Everest 2.2T or 3.2T, worth the difference?

[mogandave]

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

 

 

 

Sent from my R2D2 droid using my C3P0 manservant

 

 

I'm glad you're happy with your Everest, I've had quite a few Fords (my first car was a '53 F100 with a flat-head 270 V8) and they've all been good units.

 

It is unfortunate that you are so insecure about your purchase that you feel compelled to insult what others own.

 

Incidentally, I like the two-tone red & black seats and I don't really know what you mean about square wheel wells and overbite, but if your ragging makes you feel better about owning the Everest than carry on.

 

 

[fullcave]

On 9/8/2017 at 5:29 PM, 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...    

No actually, it's about fuel consumption vs. performance/grunt. The 3.2 is damn thirsty loaded or not.  

[JAS21]

This is a record of 'actual' fuel used/distance travelled since new ....  3.2Ltr (not computer km/ltr)

 

It's not too bad at 90-110km/Hr .... uses a lot in Bangkok traffic and around the Phu Tubberk hills!!

[mogandave]

This is a record of 'actual' fuel used/distance travelled since new ....  3.2Ltr (not computer km/ltr)
 
It's not too bad at 90-110km/Hr .... uses a lot in Bangkok traffic and around the Phu Tubberk hills!!

So it's fair to say you average about 10? Cool app, I just use a spreadsheet.

You don't drive much huh?

[JAS21]

12 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So it's fair to say you average about 10? Cool app, I just use a spreadsheet.

You don't drive much huh?

 

Not an app as such ... www.fuelly.com   just stick your refills in there ...have a look ...since madam got her RS Civic we use the EV a lot less. We are Jas21 on it

 

Now we are on our way back from Chiang Mai ...BK-Phitsanulok-Chiang Mai-Phu Tubberk-Phitsanulok has knocked up a few kms ...

[mogandave]

Not an app as such ... www.fuelly.com   just stick your refills in there ...have a look ...since madam got her RS Civic we use the EV a lot less. We are Jas21 on it
 
Now we are on our way back from Chiang Mai ...BK-Phitsanulok-Chiang Mai-Phu Tubberk-Phitsanulok has knocked up a few kms ...

How do you like the Civic? We looked at them before my wife went for the 'tuna.

[mogandave]

Not an app as such ... www.fuelly.com   just stick your refills in there ...have a look ...since madam got her RS Civic we use the EV a lot less. We are Jas21 on it
 
Now we are on our way back from Chiang Mai ...BK-Phitsanulok-Chiang Mai-Phu Tubberk-Phitsanulok has knocked up a few kms ...

That is a nice website, butt-load of vehicles.

Found yours, looks like you get 10 overall and about 12 highway, yes? That's about what the Isuzu gets.

I don't have enough data on the 'tuna yet as the wife doesn't drive much.

[transam]

12 hours ago, fullcave said:

No actually, it's about fuel consumption vs. performance/grunt. The 3.2 is damn thirsty loaded or not.  

I would suggest it is common sense that an engine with 33% more cc's will use more gas if it is using the same drive gear ratio's, l would also think that if the two rides are roughly the same weight that the 33% bigger engine will be noticeably superior when loaded. The addition of a very low first gear in the auto will help the 2.2 out a lot, if the old 4 sp trans were used it would probably be a slug loaded.

 

So it boils down to usage for a buyer...

[mogandave]

I would suggest it is common sense that an engine with 33% more cc's will use more gas if it is using the same drive gear ratio's, l would also think that if the two rides are roughly the same weight that the 33% bigger engine will be noticeably superior when loaded. The addition of a very low first gear in the auto will help the 2.2 out a lot, if the old 4 sp trans were used it would probably be a slug loaded.
 
So it boils down to usage for a buyer...

While generally true, an overburdened smaller mill will often burn more fuel than an a more appropriately sized larger unit.

Smaller engines generally have to rev higher as well, which can result in shorter lifespans.

[transam]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

While generally true, an overburdened smaller mill will often burn more fuel than an a more appropriately sized larger unit.

Smaller engines generally have to rev higher as well, which can result in shorter lifespans.
 

 

Correct...The 2.2 high torque RPM range is way down compared to the 3.2, that's why  l keep on about usable grunt with a load between the  two..

[DavisH]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

While generally true, an overburdened smaller mill will often burn more fuel than an a more appropriately sized larger unit.

Smaller engines generally have to rev higher as well, which can result in shorter lifespans.
 

 

I think burn "more fuel per cc of engine capacity" may be more appropriate. I can flog the ring out of my 1.2 swift and get 15 km/l but driving my civic 2.0 like a granny could get me 11km/l if I'm lucky:). Big engines don't need much to get them going, and at idle, but are using lots of fuel to do so. My swift also has a lower rpm at 100 than the civic. One of the few benefits of a cvt.

[mogandave]

I think burn "more fuel per cc of engine capacity" may be more appropriate. I can flog the ring out of my 1.2 swift and get 15 km/l but driving my civic 2.0 like a granny could get me 11km/l if I'm lucky:). Big engines don't need much to get them going, and at idle, but are using lots of fuel to do so. My swift also has a lower rpm at 100 than the civic. One of the few benefits of a cvt.

It takes a lot more power to move a Civic than a Swift.

The Swift's engine in the Civic would burn considerably more fuel.

[JAS21]

26 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

It takes a lot more power to move a Civic than a Swift.

The Swift's engine in the Civic would burn considerably more fuel.

 

The 10th Gen Civic (1.5 Turbo) at constant speed is very fugal. I drove it back from Sattahip doing 90 -100km/hr and using cruise most of the way ...resetting the trip on leaving ...until I hit the BK traffic it showed very slightly less than 20km/ltr .... if you look ahead you don't need to do much breaking.

 

When Mrs J drives it ...it uses more fuel .....

[JAS21]

7 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

How do you like the Civic? We looked at them before my wife went for the 'tuna.

 

I made some comments in the Civic Hatchback topic...

 

Less NVH than both the Focus and the Mazda 3 which was her choice before test driving ...as she has had her Mazda Lantis for 20 years ....

 

Being CVT it's a little jerky in slow speed traffic ...it 's quick!!

 

A huge boot for golf clubs and suitcases. Very roomy inside...

 

The fact that Android Auto works is a big plus ...

 

Disappointed that they changed to Pearl White from the really shiny white of previous ...

 

The ride in the EV is far superior so we are away in that at present.

[mogandave]

I made some comments in the Civic Hatchback topic...
 
Less NVH than both the Focus and the Mazda 3 which was her choice before test driving ...as she has had her Mazda Lantis for 20 years ....
 
Being CVT it's a little jerky in slow speed traffic ...it 's quick!!
 
A huge boot for golf clubs and suitcases. Very roomy inside...
 
The fact that Android Auto works is a big plus ...
 
Disappointed that they changed to Pearl White from the really shiny white of previous ...
 
The ride in the EV is far superior so we are away in that at present.

For a road car, bigger and heavier is generally better...