moonoi

The MU-7 drives like blue Stilton on Bangkok tarmac mid April.

I'd day its more like danish blue, but yes its a very smooth ride...don't notice those potholes or motorcyclists at all

No idea, I thought we were talking about the price of stilton blue cheese and how it influences the THBUSD exchange rate

I don't understand why Fortuners and their drivers get so much flak from others who have not got one..................maybe that's why?

No not really, I test drove one and preferred the MU7 so bought that instead very good for harassing Fortuner drivers in

if you have a set of lights flashing behind you you can bet your bottom dolla its one of them <deleted> with the mindset, get out of my way Im a farang, just F off. the only thing that will get rid of those <deleted> is when they start getting shot.

///////////////////////////////////

Getting shot, Nice idear, don't know why its always a fortuner ? it would seem the fortuner is driven by a certain type of farang, morons I think their called, or moronski if their Russian, only tonight on my way home from Lotus I was driving along sukhumvit at about 80k when I clearly saw a fortuner waiting at the U turn, I thought to myself, fortuner, that <deleted> going to try and drive out and cut us off, sure enougth the idiot pulled out right in front of us. there must be normal fortuner drivers out there but the poor guys are outnumberd.

Perfectly normal behaviour for your Fortuner driver whether he/she be Thai or Farang No need to bash just the foreigner Fortuner drivers there all as bad as each other Camrys' are almost as bad too!

Back to the original question, I only really socialise with fellow Farangs in the office, outside of the office I mostly hang out with my Thai friends and (fiances') family. I generally don't go out of my way to avoid others...just that I never seem to find my path crossing that of other Farangs I know theres a couple of Farangs living in my village, occassionally say hi to them when i see them in passing...one has a nice Duke 996 parked out front of his house....lovely machine. Only time I ever see the undesirables is when I head off to the beach, but I know they aren't here for long so I just ignore them.

Before moving here I lived in Paris for a couple of years and to be honest found that exactly the same kind of Farangs that people complain about here also exist there. Ignorant about french culture, can't be bothered to even try and learn a few words of the local language and arrogant as hel_l.

What were we complaining about again?

I traded my 2 year old honda phantom for a platinum because my exhaust was rusted out and my chrome was peeling everywhere.I paid 82000bt and sold it for 40,000 lost 42,000.When i sell my platinum I dont think I will lose that much.

Probably because you won't be able to sell it

But, I agree with you on the idea of using the hazards to go through an intersection. I asked my Thai husband about this and he said it is most definitely not in the road rules and it drives him crazy too

He's wrong. It's in the highway code manual and driver safety manuals. The instructor also teaches this when you are tested for a Thai licence.

The instructors might teach that but I've heard numerous times that it's illegal and is not in a highway code.

Indeed you are correct, my fiance is learning to drive and nowhere in the highway code does it say to put your hazard lights on when going through an intersection. In fact her instructor told her it was illegal and not to do it as it could cause accidents. Also my thai teachers husband is a cop, he also said its illegal and police will fine people for doing that! (that said they fine people for whatever they can I suspect especially when its nearing the end of the month......)

I can understand why some don't use indicators to change lanes now......something I have started to do after 2 years driving here....its the only way to make progress in heavy traffic. I've noticed that if I indicate my intention then most people will accelerate to block me changing lanes......if I just pull across no problem.

I don't like it, but thats the way it is........you have to adapt yourself to driving here and not expect everyone to drive as you do at home.

BMW did the same april fools joke about 10 years ago with there 3 series. was a full page add in the papers

edit: come to think of it...it was more like 15 years ago! and it was more clever with a second instrument panel folding out of the passenger glove box!

Hi

I'm travelling to my fiances' aunts place in Lumphun. I've been there before but last time I drove up from BKK and this time I'm flying, so I want to know whats the best way of getting there from the airport? Not sure if a taxi will take me there (its about 30-40min away from central Chiang Mai), so wanted to know what options I have....prefer not to hire a car as I don't need one once I'm at my destination.

Thanks

mn

Once again... Whats the guide price for a road registered one..

Say a Car engined one over a busa or bike sourced engine ?? Something like a Sport 2000 ???

I am sure options vary but to sort the Thai registration taxes, where does it ballpark ?? Finished car on road.

How much of thats taxation..

The website says 'from 1.2 million'

I'd love to build one from a kit, no point just buying it, keep the old grey matter stirring and really wind up the neighbours, I'm already the crazy Farang, if I start building a car they'll get out the straight-jacket

Have you seen the Top Gear episode where they build a Cateram in 8 hours? Watching that put me off building my own motor (as they said when it only saves you 2 grand, why bother doing in yourself?)

I bought mine in November last year and haven't had any problems. I also bought one of those intercooler fan accessories though as well....so maybe that helps keep it cool enough.

