T&T OFFICIAL New Vehicle Prices & Discussion Thread

[NorStar2K]

When I done I paying 465k for a CRV Classic name suits them

You can't look at it that way. Anything bought via a loan/hire purchase will have interest added on annually for the term of the loan.

That's like complaining that your $750k home ended up costing you over $2MM at the end of your 20-25 year mortgage.

[Stephon.]

This is why I say never go in with 10% for your down-payment, pay 20% for the least but I recommend 50% or more. Save yuh damn money on yuh own damn terms

Look ECU giving 90% financing for RORO vehicles now

[scotty_buttons]

the 2012 xtrail facelift?? it looks almost the same to me..except the lights, don't see any other significant changes..it still fugly... and the interior looks like a tweaked up interior of a March

[tiger balm]

What's the difference between the new xtrails and the classic? I tried getting the classic brochure but can't find it online.

[scotty_buttons]

classic is the old model one..d models that the xtrail GTs come in. the new xtrails look like that one posted above. there bigger and uglier than the old model

[tiger balm]

The classic doesn't get any updated tec etch? It's just the latest model in that design period being re-manufactured due to popularity?

[NorStar2K]

the 2012 xtrail facelift?? it looks almost the same to me..except the lights, don't see any other significant changes..it still fugly... and the interior looks like a tweaked up interior of a March

That's why its called a facelift - very subtle esthetic changes. This is a mid-cycle refresh (facelift). The Gen.2 is 2007 - DATE.

Some changes are:
• Redesigned front grille, front bumper and headlights
• New LED combination taillights
• Redesigned 17-inch aluminum wheels, tire size changed to P225/60R17

The automotive facelift (also known as mid-generational refresh, or minor model update) comprises changes to a car's styling during its production run — often including new sheetmetal and/or interior design) with minimal changes to its underlying mechanicals — allowing a carmaker to freshen a model without complete redesign.

Mid-cycle facelifts for cars are usually just cosmetic: a little nip here, a little tuck there, new lights and maybe a couple of different trim pieces to maintain interest in an aging vehicle for an extra couple of years before a full redesign.

A facelift retains the basic styling and platform of the car, with aesthetic alterations, e.g., changes to the front fascia (grille, headlights), taillights, bumpers, instrument panel and center console, and various body or interior trim accessories.

[NorStar2K]

What's the difference between the new xtrails and the classic? I tried getting the classic brochure but can't find it online.

The 'Classic' as its called is the Gen.1 X-Trail 2.0L NT30 (2001-2007). It has been carried over by Nissan LA due to demand, as its past its end-of-model year (2007) over 4 years ago. You won't find a 'Classic' brochure. Search for the 2005 X-Trail.

Here you go, have fun:

2005 Nissan X-Trail Interactive PDF Living Brochure

The Gen.2 X-Trail 2.5L NT31 (2007 - DATE), just had a mid-cycle refresh.

I hope this answers your question.

[DevilZ]

how much for a roro crv just for comparison?

[tiger balm]

What's the difference between the new xtrails and the classic? I tried getting the classic brochure but can't find it online.

The 'Classic' as its called is the Gen.1 X-Trail 2.0L NT30 (2001-2007). It has been carried over by Nissan LA due to demand, as its past its end-of-model year (2007) over 4 years ago. You won't find a 'Classic' brochure. Search for the 2005 X-Trail.

Here you go, have fun:

2005 Nissan X-Trail Interactive PDF Living Brochure

The Gen.2 X-Trail 2.5L NT31 (2007 - DATE), just had a mid-cycle refresh.

I hope this answers your question.

Thanks

[dsaint]

the 2012 xtrail facelift?? it looks almost the same to me..except the lights, don't see any other significant changes..it still fugly... and the interior looks like a tweaked up interior of a March

That's why its called a facelift - very subtle esthetic changes. This is a mid-cycle refresh (facelift). The Gen.2 is 2007 - DATE.

Some changes are:
• Redesigned front grille, front bumper and headlights
• New LED combination taillights
• Redesigned 17-inch aluminum wheels, tire size changed to P225/60R17

The automotive facelift (also known as mid-generational refresh, or minor model update) comprises changes to a car's styling during its production run — often including new sheetmetal and/or interior design) with minimal changes to its underlying mechanicals — allowing a carmaker to freshen a model without complete redesign.

Mid-cycle facelifts for cars are usually just cosmetic: a little nip here, a little tuck there, new lights and maybe a couple of different trim pieces to maintain interest in an aging vehicle for an extra couple of years before a full redesign.

A facelift retains the basic styling and platform of the car, with aesthetic alterations, e.g., changes to the front fascia (grille, headlights), taillights, bumpers, instrument panel and center console, and various body or interior trim accessories.

I could be wrong but it looks like the wheelbase is longer as well ...

[NorStar2K]

^^nope. Also, face-lifts don't typically involve the wheelbase, that's literally a redesign.

[rawr]

is the new VW polo 1.4TSI or just a 1.4l NA?

