Everest 2.2T or 3.2T, worth the difference?

[fredob43]

2 hours ago, transam said:

Were those figures compiled with just a driver, no load....?

I suspect that they are average urban/run.

Jass21 quoted that he got 12km = Lt on a trip to Chang Mai.

 As the list doesn't include the 2.8 Fortuner, cant give an accurate estimate on how they work it out.

 

Suffice to say that I the last time I did an overall trip that I checked got nearly 16km to the Lt.

That was on a run to BKK including 2.5+ hours of Driving (more like standing still) in BKK.

1 up on half the section 2.1/2  with luggage on return.

[transam]

14 minutes ago, fredob43 said:

I suspect that they are average urban/run.

Jass21 quoted that he got 12km = Lt on a trip to Chang Mai.

 As the list doesn't include the 2.8 Fortuner, cant give an accurate estimate on how they work it out.

 

Suffice to say that I the last time I did an overall trip that I checked got nearly 16km to the Lt.

That was on a run to BKK including 2.5+ hours of Driving (more like standing still) in BKK.

1 up on half the section 2.1/2  with luggage on return.

But we are talking about the difference between the Ford 2.2 and the 3.2....If the figures are about a lone guy and not a loaded vehicle then there is not a true figure of the difference between the two...

[fredob43]

16 minutes ago, transam said:

But we are talking about the difference between the Ford 2.2 and the 3.2....If the figures are about a lone guy and not a loaded vehicle then there is not a true figure of the difference between the two...

Would have thought it was to hard to work out Jass21 quoted he got 12 = Lt on a run and the list says 11.6 average.

Tuna 2.4 13.53. I got 15.78 on my run, bigger engine gets better millage. So must be overall average loaded in and out of traffic/run.

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, fredob43 said:

Would have thought it was to hard to work out Jass21 quoted he got 12 = Lt on a run and the list says 11.6 average.

Tuna 2.4 13.53. I got 15.78 on my run, bigger engine gets better millage. So must be overall average loaded in and out of traffic/run.

 

 

Ask Jass if he had a load..Don't think so..

[fredob43]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Ask Jass if he had a load..Don't think so..

Does it really matter loaded/unloaded it's a near as dam it. There all a guess on fuel used, depends how you drive, they don't seem to take that into account.

[fullcave]

The only issue I can see with the ford 1is fuel efficiency, resale value and all the complaints about after sales service posted here at Thaivisa. Otherwise, I would absolutely consider buying one. 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, fredob43 said:

Does it really matter loaded/unloaded it's a near as dam it. There all a guess on fuel used, depends how you drive, they don't seem to take that into account.

Perhaps you do not understand what torque numbers at a particular RPM and load it has to shift matters...

[fredob43]

2 hours ago, fullcave said:

The only issue I can see with the ford 1is fuel efficiency, resale value and all the complaints about after sales service posted here at Thaivisa. Otherwise, I would absolutely consider buying one. 

Ford is definitely down compared to the Toyota fuel wise.

 

Have a friend who always rents an MPV from hertz BKK they wont rent Fords. When he asked why was told that servicing was the main reason.

Seems that they now only rent Tunas and MUX (Mostly MUX) and only the small engine ones.

[fredob43]

2 hours ago, transam said:

Perhaps you do not understand what torque numbers at a particular RPM and load it has to shift matters...

Yes I do. Its just that the figures given are an average estimate. Nothing is in stone driving wise.

How many times have you read what a manufacturer stated what their vehicle will do, only to find that it is never achievable. Maybe down hill with a good trailing wind.

[transam]

1 minute ago, fredob43 said:

Yes I do. Its just that the figures given are an average estimate. Nothing is in stone driving wise.

How many times have you read what a manufacturer stated what their vehicle will do, only to find that it is never achievable. Maybe down hill with a good trailing wind.

Figures are usually derived by a professional driver....

This topic is about the 2.2 vs the 3.2...In my opinion the difference between the two is about performance/grunt with a LOAD...That is common sense and why manufacturers provide engine options on ANY ride...    

[JaiLai]

18 minutes ago, transam said:

Figures are usually derived by a professional driver....

This topic is about the 2.2 vs the 3.2...In my opinion the difference between the two is about performance/grunt with a LOAD...That is common sense and why manufacturers provide engine options on ANY ride...    

In reality what's a load "really" gonna consist of for mr average, a wife and couple of kids maybe, at most 80-100kgs, will that 'really' make that much of a difference for fuel consumption?

[transam]

3 minutes ago, JaiLai said:

In reality what's a load "really" gonna consist of for mr average, a wife and couple of kids maybe, at most 80-100kgs, will that 'really' make that much of a difference for fuel consumption?

Again,  we are talking about the difference between the two..I don't give a stuff about the oh a buyer may not carry a load, we are talking about what one will do better..

 

You can buy a Morris Marina with a 1300 or an 1800 engine, the difference between the two is amazing loaded or unloaded.....

[fredob43]

46 minutes ago, transam said:

Figures are usually derived by a professional driver....

This topic is about the 2.2 vs the 3.2...In my opinion the difference between the two is about performance/grunt with a LOAD...That is common sense and why manufacturers provide engine options on ANY ride...    

The engine size just about say's it. 2.2 or 3.2 One is slow loaded especially on hills the other will fly up them. Power to weight ratio.

