[SCDave]

hello, im new to the forums, im Dave

first off, im about to be going to university and its about 60 km away so i need to get a car, which will get me there and i dont have to wry about it breaking down and if it does its under warrenty. i also want a car that looks really nice, and the koup seems to fit this nicely, but right now im just not sure if i should get the sx or ex. i need a car with good fuel economy, so the 2.0l seems to be the the best, but i also like the bigger engine in the sx and some of the features in sx are nice to have, fog lights, sat radio, auto climate control.... etc. but fuel economy is one of the main factors. so im wondering, how much more does the sx burn? what are your guys's MPG for both the ex and sx?, at the dealer they say 49MPG for 2.0l and 44MPG for 2.4l ( both highway) im not sure how realistic these numbers are. if you guys could give me some info it would be greatly appreciated. planning on picking a koup up this weekand saterday

Thanks,
Dave

 

[SCDave]

also like the 6 speed on the sx always wanted one. rims of sx arnt bad ether, cant seem to remeber seeing rims for ex tho.

 

[roknrolr]

SX!! You won't regret it!

 

[ile2010]

I assume that you're in Canada, since you mentioned the sat. radio for SX only. First of all, those MPGs are Imperial, and not US. Since we're used to see US MPG figures, that MPG rating is a little deceiving. That 49 becomes a 40, and the 44 becomes a 36.5. Both are excellent ratings in my opinion, but you'll notice more of a difference in city driving.

I have an EX with a 5spd m/t and average 8.7 l/100 km (27 MPG US) with 60% city and 40% highway driving. With 100% highway driving, I get 6.7 l/100 km (35 MPG US). So I basically get worse highway mileage on my EX than the dealer claims for the SX. If the SX truly is 10% less efficient than the EX, expect 7.5 l/100 km (31.5 MPG US) on the highway in the SX in Ontario early spring with all-season tires back on. I'm also actively trying to maximize my fuel economy, so while it's probably possible to squeeze a bit more, I wouldn't expect much more savings. I expect the economy to get a bit better with warmer weather. The southern US drivers seem to get better mileage, but that's expected with the climate difference.

I considered an SX because I really wanted to have Sirius (I was a subscriber already) and the auto climate control. The leather seats I didn't care about, since the plain black cloth looked and felt fine (actually I found them more comfortable than the leather ones). I just added aftermarket Sirius.

It wasn't just the bigger engine that turned me off the SX, it was the sportier suspension. The EX can be plenty stiff over a bump, but I felt the SX in my bones. Sure, it's a bit more fun to drive, but I wouldn't like it as my daily driver.

I've given you my reasons, and my advice is to drive them both. If fuel economy really is as important as you've said, then I predict that the EX will be the winner.

 

[roknrolr]

^ ^ Just made me sound like a noob because I have nothing to backup my "advice" lol

 

[ForteFan]

I get up to 37mpg (US) on the highway with the SX. This is with cruise set at around 65 to 68 mph. The SX can do better on the highway then you may think.

To me the suspension is just perfect, I don't feel it is too harsh.

 

[CorsaKoup]

Make sure you verify that you have enough headroom in the SX. There's 2-3 inches difference between EX and SX. I originally wanted an EX because of the headroom, but couldn't get past those wheels and the interior trim differences. If they'd offered an SX without a sunroof, that's what I'd have right now. I love my SX, but it's tight for 6-footers and taller (unless you're all legs).

 

[apecio]

SCDave... To answer your questions... Fuel Economy = I have a 2.4 SX Sedan not koupe but its the same shit in the end when it comes to engine... the fuel economy on highway/city (70%/30%) I usally am able to sqeeuze out just about 600km a tank, which is 52L = around the 8.6 - 9.0L/100km range. For an engine this size this is very good. If you do all Highway... I once did a 2500k sprint to up north Ontario and back and 1 tank of gas on 100% highway got me amost 700k! = around 7.5L/100km range which is super. The 2.0L will probably yield the same result because even though it has a smaller engine it has only a 4 speed tranny which means higher revs which equals more gas. So if I were solely looking at milage I would go with the SX... better ride all in all... not to mention much more fun.

On a seperate note... you mentioned you are going this saturday... if I may suggest... go to 401/Dixie KIA and get it there...super dealership... if you'd like I can help you out with some savings... msg me if you're interested.

