sent from my Voice Recognition Watch© -------------------------------------------------------------------- God is not an excuse for lack of discipline -------------------------------------------------------------------- Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate,but that we are powerful beyond measure.It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us.There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.As we let our own light shine, we consciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our fear,our presence automatically liberates others.

@Steve, si we should one day start blending our own fuels? Skunks-Nitro! lol... :-) -- Sign on my car is " L " plates : c#.net

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:25 AM, aki <aki275@googlemail.com> wrote:
@Steve, si we should one day start blending our own fuels? Skunks-Nitro! lol... :-)
Anyone experimenting with bio-fuels? Done some tinkering with gasohol. Surprisingly, the entire kit, to distill 3 odd litres of alcohol, yeast and sugar included was under 4k. Amazing. The experiment was moderately successful. However, there is no point as MBTE is already included in our fuels locally if I'm not wrong :( -- With Regards, Phares Kariuki | T: +254 734 810 802 | E: pkariuki@gmail.com | Twitter: kaboro | Skype: kariukiphares |

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Phares Kariuki<pkariuki@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone experimenting with bio-fuels? Done some tinkering with gasohol. Surprisingly, the entire kit, to distill 3 odd litres of alcohol, yeast and sugar included was under 4k. Amazing. The experiment was moderately successful. However, there is no point as MBTE is already included in our fuels locally if I'm not wrong :(
I'd love to.... I saw some newspaper article then on TV, some place in Nyeri I think, matatus are already running on bio-diesel. Can't recall where, but was mighty interested. BR, S

I saw this on CNN a couple of days ago : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrRhj797jHo That is - the first [complete] hydrogen powered car = which would mean Fuel Cell = which would mean, if improved, it could run on *pure water*. == I wish we could fast forward to the day they mass produce such inventions so that we can have alternate solutions and stop relying on oil cartel monopolies. w/r
participants (8)
-
aki
-
Joram Mwinamo
-
Josiah Mugambi
-
mike oketch
-
ndungu stephen
-
Odhiambo ワシントン
-
Phares Kariuki
-
Steve Muchai