 

Have driven the 2.2 Ford. Although quite a nice lump had to give it a large right foot to make it go with 4 up. Compared to the 2.8 Tuna.

Couldn't test drive the 3.2 what I would have picked if I chose any, as wasn't available to test drive. Ended up with tuner for several reasons the comments on TV regarding servicing. And minor problems (Now sorted?) the Ford had. Then there's the Toyota reliability.

[mogandave]

The engine size just about say's it. 2.2 or 3.2 One is slow loaded especially on hills the other will fly up them. Power to weight ratio.
 
Have driven the 2.2 Ford. Although quite a nice lump had to give it a large right foot to make it go with 4 up. Compared to the 2.8 Tuna.
Couldn't test drive the 3.2 what I would have picked if I chose any, as wasn't available to test drive. Ended up with tuner for several reasons the comments on TV regarding servicing. And minor problems (Now sorted?) the Ford had. Then there's the Toyota reliability.

Were I going to buy the Ford, I would go for the 3.2.

I generally go for the bigger mill when given a choice.

I found the 2.8 'tuna disappointing power-wise

[DavisH]

53 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Were I going to buy the Ford, I would go for the 3.2.

I generally go for the bigger mill when given a choice.

I found the 2.8 'tuna disappointing power-wise

 

 

The 3.2 Everest could be even more disappointing!

[JaiLai]

Again,  we are talking about the difference between the two..I don't give a stuff about the oh a buyer may not carry a load, we are talking about what one will do better..
 
You can buy a Morris Marina with a 1300 or an 1800 engine, the difference between the two is amazing loaded or unloaded.....

They have Morris Marinas here?

[mogandave]

 
The 3.2 Everest could be even more disappointing!

I didn't buy the Ford, I did buy the Toyota.

[transam]

1 hour ago, JaiLai said:

 

They have Morris Marinas here?

Perhaps...

[Robert24]

Ford is definitely down compared to the Toyota fuel wise.
 
Have a friend who always rents an MPV from hertz BKK they wont rent Fords. When he asked why was told that servicing was the main reason.
Seems that they now only rent Tunas and MUX (Mostly MUX) and only the small engine ones.

Rental car companies care most about resale values. Hence their choice of brands.

[mogandave]

Rental car companies care most about resale values. Hence their choice of brands.

That is not really true.

Rental car companies are concerned with the total cost and benefit. Resale value is just one component of that.

[DavisH]

13 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I didn't buy the Ford, I did buy the Toyota.
 

 

I think it's a good choice, in this country anyway. 

 

As for that table, the results are for 2 passengers (160kg); for fuel economy measure it was on the expressway (110km/h).

 

[DavisH]

46 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

That is not really true.

Rental car companies are concerned with the total cost and benefit. Resale value is just one component of that.

 

For government vehicles, there are also specs that must be adhered to - such as cost, engine size, #seats, etc. Most government suv's appear to be either mux or fortuners. 

[mogandave]

I think it's a good choice, in this country anyway. 
 
As for that table, the results are for 2 passengers (160kg); for fuel economy measure it was on the expressway (110km/h).
 

My wife likes it.

My (company) car is a 3L D-Max that seems to have more power.

[DavisH]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

My wife likes it.

My (company) car is a 3L D-Max that seems to have more power.

 

The d-max mu-x has a good 3.0 motor that spools up quickly. It gives it good acceleration. My wife's college car is a mu-x but she doesn't like to comfort level in the back, even with the new coil springs. They also skimp on safety equipment (still only 2 airbags). I guess that keeps costs down. 

[mogandave]

The d-max mu-x has a good 3.0 motor that spools up quickly. It gives it good acceleration. My wife's college car is a mu-x but she doesn't like to comfort level in the back, even with the new coil springs. They also skimp on safety equipment (still only 2 airbags). I guess that keeps costs down. 

Yeah, I don't ride in the back...

I like the 'tuna okay, but I think the MuX is a better value.

I think the 'tuna is far and away the best looking between the Ford, Toyota,Isuzu, Nissan, Mazda & Mitzu.

[DavisH]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

Yeah, I don't ride in the back...

I like the 'tuna okay, but I think the MuX is a better value.

I think the 'tuna is far and away the best looking between the Ford, Toyota,Isuzu, Nissan, Mazda & Mitzu.
 

 

The rides of the suv's can be improved a lot by replacing the struts/shocks. Old Man Emu or Iron Pro cell comfort are good choices. 

[mogandave]

The rides of the suv's can be improved a lot by replacing the struts/shocks. Old Man Emu or Iron Pro cell comfort are good choices. 

Or adjusting the tire pressure...

Every time I leave the service center I have to let out air...

[JaseTheBass]

Yeah, I don't ride in the back...

I like the 'tuna okay, but I think the MuX is a better value.

I think the 'tuna is far and away the best looking between the Ford, Toyota,Isuzu, Nissan, Mazda & Mitzu.

You're joking, right? It's nearly as ugly as the Mitsu, and those square wheel arches...

Sent from my R2D2 droid using my C3P0 manservant

[mogandave]

You're joking, right? It's nearly as ugly as the Mitsu, and those square wheel arches...

Sent from my R2D2 droid using my C3P0 manservant

Whatever

[JaseTheBass]

Whatever

I forgot to mention the over-bite and the dog's dinner of an interior.



Sent from my R2D2 droid using my C3P0 manservant