Kia Forte vs Lancer Ex

[Kiasi]

Was driving a lancer glx 1.6m with 15in tires . It was a great car . Lets you push it around with a good mid range torque. Loads of body roll . Last minute biting brakes . Lots of after market stuff for it . Aircon is super cold - spits out icicles . Good steering feel .

 

Now I drive a Cerato Forte 1.6M SX with 17in tires. 6500 km clocked . Practically doesn't move before 3000 rpm on 2nd gear . Torque seem to be from 3rd . Less smooth as it stutters at 2nd . Controlled body roll , has EPS and ABS . Progressive brakes . Can't find aftermarket stuff for it . Mild aircon - cools after you have reached your destination . Indifferent steering , no feel , light at speed and struggle to keep a line on rough tarmac ( this could be because of the original tires ). Otherwise , a solid body ( ran into a new civic's back and its rear collapsed against minor scratches on the kias front bonnet.) The comes -with skirting comes apart whenever the car runs aground on a higher curb.

 

They both have the same 0-100 times . DOHC 124 ps on the kia but is proportionate heavier .

 

Have to drive like a sissy now till I change shocks , tires and whatever .

Hopefully more after market stuff available for it ( Dealers take note )

 

 

[Majordan]

i tested EX 2L.. the engine got this really weird sound which i find very turn off / wannabe... also, the body is just too heavy even at 2L. i only test drive at Leng Kee so never go 120km/h

 

but it looks nice on the outside altho the ultimate put off factor for me is.... so bloody common on the road!

[Altivo]

i tested EX 2L.. the engine got this really weird sound which i find very turn off / wannabe... also, the body is just too heavy even at 2L. i only test drive at Leng Kee so never go 120km/h

 

but it looks nice on the outside altho the ultimate put off factor for me is.... so bloody common on the road!

 

i feel the sore point is the CVT.

[JaydenSTI]

It is a number. Doesnt mean it is powerful than EX 1.5

 

 

went for a test drove 3 years ago on the EX 1.5, after turn out from leng kee to alexadra, i floored the accelerator, all sudden i heard a EXTREMELY loud exhaust sound around that made me look around for some exotic marque, but i dun see any..... not able to locate the exotic car, felt weird, lifted off the throttle, the EXTREMELY loud exhaust sound disappeared, felt even weird, floored again, only then i realized that i was actually driving the "exotic marque" that i heard awhile ago without the car chionging forward..............

 

u turn back to showroom and say bye bye to SE.... when to honda and booked my old ride on the same day.

[Jay1980]

went for a test drove 3 years ago on the EX 1.5, after turn out from leng kee to alexadra, i floored the accelerator, all sudden i heard a EXTREMELY loud exhaust sound around that made me look around for some exotic marque, but i dun see any..... not able to locate the exotic car, felt weird, lifted off the throttle, the EXTREMELY loud exhaust sound disappeared, felt even weird, floored again, only then i realized that i was actually driving the "exotic marque" that i heard awhile ago without the car chionging forward..............

 

u turn back to showroom and say bye bye to SE.... when to honda and booked my old ride on the same day.

 

Hmmmzz, maybe different ppl have diff taste, i went to test the EX 1.5 a few years back, i actually find the trottle response quite good at 2nd gear and above, althought a bit slow in moving off when in gear 1.

 

Dunnoe is because my butt got problem anot, i actually find the EX 1.5 response faster then the forte 1.6 SX that time. Althought paper spec, forte is much better then EX

 

Anyway, just for information for you guys, Lancer Ex 1.5 is weight at 1200++kg while forte is weight at 1300kg++, so the forte might not be better in term of power to weight ratio.

[JaydenSTI]

Hmmmzz, maybe different ppl have diff taste, i went to test the EX 1.5 a few years back, i actually find the trottle response quite good at 2nd gear and above, althought a bit slow in moving off when in gear 1.

 

Dunnoe is because my butt got problem anot, i actually find the EX 1.5 response faster then the forte 1.6 SX that time. Althought paper spec, forte is much better then EX

 

Anyway, just for information for you guys, Lancer Ex 1.5 is weight at 1200++kg while forte is weight at 1300kg++, so the forte might not be better in term of power to weight ratio.

 

 

have not test drive the forte before thus cant really make any comparison. probably will go down one day to try out!!!!