I was at commart during the weekend and there was a store there selling xbox 360s' so I guess if you look around should still be able to pick one up.

just another reason to avoid Blackpool can't imagine why anyone would want to go there anyway and then depress themselves even more by riding in a tuk tuk in the p*ssing rain and wind. (I used to work at BAe in Warton just down the road.....working/living around there depressed the hel_l out of me...just imagining taking a tuk tuk from Lytham St-Annes to Blackpool brought back those memories I need a beer!)

Starts at about 10am local time

Suk 33 is a bit far away for me....have to hang around near to chula uni coz my fiances' brother is doing CU-TEP exam. Looks like I'll have to miss the start of it

Hi

I'm going to be around the Silom / Siam Square area on Sunday morning and want to catch the opening F1 race. Does anyone know anywhere that I would be able to watch it in those areas?

Thanks

mn

note: I just posted here in the General section as the Sports section is a tad slow

Hi

I'm going to be around the Silom / Siam Square area on Sunday morning and want to catch the opening F1 race. Does anyone know anywhere that I would be able to watch it in those areas?

Thanks

mn

According to my Thai collegues in the office, you collect the winnings same as a Thai person. Not sure if there are any tax liabilities though

Look at Britain or any other European country and how they welcome immigrants. They all, from Netherlands to Austria, elected anti-immigrant parties lately.

Or look at the news coming from Australia in the past couple of years. Pauline Hanson? Remember anti-asian riots? Or French head-scarves ban?

Of course the French head scarf ban was nothing to do with anti immigration. In fact it wasn't a head scarf ban. Its a ban on all religious symbols in government offices. Nothing wrong with that, France is a secularist society (ie seperation of religion and state). It was just blown out of proportion by the french muslims and portrayed as an attack on them, which was additionaly fueled by the media, when in fact it affects all religious symbols (jewish skull caps, christian crosses etc etc).

But I would agree in general that each country is showing more xenophobic and nationalistic behaviours than in the past. I think Australia and the US are the worst offenders of this in recent past, but the rest of europe and the UK aren't far behind.

The attitude of the population western nations now seems to be one of "You came to our country, of your own free will. You should abide by our own laws or go home" not a lot differant to Thailand really.

I would say though that in this article it is a mistranslation to incite just the kind of reactions by foreigners you see on this board and on a wider scale, perhaps to try and further undermine investor confidence in an already weak interim government.

Myself I don't really care about depreciation....if I did I would never buy a car!!!!

I just buy what I like

I think though that depreciate is slightly higher on the MU7 than Fortuner, but not much in it. I've seen 2 year old MU7s' advertised for 80% of there value new at the tents, not sure what they really sell for but I guess they probably will drop upto another 10% off that in negotiation.

But strange really, I wouldn't bother buying a second hand car here as they normally sell for almost the same price as new! Strange market here in Thailand for used cars

For haggling on price, its not that easy, you may get a few k discount. Normally you negotiate on what extras you get without any cost. Like free first class insurance, chrome upgrades, better audio system/tv fitted.

In my experience when I was looking at both the same SUVs' as you I found Isuzu prepared to offer more than Toyota (100k of accessories vs 30k from Toyota)......probably because Fortuner is in higher demand so they don't have to offer as much to sell it.

I believe it was Daimler as well, together with Bosch . . . as for Robert Huber speaking French . . . probably did as all Swiss, bar the Franco-Swiss, speak more thna one of their national languages. . . even the Tiroler!

So, any more views from owners or is it really a given for the Fortuner?

Price seems right

Value for money?

Availability?

Service back-up?

Build quality?

etc . . .

To be honest I think you'll find whichever one you choose they both stack up fairly equally.

At the end of the day only you can decide, jump in both of them. Take them for a spin see which one you like. I ended up with the MU7, I felt it was a better ride, preferred the looks and I got a good discount and tons of accessories thrown in.

Just remember there are thousands of Fortuner owners out there, so your more likely to get feedback from them than us minority MU7 owners. So obviously the opinions here are going to be very much in favour of the Fortuner.....also bear in mind the vast majority of these people have never driven the MU7.

So do yourself a favour, pop down to your local toyota and isuzu dealers...have a drive around in them both....and choose the one that you like and best suits your needs

What on earth is a "Commonrail"...what a stupid name!

