FC for lancer?

• crimson soldier

  4 Mar 07, 21:14

  The fc for auto lancer is way higher than manual lancer?
• Mitsubishi hater

  5 Mar 07, 12:21

  CVT might not
• Ah Cek

  5 Mar 07, 13:11

  i think it applies to all car. all auto cars hv higher FC than manual car.
• ecac

  5 Mar 07, 17:40

  Originally posted by Ah Cek:

  i think it applies to all car. all auto cars hv higher FC than manual car.

  Wrong. A manual Colt Version R has higher FC then the CVT version.
  
  CVT version can maintain 1900RPM at 100KM/H
  Manual abt 2500 at 100KM/H
• Mitsubishi hater

  7 Mar 07, 02:51

  Originally posted by ecac:

  Wrong. A manual Colt Version R has higher FC then the CVT version.
  
  CVT version can maintain 1900RPM at 100KM/H
  Manual abt 2500 at 100KM/H

  noted
• soulwinner

  7 Mar 07, 02:56

  Not sure/.....
• sir_boris

  8 Mar 07, 01:49

  With exceptions, most auto have higher fc den manual.
  
  

  Originally posted by ecac:

  Wrong. A manual Colt Version R has higher FC then the CVT version.
  
  CVT version can maintain 1900RPM at 100KM/H
  Manual abt 2500 at 100KM/H

• Troy437

  16 Mar 07, 02:12

  My Bro-in-law drives a manaul Lancer while I drive an auto. His is 8 months old and mine is 2 months old.
  His FC is 12 km per litre, mine is 10 km per litre. But for my car there is quite a bit of waiting time for ppl while engine is idling, and its air con on all e way when driving from 11 to 8 pm.
• alleggerita

  16 Mar 07, 13:16

  Originally posted by ecac:

  Wrong. A manual Colt Version R has higher FC then the CVT version.
  
  CVT version can maintain 1900RPM at 100KM/H
  Manual abt 2500 at 100KM/H

  You are the one who's wrong I think? Haha..they are talking about the Lancer here..so why are you talking about the Colt? LOL..
• Ah Cek

  16 Mar 07, 13:27

  Originally posted by alleggerita:

  You are the one who's wrong I think? Haha..they are talking about the Lancer here..so why are you talking about the Colt? LOL..

  haha. still mitsubishi la.
• Ah Cek

  16 Mar 07, 13:30

  Originally posted by Troy437:

  My Bro-in-law drives a manaul Lancer while I drive an auto. His is 8 months old and mine is 2 months old.
  His FC is 12 km per litre, mine is 10 km per litre. But for my car there is quite a bit of waiting time for ppl while engine is idling, and its air con on all e way when driving from 11 to 8 pm.

  ya, age of car, driving habits, road conditions (rural/urban), etc all play a part
• n0x

  16 Mar 07, 21:14

  Originally posted by alleggerita:

  You are the one who's wrong I think? Haha..they are talking about the Lancer here..so why are you talking about the Colt? LOL..

  NO you are the one having comprehension problem....
  obviously he is attacking the quoted statement and not the topic
• ditzy

  16 Mar 07, 21:41

  My ex colleague drove an auto lancer, about a year old, fc about 11-12, best rare occasions he got 13. Yes, with cvt.
• imprezaWRXSTi22B

  17 Mar 07, 15:52

  Originally posted by ecac:

  Wrong. A manual Colt Version R has higher FC then the CVT version.
  
  CVT version can maintain 1900RPM at 100KM/H
  Manual abt 2500 at 100KM/H

  i tot all manuals have higher rpm at 100km/h vs autos? so all autos have better fc?
• skywalker73

  18 Mar 07, 22:28

  Originally posted by ecac:

  Wrong. A manual Colt Version R has higher FC then the CVT version.
  
  CVT version can maintain 1900RPM at 100KM/H
  Manual abt 2500 at 100KM/H

  That depends... lower RPM does not necessarily means lower FC... cuz auto or CVT cars inherently suffer from more transmission losses compared to manuals.
  
  
• surpize

  19 Mar 07, 23:33

  hi... me manage to clock average of 12km per L on my auto ride...
• lancer_79

  21 Mar 07, 11:13

  Originally posted by crimson soldier:

  The fc for auto lancer is way higher than manual lancer?

  Wrong. A manual lancer has higher FC then the CVT version.
  
  CVT version can maintain 2200RPM at 100KM/H
  Manual abt 2800RPM at 100KM/H
• snorezzz

  21 Mar 07, 15:13

  CVT engine suks man, no power one..
  
  ppl who drive b4 the old lancer (98' model) will notice the diff from the new one
• Ah Cek

  21 Mar 07, 15:15

  Originally posted by snorezzz:

  CVT engine suks man, no power one..
  
  ppl who drive b4 the old lancer (98' model) will notice the diff from the new one

  u r right. CVT engine is not meant for pple who wans power.
• n0x

  21 Mar 07, 15:22

  pls dun blind lead the blind pls... cvt describes the type of transmission... not the engine...
  
  and cvt doesnt mean no power... pls go read up more b4 making any comments based on ur individual warp judgement
• payne

  23 Mar 07, 12:05

  Manual transmission cars are more fuel efficient than automatic cars. I am driving a manual car.
• Mitsubishi hater

  25 Mar 07, 00:48

  Originally posted by n0x:
  pls dun blind lead the blind pls... cvt describes the type of transmission... not the engine...
  
  and [b]cvt doesnt mean no power... pls go read up more b4 making any comments based on ur individual warp judgement [/b]

  CVT gear factor is lower at 1 speed. as compare to manual.
• n0x

  25 Mar 07, 03:50

  Originally posted by Mitsubishi hater:

  CVT gear factor is lower at 1 speed. as compare to manual.

  i dun understand ur english.....
  
  can explain the above highlighted phrase....
• Troy437

  26 Mar 07, 02:17

  I drive a Lancer CVT 06 model.
  The power is just fine with me. None of my passengers have complains.
  Wan more power? Pump V-power lor. Better pick up..but need more braking to stop at higher speeds.