[Habit7]

1.4L NA

[rawr]

thanks man

[Stephon.]

1.4L NA

You seem upset.

[Habit7]

not really, Fiat Bravo has 1.4T you can get $170k, N&M can hold their "hot hatch"

[Stephon.]

Whos bringing in these Fiat vehicles, not my cup of tea but I'm seeing a lot of them on the roads all of a sudden

[rawr]

I believe the dealer for Fiat is Sterling Motors.

[Habit7]

Whos bringing in these Fiat vehicles, not my cup of tea but I'm seeing a lot of them on the roads all of a sudden

Sterling Motors

Fiat has one of best bloodlines locally, on a recent trip to Vene, they were like the most common car.

[DSM_05]

Fiat Bravo has 1.4T you can get $170k, N&M can hold their "hot hatch"

For 170K, you're only getting the 120hp version. Sterling could keep that slow-poke.

I'd faster buy an elantra/koup/upcoming swift sport for for just a hint more (each putting out >130 hp with better mpg), and get more power along with the car.

[cinco]

after seeing devi with his punto i would be sold on the fiat
then again
devi could drive anything and make it look good

[damieG82]

Fiat Bravo has 1.4T you can get $170k, N&M can hold their "hot hatch"

For 170K, you're only getting the 120hp version. Sterling could keep that slow-poke.

I'd faster buy an elantra/koup/upcoming swift sport for for just a hint more (each putting out >130 hp with better mpg), and get more power along with the car.

man, you just embarrassed yourself there.... you comparing a turbo engine with 120hp to a NA engine with 130hp?! really?

Since you obviously don't know, turbocharging generates exponentially higher torque than a NA engine can. And torque equals acceleration! The only thing horsepower is good for is top end. And as we all know, the right set of cogs in the tranny can work wonders... hence the reason the typical asian econobox with a 1.6 struggles past 190km/h (assuming it can even get there), yet a 1.6 Jetta for example does 210km/h and more. That said, the little 1.4 in the Fiat pumps out more torque than the 2 litre found in the highest spec Koup. Needless to say the 1.6 models will never outgun a Bravo... same goes for the Swift Sport (automatic version, since it wont be fair to compare an automatic to a manual)


Class dismissed

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

[Habit7]

Fiat Bravo has 1.4T you can get $170k, N&M can hold their "hot hatch"

For 170K, you're only getting the 120hp version. Sterling could keep that slow-poke.

I'd faster buy an elantra/koup/upcoming swift sport for for just a hint more (each putting out >130 hp with better mpg), and get more power along with the car.

man, you just embarrassed yourself there.... you comparing a turbo engine with 120hp to a NA engine with 130hp?! really?

Since you obviously don't know, turbocharging generates exponentially higher torque than a NA engine can. And torque equals acceleration! The only thing horsepower is good for is top end. And as we all know, the right set of cogs in the tranny can work wonders... hence the reason the typical asian econobox with a 1.6 struggles past 190km/h (assuming it can even get there), yet a 1.6 Jetta for example does 210km/h and more. That said, the little 1.4 in the Fiat pumps out more torque than the 2 litre found in the highest spec Koup. Needless to say the 1.6 models will never outgun a Bravo... same goes for the Swift Sport (automatic version, since it wont be fair to compare an automatic to a manual)


Class dismissed

Thx damieG82, even though it didnt warranty an intelligent response. A Bravo will smoke any 1.6L elantra/koup/swift sport with better mpg, bluetooth, gearbox and cash to spare.

[DSM_05]

Fiat Bravo has 1.4T you can get $170k, N&M can hold their "hot hatch"

For 170K, you're only getting the 120hp version. Sterling could keep that slow-poke.

I'd faster buy an elantra/koup/upcoming swift sport for for just a hint more (each putting out >130 hp with better mpg), and get more power along with the car.

man, you just embarrassed yourself there.... you comparing a turbo engine with 120hp to a NA engine with 130hp?! really?

Since you obviously don't know, turbocharging generates exponentially higher torque than a NA engine can. And torque equals acceleration! The only thing horsepower is good for is top end. And as we all know, the right set of cogs in the tranny can work wonders... hence the reason the typical asian econobox with a 1.6 struggles past 190km/h (assuming it can even get there), yet a 1.6 Jetta for example does 210km/h and more. That said, the little 1.4 in the Fiat pumps out more torque than the 2 litre found in the highest spec Koup. Needless to say the 1.6 models will never outgun a Bravo... same goes for the Swift Sport (automatic version, since it wont be fair to compare an automatic to a manual)


Class dismissed

Two things:

1) The 1.6 GDI Gamma is only 33Nm short on torque compared to the 1.4T 120hp Bravo (168 Nm vs 201 Nm). Yes, the Bravo will have an edge, buit that edge may not be as mindblowing as you make it sound.



2) You of all people should know that it's not just abt tq, but RATE OF APPLICATION of tq (aka hp). What do I mean by that?