[Swordwind]

driving the new mazda 3 for a year already, i do agree that the mazda 3 can be slightly underpowered relatively, but i don't think there will be significant difference with other 1.6l car with similar body weight. however, i must say tt e old mazda 3 sp is quite bad, even if you step on the accelerator fully, you still will move off slowly at almost linear acceleration. but for the new mazda 3, the question shd be emphasized on, how fast are you willing to go? ultimately, don't expect the new mazda 3 (including the 1.6l forte & the 1.5l EX) to fly when you only allow 2k rpm la..haha

 

and when ppl say manual is more powerful, does it actually mean that you can get good acceleration by changing gear at 2k too? from my pov, manual cars simply encourage ravving of the engine, and i believe one will easily hit 3k rpm or even 4k when you drag e gear for just a little while longer before upshifting. which is also what i've been doing with my mazda 3 all these while. so, pick up fast or slow is only a matter of choice. even a cvt 1.5l latio when pushed to 3-4k rpm, can move off pretty nimbly.

 

and my fc is pretty standard at 10km/l with 60% highway. maybe those driving forte and ex can shed some light on your fc with similar driving patterns? but personally i don't think it will be too much a difference.

 

and frankly too, not too bad a thing for many to have these misunderstandings on the mazda 3 so far also, if not how to enjoy the exclusiveness mazda 3 owners have been getting (for this, maybe is just me..haha) + the relatively low premium mazda motor is charging for the car?

 

also, comparing a 2.0l with a 1.6l car is easy talk, of cos the 2.0l is better. but when one has to exercise the option finally, most of us here have a budget, and hence will think twice. me too, was quite tempted to change to the 2.0l mazda 3 or even the 6. however, if you include the increase in road tax + insurance + petrol (depends on engine efficiency betw the two), it can add up substantially. but of cos, if you have the budget, you wont even have ask for advice in the first place. : )

 

 

[Heartbreakid]

"and when ppl say manual is more powerful, does it actually mean that you can get good acceleration by changing gear at 2k too? from my pov, manual cars simply encourage ravving of the engine, and i believe one will easily hit 3k rpm or even 4k when you drag e gear for just a little while longer before upshifting. which is also what i've been doing with my mazda 3 all these while. so, pick up fast or slow is only a matter of choice. even a cvt 1.5l latio when pushed to 3-4k rpm, can move off pretty nimbly. "

 

 

Actually, not to say manual are powerful, they are usually more responsive (other than dual clutch) even with the same engine capacity, because of it's much more direct connection from the engine to the transmission. Even if changing gears are 2k rpm, manual will have better response. Any transmission, yes, revving at 3 to 4k rpm, will have the power, but it is the pace at which the power is delivered, manual still have an edge over power delivery, in other words response, compared to CVT and auto, other than dual clutch gearbox.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Heartbreakid

[Swordwind]

hmmm..ok, definitely true. if talking abt response, yeap, there is definitely a lag when you are in the auto mode for the mazda 3. haven't test the forte and the EX tt much to comment on them.

 

but if that's e concern, mazda 3 has the activematic gear option that can settle this "issue". u can choose to shift up and down as and when u like it. it's pretty instantaneous, except for times whereby you rave till very high, then u upshift, there will be a time lag.. personal experience.. :P

[Vangaat]

driving the new mazda 3 for a year already, i do agree that the mazda 3 can be slightly underpowered relatively, but i don't think there will be significant difference with other 1.6l car with similar body weight. however, i must say tt e old mazda 3 sp is quite bad, even if you step on the accelerator fully, you still will move off slowly at almost linear acceleration. but for the new mazda 3, the question shd be emphasized on, how fast are you willing to go? ultimately, don't expect the new mazda 3 (including the 1.6l forte & the 1.5l EX) to fly when you only allow 2k rpm la..haha

 

and when ppl say manual is more powerful, does it actually mean that you can get good acceleration by changing gear at 2k too? from my pov, manual cars simply encourage ravving of the engine, and i believe one will easily hit 3k rpm or even 4k when you drag e gear for just a little while longer before upshifting. which is also what i've been doing with my mazda 3 all these while. so, pick up fast or slow is only a matter of choice. even a cvt 1.5l latio when pushed to 3-4k rpm, can move off pretty nimbly.

 

and my fc is pretty standard at 10km/l with 60% highway. maybe those driving forte and ex can shed some light on your fc with similar driving patterns? but personally i don't think it will be too much a difference.