 

[Matemorh]

hello, im new to the forums, im Dave

first off, im about to be going to university and its about 60 km away so i need to get a car, which will get me there and i dont have to wry about it breaking down and if it does its under warrenty. i also want a car that looks really nice, and the koup seems to fit this nicely, but right now im just not sure if i should get the sx or ex. i need a car with good fuel economy, so the 2.0l seems to be the the best, but i also like the bigger engine in the sx and some of the features in sx are nice to have, fog lights, sat radio, auto climate control.... etc. but fuel economy is one of the main factors. so im wondering, how much more does the sx burn? what are your guys's MPG for both the ex and sx?, at the dealer they say 49MPG for 2.0l and 44MPG for 2.4l ( both highway) im not sure how realistic these numbers are. if you guys could give me some info it would be greatly appreciated. planning on picking a koup up this weekand saterday

Thanks,
Dave

Your MPG is more related to your right foot than your engine......
I mean if you already have a lead foot and don't want to dramasticaly change the way you drive, 2.0l or 2.4l won't change anything to your MPG

I'd say go for the SX for the features: sportier suspension, better tires, leather, sunroof, 6 speed, auto climate, etc..... If you don't care about those, than take an EX. The engine performance are not that different!

I'm running about 26MPG (9l/100KM)on a 60/40 city/freeway on winter tire, remote start every morning and I push quite hard on the right pedal! To me it's quite good!!

 

[ile2010]

Make sure you verify that you have enough headroom in the SX. There's 2-3 inches difference between EX and SX. I originally wanted an EX because of the headroom, but couldn't get past those wheels and the interior trim differences. If they'd offered an SX without a sunroof, that's what I'd have right now. I love my SX, but it's tight for 6-footers and taller (unless you're all legs).

He was comparing SX to EX with sunroof, so I don't think that height is an issue for him. I'm 6'2", and the sunroof on my EX doesn't bother me.

 

[ile2010]

SCDave... To answer your questions... Fuel Economy = I have a 2.4 SX Sedan not koupe but its the same shit in the end when it comes to engine... the fuel economy on highway/city (70%/30%) I usally am able to sqeeuze out just about 600km a tank, which is 52L = around the 8.6 - 9.0L/100km range. For an engine this size this is very good. If you do all Highway... I once did a 2500k sprint to up north Ontario and back and 1 tank of gas on 100% highway got me amost 700k! = around 7.5L/100km range which is super. The 2.0L will probably yield the same result because even though it has a smaller engine it has only a 4 speed tranny which means higher revs which equals more gas. So if I were solely looking at milage I would go with the SX... better ride all in all... not to mention much more fun.

On a seperate note... you mentioned you are going this saturday... if I may suggest... go to 401/Dixie KIA and get it there...super dealership... if you'd like I can help you out with some savings... msg me if you're interested.

He mentioned the 6 spd m/t for the SX, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that he wasn't looking at the a/t on the EX.

Seriously, good arguments can be made for both trims, so get out there and drive them both.

 

[apecio]

ile2010... i agree... the car itself is a great choice to begin with... it now really is personal preference..... test drive the shit out of all the trims and dont' be afraid to do it 2 - 3 times... the dealer won't care.

 

[MFury]

I went EX mainly because of the leather seats. I didn't have an option to get the cloth on an SX. I really wanted the fog lamps though and am looking at getting aftermarket ones installed now. I came from a 1.6L vehicle before which was great for city driving although lacked a bit of power on the highway especially driving in the mountains. I love the HP increase over that on the 2.0L. Also has a 5 speed manual on the 1.6L and I love this 5 speed more. I don't use sat radio so it wasn't a concern to me I load up my flash drive with mp3's and always have those playing. With the many potholes and rough roads around here I prefer the softer ride of my EX.

Here is a shot of my car to look at the rim design.

 

[Aidensgrand]

i too got the EX but i based my decision on the fact that i drive a lot and i need good gas mileage. im also not ever going to race it so a 2.4 vs a 2.0 wasnt a big enough leap for me. i think the diff in HP is like 20, which to me wasnt a crazy difference. i also didnt like the leather seats cuz it gets super hot in texas and you sweat and it feels gross driving in a car with sweat on your back in leather seats. so ultimatley the gas mileage was the big one for me. i you can do the same amt of exterior modifications as the SX with the EX. Fog lights is one of the main things i will be looking into getting and that was the only thing i wish i had gotten with the EX. but other than that i love the car and either way you go, you will too!

 

[ddusing]

I have a ex Koup with sun rooof and sat and bluetooth for 17,900 in Iowa, just turned 1900 miles, yes 1900, I like it but the seat is killing my back for some reason.