Simple - ever wondered why a K20 powered Accord Euro R (notice i said EURO R..not a base accord!!!) can keep up with a stock WRX? WRX puts out almost 200 ft/lbs of tq, the Accord only 160.

WRX = 2.0L Turbo 227 hp/200 ft/lbs

Accord Euro R = 2.0L N/a 220 hp/160 ft lbs

Sure they pack similar HP ratings....but that's cuz that Accord applies the lower tq at a much higher RATE.....to get the same FINAL effect - HORSEPOWER

OR

simply, the WRX would apply higher torque at a lower rpm, whereas the N/A screamer applies the lower torque, but at an astronomical redline. You just cant compare the two w/o getting into how each is driven...since the driving style (that is, using midrange tq on the WRX vs high revs on the Accord) will result in how effective each is.

Not because the WRX has tons more MIDrange tq, means it's any faster at the end of the day!

BOTH, yield similar acceleration results (negating AWD launch). It also explains why in Fifth gear tests, the Mk 1 Swift Sport had a fun time against the Renault Twingo RS (and the SSS was actually faster...yes the Twingo was a 1.4T....was it not?)


Ok, so this example doesn't apply to the Bravo argument, but it does to show that your comment about torque is grossly over simplified.

I think you need some real world experience with the two before we go further.


Enjoy the read

[nemesis]

I don't follow that and I don't think if you get an Accord R to keep up with the WRX that that's the correct reasoning.
I think it's more drivetrain loss, gearing and driving style.
More torque at lower RPM will always produce better acceleration if everything else is constant unless I'm missing something else in your explaination there.

[avidesh1]

Very informative, thanks for updating us..... this definitely saves me time...

[damieG82]

Fiat Bravo has 1.4T you can get $170k, N&M can hold their "hot hatch"

For 170K, you're only getting the 120hp version. Sterling could keep that slow-poke.

I'd faster buy an elantra/koup/upcoming swift sport for for just a hint more (each putting out >130 hp with better mpg), and get more power along with the car.

man, you just embarrassed yourself there.... you comparing a turbo engine with 120hp to a NA engine with 130hp?! really?

Since you obviously don't know, turbocharging generates exponentially higher torque than a NA engine can. And torque equals acceleration! The only thing horsepower is good for is top end. And as we all know, the right set of cogs in the tranny can work wonders... hence the reason the typical asian econobox with a 1.6 struggles past 190km/h (assuming it can even get there), yet a 1.6 Jetta for example does 210km/h and more. That said, the little 1.4 in the Fiat pumps out more torque than the 2 litre found in the highest spec Koup. Needless to say the 1.6 models will never outgun a Bravo... same goes for the Swift Sport (automatic version, since it wont be fair to compare an automatic to a manual)


Class dismissed

Two things:

1) The 1.6 GDI Gamma is only 33Nm short on torque compared to the 1.4T 120hp Bravo (168 Nm vs 201 Nm). Yes, the Bravo will have an edge, buit that edge may not be as mindblowing as you make it sound.



2) You of all people should know that it's not just abt tq, but RATE OF APPLICATION of tq (aka hp). What do I mean by that?


Simple - ever wondered why a K20 powered Accord Euro R (notice i said EURO R..not a base accord!!!) can keep up with a stock WRX? WRX puts out almost 200 ft/lbs of tq, the Accord only 160.

WRX = 2.0L Turbo 227 hp/200 ft/lbs

Accord Euro R = 2.0L N/a 220 hp/160 ft lbs

Sure they pack similar HP ratings....but that's cuz that Accord applies the lower tq at a much higher RATE.....to get the same FINAL effect - HORSEPOWER

OR

simply, the WRX would apply higher torque at a lower rpm, whereas the N/A screamer applies the lower torque, but at an astronomical redline. You just cant compare the two w/o getting into how each is driven...since the driving style (that is, using midrange tq on the WRX vs high revs on the Accord) will result in how effective each is.

Not because the WRX has tons more MIDrange tq, means it's any faster at the end of the day!

BOTH, yield similar acceleration results (negating AWD launch). It also explains why in Fifth gear tests, the Mk 1 Swift Sport had a fun time against the Renault Twingo RS (and the SSS was actually faster...yes the Twingo was a 1.4T....was it not?)


Ok, so this example doesn't apply to the Bravo argument, but it does to show that your comment about torque is grossly over simplified.

I think you need some real world experience with the two before we go further.


Enjoy the read

no oversimplification present... perhaps an assumption or two, the main one being that we're talking about 2 modern, car engines.... not a tractor engine or something utilitarian. ie, horsepower production is negligible, certainly when compared to torque.

And btw, I do hope you know that the Koup, Elantra/Cerato are NOT powered by the GDI unit. Not even the forthcoming Veloster will have that engine (as advised by a Hyundai rep... dont blame me if it actually does), so i reiterate, those Koreans will always be staring at the rear end of the Italian

[Renaldo25]

wow u just learn so much on trinituner