Harrier 2017

[Ct3833]

A few said that Harrier turbo still sluggish in term of take off...

but did anyone compare between Harrier NA vs turbo?

should hav improve alot d right?

The problem with human being is we continue to raise our expectation. When there was only the 2.0 NA from PI, people just buy it and move on with life, now with the turbo version, there is still feedback about pick up being sluggish. Fact is before the turbo kicks in, the car is as good as a 2.0 NA, the accelerator needs to be floored slightly to rev it up for the turbo to kick in to provide the additinal power. One needs to get used to the characteristic of a turbo engine to take advantage of the power in order to appreciate it.

 

At this price point, turbo, agent warranty, english language version, i think cannot ask for more already.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Ct3833

[Ct3833]

Not into any argument here but cla180 and cla200 is not a good analogy since the performance difference is no where near 200nm vs 350nm for the NA and turbo Harrier

Agree with you and to add my thoughts. CLA180 is in the Cat A where CLA200 in Cat B. Both Harrier are in the same Cat B. First, Cat A car owners are generally more price sensitive, a few k makes a huge difference in buying decision. Next is both CLA are from same agent. Harrier is in a different situation. 2.0T from AD whereeas NA from PI. This factor itself already worth a 5km to $10k differentiator, letting alone AD warranty , english version beside the addtiinal power. Most people would go for turbo but that does not mean NA would not sell, just that less people will buy , loke those who just need a decent suv but mind paying $10k more and willing to accept less power. Edited July 1, 2017 by Ct3833

[Axeman24]

Think of the Luxury model as a cut price NX200t and the $7k extra looks like a bargain.

Just to add, the 7k also include an extended warranty of up to 7 year as well

[clement229]

Not into any argument here but cla180 and cla200 is not a good analogy since the performance difference is no where near 200nm vs 350nm for the NA and turbo Harrier

 

Yeah lor. That guy mention CLA180 and CLA200, then i entertain him lor...

200nm vs 350nm is a lot of difference...

Edited July 1, 2017 by clement229

[Andyngps]

Does anyone feel the same way? The harrier turbo seems a bit lagging. Got to step a bit harder before coming to life.

I drove my FIL 14mthz old sgd159k non turbo from vincars to my 2nd test drive this morning.

 

Sure got difference but subjective on what is alot ... it is significant 350nm vs 200nm torque for sure but again, pls dun go test drive fxt wirh same 350nm else you may regret like me and peehaps ignorance is sometime bliss ..lol

 

Btw, harrier turbo is not sluggish ...and engine is quieter when pushed compared to my 1st test drive 1 week ago ..guess engine run in a bit more ..it was 100km odometer last Sat.

Rather weird right. Fxt is using cvt while harrier turbo using 6at...shouldnt harrier turbo be punchier and faster moving off? Weight of both rides about similar too. Edited July 1, 2017 by Andyngps

[RadX]

Sighhhh

[JuzFXT]

Harrier target audience are normally people who wants a comfortable and class SUV not for power. But when the turbo engine was introduced it draw a different group. Those who want power and looks. Hence, the comparison and some felt the disappointment on the lag.

 

It's up to individual to weigh the pros and cons. Then decide on the purchase.

[Fcw75]

Sighhhh

Here we go again, same old shit again...

[Cheesey74]

Does anyone feel the same way? The harrier turbo seems a bit lagging. Got to step a bit harder before coming to life.

Rather weird right. Fxt is using cvt while harrier turbo using 6at...shouldnt harrier turbo be punchier and faster moving off? Weight of both rides about similar too.

 

Sighhh...

[t0y0ta]

Does anyone feel the same way? The harrier turbo seems a bit lagging. Got to step a bit harder before coming to life.

Rather weird right. Fxt is using cvt while harrier turbo using 6at...shouldnt harrier turbo be punchier and faster moving off? Weight of both rides about similar too.

Nothing weird. Different cars will always be different.

[Ashley1108]

Does anyone feel the same way? The harrier turbo seems a bit lagging. Got to step a bit harder before coming to life.

Rather weird right. Fxt is using cvt while harrier turbo using 6at...shouldnt harrier turbo be punchier and faster moving off? Weight of both rides about similar too.

 

The reason why i committed for a FXT.

Waited for 6 months for BM harrier. Test drove it and find it sluggish compare to FXT. 

 

Those who have already set their mind to purchase BM Harrier, as mentioned by Richard, please do not go test drive FXT. 

