Lexus for Lawyers and Toyota C-HR for Human Resource ppl

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Lexus for Lawyers and Toyota C-HR for Human Resource ppl

RUKI

1405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422

#214924 2-Jun-2017 23:36

1994. USA. Friend of my friend proudly shows me his new Lexus.

- "Do you know what "L" symbol stands for?", he asks...

- "L" for Lawyer (he actually was one)

Today I saw new Toyota C-HR SUV and remembered that Lawyer.

I guess Toyota made perfect car for Human Resource Executives - i.e. See HR (C-HR) :-)

1 | 2

18672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7807

Lifetime subscriber

#1794046 2-Jun-2017 23:41

Is it a RAV4 replacement? Original styling. It's nice to see something a bit new looking.

Scott3

4176 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1794050 3-Jun-2017 00:04

It's smaller than the current rav-4.

Hatchback sized SUV's seem to be all the rage at the moment...

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1794277 3-Jun-2017 17:19

It is very similar to the mazda cx3. Although the reviews say the the back seating is terrible , due to tiny little highup windows making it feel very claustrophobic. The Rav4 is more similar to the cx5 .

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#1794352 3-Jun-2017 20:37

If the lawyer friend of Ruki in the original post had owned a Bentley instead of a Lexus, I wonder what the B on the bonnet would have stood for? ;-)

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

RUKI

1405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422

#1794357 3-Jun-2017 21:07

Dingbatt: If the lawyer friend of Ruki in the original post had owned a Bentley instead of a Lexus, I wonder what the B on the bonnet would have stood for? ;-)

"B" opens huge list for suggestions, I guess, e.g. "Brain", "Big", "Billionaire", "Butler", the list is endless...

Dunnersfella

4100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887

#1794359 3-Jun-2017 21:10

Dingbatt: If the lawyer friend of Ruki in the original post had owned a Bentley instead of a Lexus, I wonder what the B on the bonnet would have stood for? ;-)

1.2L petrol engine?

No...I believe I will pass.

Compared to a 2L Mazda CX-3...

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

RUKI

1405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422

#1794576 4-Jun-2017 15:53

Noticed one C-HR at Toyota in Greenlane today. In green color it does not stand out...

Scott3

4176 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1794673 4-Jun-2017 22:29

Dunnersfella:

1.2L petrol engine?

No...I believe I will pass.

Compared to a 2L Mazda CX-3...

It's turbocharged, and makes 85kW peak power and 185Nm of torque (from 1500rpm). More than enough to move a small car.

I don't think the kind of buyer who cares about performance will be shopping for a $38k+ (or $40k+ for the AWD) hatchback sized suv. Plenty of cheaper, faster hatchbacks / sedans on the market.

That said a turbo, direct injection engine is quite a complex bit of machinery, will be interesting to see if they have typical toyota reliability. Direct injection petrols generally have nasty (diesel like) emission profiles.

I am also surprised that toyota NZ has specified an engine which they recommended 95+ RON octane for. 95 often carries quite a price premium in NZ for some reason.

lxsw20

3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2174

Subscriber

#1794719 5-Jun-2017 00:44

You won't find much on the market now days that isn't direct injection. It's way more efficient, fuel delivery wise. Lower displacement force induction seems to be the way things are going. That being the case, it will have a high compression ratio, hence the need for 95.

I'd be interested if you have any links/info on why direct injection causes more emissions?

nzkiwiman

2585 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 390

Subscriber

#1795176 6-Jun-2017 10:33

Seen a few of these around Dunedin over the weekend; like all of these hatchback SUV crossover things, they are ugly (I own a Mazda3 and can't stand the CX-3)

Scott3

4176 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1795346 6-Jun-2017 13:07

lxsw20:
You won't find much on the market now days that isn't direct injection. It's way more efficient, fuel delivery wise. Lower displacement force induction seems to be the way things are going. That being the case, it will have a high compression ratio, hence the need for 95.

I'd be interested if you have any links/info on why direct injection causes more emissions?

Pleanty of non direct injection alternitives still available in this segment. For example maxda cx3, ford ecosport.

Direct injection engines are becoming more popular, and undeniabley are more fuel effichent than conventional equliverlents.

From wikipedia:

In 2013, a research by TÜV NORD found that although gasoline direct injection engines dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, they release about 1,000 times more particles classified by the World Health Organization as harmful than traditional petrol engines and 10 times more than new diesel engines. The release happens because direct injection results in uneven burning of fuel due to uneven mixing of fuel and air (stratification) and because direct injection engines operate with a higher pressure in their cylinders than the older engines.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#1795438 6-Jun-2017 15:43

I am by no means an expert on emissions, but I've read that higher compression engines (direct injected petrol's and diesels) make more nitrogen oxides. They get better economy, running hotter, leaner mixtures, but the trade-off of higher combustion temps is nitrogen oxide.

This isn't an issue in a windy, island country like NZ, more so in big truly congested cities where it turns the sky brown and the rain to acid.

I personally wouldn't spend money on a fake SUV or anything with 1200cc's and four wheels.

Scott3

4176 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1796308 7-Jun-2017 23:38

tripper1000:

I am by no means an expert on emissions, but I've read that higher compression engines (direct injected petrol's and diesels) make more nitrogen oxides. They get better economy, running hotter, leaner mixtures, but the trade-off of higher combustion temps is nitrogen oxide.

This isn't an issue in a windy, island country like NZ, more so in big truly congested cities where it turns the sky brown and the rain to acid.

I personally wouldn't spend money on a fake SUV or anything with 1200cc's and four wheels.

Direct injection in petrol engines more efficient, a little more powerful, and produce a lot more torque at low RPM's (more diesel like torque charastics). The latter is particularly good for drivability.

In terms of emissions, they do produce more smog causing fumes, but the main issue is fine particulates definitely are an issue (same as diesel particulates, they small enough to enter the bloodstream through the lungs)

I'm not a fan of the mini suv's (except decent off roading ones like the Suzuki Jimny :).

Will be interesting to see how the engine choice goes down with the target demographic.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1796350 8-Jun-2017 08:30

85kW is not a lot considering the 1500kg kerb weight.

I bet it's sluggish.

Mike

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#1796352 8-Jun-2017 08:41

MikeAqua:

85kW is not a lot considering the 1500kg kerb weight.

I bet it's sluggish.

That weight will wear a light weight 1.2L turbo engine out pretty fast!
Are we back to 7500KM service intervals :P?

Also the reason they need 95+ RON is due to a higher compression and to reduce knock as it will be running a truckload of boost.
IF you run it on 91 it will most likely run really really bad or in a "limp mode"

1 | 2