Well, ThaiPauly, it's quite simple really:

The Common Rail system in particular gives engine developers the freedom they need to reduce exhaust emissions even further, and especially to lower engine noise. The particular design of Common Rail, with its flexible division of injection into several pre-, main and post-injections, allows the engine and the injection system to be matched to each other in the best possible way. In the Common Rail accumulator injection system, the generation of the injection pressure is separate from the injection itself. A high-pressure pump generates in an accumulator – the rail – a pressure of up to 1,600 bar (determined by the injection pressure setting in the engine control unit), independently of the engine speed and the quantity of fuel injected. The fuel is fed through rigid pipes to the injectors, which inject the correct amount of fuel in a fine spray into the combustion chambers. The Electronic Diesel Control (EDC) controls extremely precisely all the injection parameters – such as the pressure in the Rail and the timing and duration of injection – as well as performing other engine functions.

To wit:

and to further explain and enlighten you:

:lol: Sorry . . . Basically it is a new type of fuel injection system.

And I thought the fuel system now known as 'commonrail' was invented by a Frenchman in the 1930s.

No, I was wrong (I shall go to bed without supper as a penance). Wilkepedia says 'The common rail system prototype was developed in the late 1960s by Robert Huber of Switzerland'

But I bet he spoke French!

Heres your problem quoting wikipedia which isn't known for its accuracy it might be correct, it might not be....I'd look for another source to coroborate!

For instance DaimlerChrysler claim to have invented Commonrail Direct Injection in 1997

Extract from link:

A true paradigm shift finally happened in 1997, when a collaboration by Bosch and DaimlerChrysler resulted in the concept of direct injection via a shared fuel line kept under constant high pressure, the common rail. It made Rudolf Diesel’s engine fit at last for the 21st century. The Jeep Liberty CRD and the E 320 CDI operate according to the common-rail principle, which has since been further improved.

Guess I'm the lone voice of a MU7 owner again

I prefer it to the Fortuner, found it has more room inside and is more comfortable (for me) and I also prefer the looks. I have the pre-facelift model, and have no problem with the engine, pulls strongly and it seems that I can always beat those Fortuner drivers away from the lights My gfs' dad has the new generation MU7 with the VGS Turbo diesel engine. This is a significant improvement, while mine isn't noisy, his is almost quiet, it also has more power and torque too, although it comes in a little higher up the rev range than mine (mine pulls strong from 1300 rpm, his has to wind up to about 1600).

Have to admit the other reason I like my MU7 is that every man and his dog doesn't own one! I've also yet to meet a Fortuner owner that doesn't drive like he/she owns the road.....although at least there not as bad as Camry drivers

And no its not a farmers truck....thats the DMAX...thats like calling a the Fortuner a Vigo.

Isuzu tend to market themselves with the MU7 as a family car. Toyota markets the Fortuner as a car to be proud to be seen in and goes anywhere. They're aimed at differant segments of the same market.

Oh before I forget I did test drive both before buying Can't say I thought the Fortuner was superior in any area (and yes I know the rear suspension is differant)

By the way, it is relevant to note that Qantas is the

only major airline in the world that has never, ever,

had an accident!

On 23rd Sept 1999, Qantas Flight 1, a 747-400 arriving at Bangkok from Sydney, overran runway 15L while landing in a rainstorm. The aircraft came to rest on a golf course - fortunately there were no casualties among the 407 passengers and crew on board. But more than 1 golfer blamed their slice on this accident.

You also forgot:

Qantas 747 has Landing Gear Incident in Rome

23 April 2000: A Qantas airlines 747-300, with 303 passengers on board, had a landing gear strut collapse while taxiing for takeoff from Rome. One of the engines was damaged, but there were no injuries among the passengers and crew. This is the second serious incident involving Qantas in less than a year. Last September, a landing overrun involving a Qantas 747 at Bangkok's airport resulted in about $100 million in damage to the aircraft. A Qantas 747 was also involved in a minor landing incident in Perth the same month.

So Diablo Bob think your wrong on your statement

It would be true to say that Quantas has never had a fatal accident, but then thats not exactly unique either. Neither have Finnair, Virgin Atlantic or Emirates as far as major airlines go and theres hundreds of smaller regional and domestic airlines that also have never had a fatality. Pretty sure every single one of them has had an accident of some kind though

Anyway I saw that email you posted about "gripe sheets" a couple of years back, except that time it was from British Airways.......

At the university level in Thailand (at least in our area), students/faculty are banned from using Wiki as an authoritative source.

Well that applies to many Universitys in the US as well, there have many tests done to compare the validity

of Wiki results to Encyclopaedia Britannica and the results have always said they are comparable

Erm actually no there hasn't. There has only been one authoritive comparison and that was so flawed as to make the results irrelevant. See my posting above for the reasons why.

Britiannica is a well respected source of information and students/researchers referencing material from there should be able to do so. Do not compare the wiki to Britannica and try to claim that its is the same or better. It isn't, even the guys that founded it say so as well so don't try to defend something that they can't.

Wikis' in general are a good idea, but they just don't work. But I'm sure you love the wiki so much you'll just ignore anything I or anyone else has to say that makes it look bad bet your a web 2.0 fan too

Well, for science articles, Wikipedia doesn't seem that bad, even a bit better than Britannica:

Nature: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.