 

and frankly too, not too bad a thing for many to have these misunderstandings on the mazda 3 so far also, if not how to enjoy the exclusiveness mazda 3 owners have been getting (for this, maybe is just me..haha) + the relatively low premium mazda motor is charging for the car?

 

also, comparing a 2.0l with a 1.6l car is easy talk, of cos the 2.0l is better. but when one has to exercise the option finally, most of us here have a budget, and hence will think twice. me too, was quite tempted to change to the 2.0l mazda 3 or even the 6. however, if you include the increase in road tax + insurance + petrol (depends on engine efficiency betw the two), it can add up substantially. but of cos, if you have the budget, you wont even have ask for advice in the first place. : )

 

+1 for New Mazda 3

[CMS]

Kia is better than Lancer EX.. EX FC is bad

[Timex1441]

Kia is better than Lancer EX.. EX FC is bad

rubbish....14.2 km/l vs 14.4 km/l (manufacturer data as displayed on sgcarmart) is practically the same!

[Picanto]

rubbish....14.2 km/l vs 14.4 km/l (manufacturer data as displayed on sgcarmart) is practically the same!

 

mfg quoted FC cannot be achieved in spore type of traffic

[Timex1441]

mfg quoted FC cannot be achieved in spore type of traffic

i know, i know.....but for comparison sake, it still can tell us tat the FC of the 2 cars r similar, rite?

[Expertz]

mfg quoted FC cannot be achieved in spore type of traffic

 

its around there, minus 1km/l for smaller cars and 1.5 - 2km/l for bigger cars and you'll get the correct figure

assuming you drive normally and not tailgate + heavy accelerate all the time

[Expertz]

i've tested both cars before, tested the lancer ex more

 

my impression is that the lancer ex gives the better drive, the engine sound is unbeatable - from the second you start the engine till cruzing and gear change during heavy acceleration

under heavy acceleration when gear changes happen you'll hear a sound similar to turbo, there's a distinctive tsk sound from the engine

also because the engine is small, it requires higher rev to reach higher speeds, thus the sound from the engine is always going to be far better than cars with larger cc, unless you are the type who loves a quiet engine (the kia has a quiet engine, so quiet sometimes you won't know if the engine is running or not)

the forte only sounds when its pushed hard but the engine doesn't sound anything nice, infact it sounds very stressed but under normal driving conditions the sound is just right

 

the lancer also has several smart features,

- your wipers wipe faster when you travel faster

- the signal lights require a slight tap and it'll flick 3x, perfect for lane changes

 

 

however the lancer has a horrible interior, the seats are fabric, the dashboard is full of lousy quality plastics, the door panels are all plastic + fabric, feels horrible to be sitting inside the lancer

also the radio and aircon controls are hard to understand and the large dials are clunky and lack appeal

 

 

the forte has a superb interior, the radio comes with thumbdrive and ipod connectivity, the red colors match the black dashboard

the plastics used are nicer, the car is roomier, the engine is more powerful

it just feels roomier inside the forte

 

 

i guess it boils down to what you want, the forte feels better to be in but the lancer gives a better drive

both have terrible suspensions, on the lancer i didn't feel the rear suspension much but my passangers complained a whole lot

on the forte i felt the rear suspension while going thru humps but my passengers didn't complain as much

so i don't know which is worst but both are not good

 

[Expertz]

to add on, the lancer is most definitely slower than the forte by quite a fair bit but it doesn't feel slow at all because of the engine growl

you'll fall in love with the way the engine sounds!

it might not be a bad thing driving a slower vehicle because it means you get to floor your accelerator more often even for very short distances like in carparks

 

also because your engine is small, flooring your accelerator doesn't cost as much, after constant acceleration my meter only showed 10 l/100km which translates to 10km/l at worst case scenario plus the car was still running in

probably after run in + upgrade to synthetic oil, it might hit 11km/l at worst case

i'm pretty certain the forte will not be able to beat such figures

 

btw, my accord does 11km/l with normal driving, if i accelerated at the speeds i reached with the lancer i'll get only 9km/l

my gf floors her integra very often and she sometimes gets only 8km/l

 

so there are benefits of having a smaller engine

 

[Expertz]

btw,

0 - 100km timings:

 

forte 11s

lancer 12s++ (i only managed to reach 90km/h++ before the road ended)

both auto

 

lancer ex 2L gt is 10.5s (after mod 8s, not sure what mods though)

accord 2L is 10.5s

integra 2L is 9s (not type r)

 

all tested stock