[Wt_know]

best advice ever

ignorance is bliss

dont compare and you will find harrier turbo awesome ... lol

 

Those who have already set their mind to purchase BM Harrier, as mentioned by Richard, please do not go test drive FXT.

[richard_crl032]

Does anyone feel the same way? The harrier turbo seems a bit lagging. Got to step a bit harder before coming to life.

Rather weird right. Fxt is using cvt while harrier turbo using 6at...shouldnt harrier turbo be punchier and faster moving off? Weight of both rides about similar too.

Tuning ?

 

Euro 6 comoliance, fc of 13.6km/l vs 11.8km/l on spec and typcially 2km/l difference and only 6 speed vs 8 speed for more steps ??

 

Leave it to experts here ..

The reason why i committed for a FXT.

Waited for 6 months for BM harrier. Test drove it and find it sluggish compare to FXT.

 

Those who have already set their mind to purchase BM Harrier, as mentioned by Richard, please do not go test drive FXT.

Ashley,

 

Same here ..really wanted to buy the harrier turbo but know I will regret cos tasted the effortless driveability of the fxt ...not chiongster but 55 yrs old uncle here.

Edited July 2, 2017 by richard_crl032

[Ashley1108]

Tuning ?

 

Euro 6 comoliance, fc of 13.6km/l vs 11.8km/l on spec and typcially 2km/l difference and only 6 speed vs 8 speed for more steps ??

 

Leave it to experts here ..

Ashley,

 

Same here ..really wanted to buy the harrier turbo but know I will regret cos tasted the effortless driveability of the fxt ...not chiongster but 55 yrs old uncle here.

 

Yes Richard, i posted the brochures and the pricing in the forum, shows my strong interest in the harrier too.

But after test driving it, i already know what car i will be getting. lol

 

And i didn't know posting my own personal opinion can get dislike.. lol :)

Edited July 2, 2017 by Ashley1108

[andrewyewkc]

The problem with human being is we continue to raise our expectation. When there was only the 2.0 NA from PI, people just buy it and move on with life, now with the turbo version, there is still feedback about pick up being sluggish. Fact is before the turbo kicks in, the car is as good as a 2.0 NA, the accelerator needs to be floored slightly to rev it up for the turbo to kick in to provide the additinal power. One needs to get used to the characteristic of a turbo engine to take advantage of the power in order to appreciate it.

 

At this price point, turbo, agent warranty, english language version, i think cannot ask for more already.

The NA Harrier uses the 3ZR-FAE engine while the Turbo Harrier uses the 8AR-FTS engine which can run in both Atkinson and Otto Cycle. The frugal Atkinson Cycle saves fuel at the expense of power at low rpm, this could be the reason why people complain about the power. I am not sure if this is the reason.

[Earthboy]

the FXT paper spec 11.8km/l? i doubt it will even hit 10km/l in real live. my bl9 was 7.5-7.8 the 4 years i own it. anyway fc is not important as long as you like the drive.

 

Tuning ?

Euro 6 comoliance, fc of 13.6km/l vs 11.8km/l on spec and typcially 2km/l difference and only 6 speed vs 8 speed for more steps ??

Leave it to experts here ..
Ashley,

Same here ..really wanted to buy the harrier turbo but know I will regret cos tasted the effortless driveability of the fxt ...not chiongster but 55 yrs old uncle here.

 

[Andyngps]

the FXT paper spec 11.8km/l? i doubt it will even hit 10km/l in real live. my bl9 was 7.5-7.8 the 4 years i own it. anyway fc is not important as long as you like the drive.

So far forum posted average about 9 to 10km per litre based on 50% hw...prob harrier turbo can get 11 easily...

The NA Harrier uses the 3ZR-FAE engine while the Turbo Harrier uses the 8AR-FTS engine which can run in both Atkinson and Otto Cycle. The frugal Atkinson Cycle saves fuel at the expense of power at low rpm, this could be the reason why people complain about the power. I am not sure if this is the reason.

Might be....but it will also mean may have the tendency to step harder at higher rpm to move off and it negates the frugality.

[Theoldjaffa]

So far forum posted average about 9 to 10km per litre based on 50% hw...prob harrier turbo can get 11 easily...

Might be....but it will also mean may have the tendency to step harder at higher rpm to move off and it negates the frugality.

No need... U don't need to step harder to move off.

 

When driven normally the performance meets expectations.

 

It's only the WOT from standstill that is the issue.

 

But then again, you don't WOT every time do you?

 

Personally I feel the "lag" and "underpowered" feeling is just blown out of proportions.

 

Just like how AWD is being overrated when driving in a non competitive environment.