That is until you understand that Nature magazine faked the results

Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study

Britannica hits back at junk science

By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco

Nature magazine has some tough questions to answer after it let its Wikipedia fetish get the better of its responsibilities to reporting science. The Encyclopedia Britannica has published a devastating response to Nature's December comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica, and accuses the journal of misrepresenting its own evidence.

Where the evidence didn't fit, says Britannica, Nature's news team just made it up. Britannica has called on the journal to repudiate the report, which was put together by its news team.

Independent experts were sent 50 unattributed articles from both Wikipedia and Britannica, and the journal claimed that Britannica turned up 123 "errors" to Wikipedia's 162.

But Nature sent only misleading fragments of some Britannica articles to the reviewers, sent extracts of the children's version and Britannica's "book of the year" to others, and in one case, simply stitched together bits from different articles and inserted its own material, passing it off as a single Britannica entry.

Nice "Mash-Up" - but bad science.

"Almost everything about the journal's investigation, from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and its headline, was wrong and misleading," says Britannica.

"Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit."

In one case, for example. Nature's peer reviewer was sent only the 350 word introduction to a 6,000 word Britannica article on lipids - which was criticized for containing omissions.

A pattern also emerges which raises questions about the choice of the domain experts picked by Nature's journalists.

Several got their facts wrong, and in many other cases, simply offered differences of opinion.

"Dozens of the so-called inaccuracies they attributed to us were nothing of the kind; they were the result of reviewers expressing opinions that differed from ours about what should be included in an encyclopedia article. In these cases Britannica's coverage was actually sound."

Nature only published a summary of the errors its experts found some time after the initial story, and has yet to disclose all the reviewer's notes.

So how could a respected science publication make such a grave series of errors?

When Nature published the news story in December, it followed weeks of bad publicity for Wikipedia, and was a gift for the project's beleaguered supporters.

In October, a co-founder had agreed that several entries were "horrific crap". A former newspaper editor and Kennedy aide John Siegenthaler Snr. then wrote an article explaining how libellous modifications had lain unchecked for months. By early December, Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales was becoming a regular feature on CNN cable news, explaining away the site's deficiencies.

"Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great," wrote news editor Jim Giles.

Nature accompanied this favorable news report with a cheerful, spin-heavy editorial that owed more to an evangelical recruitment drive than it did a rational analysis of empirical evidence. It urged readers to "push forward the grand experiment that is Wikipedia."

(Former Britannica editor Robert McHenry dubbed Wikipedia the "Faith based encyclopedia", and the project certainly reflects the religious zeal of some of its keenest supporters. Regular Register readers will be familiar with the rhetoric. See "Wikipedia 'to make universities obsolete').

Hundreds of publications pounced on the Nature story, and echoed the spin that Wikipedia was as good as Britannica - downplaying or omitting to mention the quality gap. The press loves an upbeat story, and what can be more uplifting than the utopian idea that we're all experts - at whatever subject we choose?

The journal didn't, however, disclose the evidence for these conclusions until some days later, when journalists had retired for their annual Christmas holiday break.

And this evidence raised troubling questions, as Nicholas Carr noted last month. Many publications had assumed Nature's Wikipedia story was objectively reporting the work of scientists - Nature's staple - rather than a news report assembled by journalists pretending to be scientists.

And now we know it was anything but scientific.

Carr noted that Nature's reviewers considered trivial errors and serious mistakes as roughly equal.

So why did Nature risk its reputation in such a way?

Perhaps the clue lies not in the news report, but in the evangelism of the accompanying editorial. Nature's news and features editor Jim Giles, who was responsible for the Wikipedia story, has a fondness for "collective intelligence", one critical website suggests.

"As long as enough scientists with relevant knowledge played the market, the price should reflect the latest developments in climate research," Giles concluded of one market experiment in 2002.

The idea became notorious two years ago when DARPA, under retired Admiral Poindexter, invested in an online "terror casino" to predict world events such as assassinations. The public didn't quite share the sunny view of this utopian experiment, and Poindexter was invited to resign.

What do these seemingly disparate projects have in common? The idea that you can vote for the truth.

We thought it pretty odd, back in December, to discover a popular science journal recommending readers support less accurate information. It's even stranger to find this institution apparently violating fundamental principles of empiricism.

But these are strange times - and high summer for supporters of junk science.

and also see the response to the Nature article from Britanica (pdf file as its too long to quote in full): britannica_nature_response.pdf

Fatally Flawed

Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature

Almost everything about the journal’s investigation, from the

identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text

was wrong and misleading.

----------------------------------------------------

So when you try to defend wiki, at least do some proper research