The Big Bangkok Post Pick Up Test

[chanchao]

See here: http://www.bangkokpost.com/010607_Motoring...007_motor05.php

Bangkok Post usually doesn't keep this available for more than a week, so when that link stops working you can read it here:

http://nachang.com/pickuptest

Now, there's some mistakes or inconsistencies in the text that make you wonder what actually IS accurate, but then that's part and parcel of the Bangkok Post experience.

Like, they say the Nissan is the biggest, but looking at the spec sheet you see that the Mazda is actually longer, which is strange because it's the same chassis/body as the Ford which has a smaller number listed.

Then there's the mileage figures. First of all they're all way too low (too thirsty) aren't they? 9.3 km per liter for the Mazda?! That's actually WORSE than the old model, which you should be able to squeeze 12.5 km/liter out of and even in Bangkok traffic driving I doubt you'll go much under 10.. Did they actually make an effort to objectively test this at various speeds or was it just a bunch of guys speeding up and down Thailand in their own way in a random truck and then listing how much fuel they happened to burn? In that case the comparison is pretty meaningless.

Torque problem for the Nissan: It has the highest torque figure, but at a higher engine speed than for example the Ford/Mazda. How does the Nissan do at 3800 rpm? The text mentions it has a problem there (turbo lag) but no details. This for sure is enough to put me off the Nissan because lack of low-end torque is the main issue with my current truck. If that's true, for a pick-up and especially a 4WD one that SHOUDL be able to haul a big load up a steep trail, that's a total deal-breaker for the Nissan then. If you build a 4WD vehicle, for chrissakes make sure you get the engine right first.

'Course engine' , 'crude engine' .. What does that mean? That you hear it? It's a TRUCK; as long as it isn't ear-shattering (Isuzu TFR anyone? ) I think an audible drone in the background is nothing to be ashamed of in an off-road truck.

Dated Chassis (Ford Mazda)... In what way is it dated and what does it lack that the others have? Isn't the suspension setup the same across all of these vehicles? "You can frequently feel how performance overwhelms the chassis when you drive harder than usual in the two pick-ups. That also explains why top speed in both the Ranger and BT-50 has been capped at 158kph." Alternatively: Ford/Mazda designers may actually give a flying <deleted> about safety; that may also explain the side airbags. And it implies they don't see a problem with driving over 158 kph on Thai roads in any of the other ones? O..kay....

The winner? Toyota doesn't put a driver side airbag in. I think that this should count a lot more negatively, enough to make Toyota Thailand notice, scratch their heads and get it right in a minor-change update which surely must not be far away. And they DO put it in for exported vehicles. So Toyota's omission is a pure bean-counter decision: they care more about playing pricing-games than about customer safety, there's just no way around that. Also that a face-lift should be imminent can actually be a reason to hold off on the Vigo until it materializes; it's definitely due.

Edited June 6, 2007 by chanchao

[Gary A]

As a former Nissan fan, I wouldn't buy a new one. They made the truck bigger and took out the old reliable very efficient 3.0 liter NON turbo engine and put in a hopped up 2.5 liter turbo. I would guess they have stressed this engine just to make the claim that it is the most powerful truck engine available in Thailand. I'm sure the fuel economy suffers and probably the engine life is shorter too.

[chanchao]

If I was buying a new truck then it would probably be the Toyota, however I WOULD wait until the next minor-change / facelift.

[Etrigan]

Strange how the reviews never tell you whether the fuel consumption was measured with the air-conditioning on or not! It does make a difference.

[Gary A]

To call the Chevy and Isuzu engines coarse when it is the most efficient engine is surprising. What does an engine have to do so that it is not "coarse"? Nearly ten percent more efficient is nothing to sneeze at. I'd certainly take these test opinions with a salt shaker rather than a grain of salt.

[torrenova]

I had a Vigo on lease and ended up buying an Isuzu D-Max 3.0L Highlander. Although still in the first 1000km, I would say that perhaps the Toyota has a better gearbox (both autos) and perhaps more bottom end (real bottom end) power but nothing worries me.

Toyota does have drivers airbag whereas Isuzu has 2.

Km/L coming back from Burirma in the new car was 11.6

[chanchao]

That's... not very good for a modern common rail engine... Of course it's still new, but presumably you've been driving it not that hard while breaking it in, staying below 3000 rpm and all.. then 11.6 is still quite thirsty.

I'd be interested to know what you get after breaking it in a bit, and driving in as high a gear as possible.

Our Isuzu 3.0 engine (non common rail, the old model) I can hit 16.5 km / liter when trying hard. 13.5 when not trying, city driving, etc.

[moonoi]

I dunno about that. My MU7 gets around 10km/ltr around the city and the best I ever got on a good run was 14km/ltr. Not that impressed as its nothing like what the book says (not that I expected it to be the same, but didn't expect it to be so radically differant either). Mines got 18000 Km on it now and is 10 months old.

Had the garage look at it, but they claim nothing is wrong. Strangely it doesn't seem to make much differance if I drive economically or with a heavy foot....may a differance of about .5km/ltr

My gfs' father also has a MU7, but the newer generation one with the VGS Turbo and thats even worse!

Edited June 8, 2007 by moonoi

[Gary A]

I have often bragged and gotten into arguments about my 2004 Nissan 3.0 liter non turbo diesel. It is a King cab two wheel drive and I regularly get 15 kilometers per liter on the highway and not much worse on short trips. My Toyota was a 4X4 and I was lucky to get 10 1/2 on the highway.

[moonoi]

I have often bragged and gotten into arguments about my 2004 Nissan 3.0 liter non turbo diesel. It is a King cab two wheel drive and I regularly get 15 kilometers per liter on the highway and not much worse on short trips. My Toyota was a 4X4 and I was lucky to get 10 1/2 on the highway.

Yes I remember those arguments I have no reason to disbelieve what you say though!

I might add that both MU7s' in this case are RWD ones, not the 4WD which I would expect to be even worse again!!!!

Its the only thing that I'm disappointed about in my car, strange also that every quarter I get an MU7 VIP Club newsletter and theres always some report on an 'economy rally' where people with the same car as me get upto 22km/ltr.....how is it possible? (I know they probably drive at 30km hour, being a danger to themselves and other road users )

Edited June 8, 2007 by moonoi

[Gary A]

Some people are of the mistaken opinion that the commonrail fuel system was primarily developed for better fuel economy. That's not the case. If you research the fuel system you will find that the primary purpose was to quiet the rattle of the diesel. It does that by injecting a small charge of fuel ahead of the main charge. The combustion process is started ahead of the main shot of fuel and it does quiet the knocking considerably. It didn't do that much for efficiency.

[chanchao]

theres always some report on an 'economy rally' where people with the same car as me get upto 22km/ltr.....how is it possible?

Well, don't have any outwardly protruding bits like bull bars or other plastic bits and definitely no roof rack, then fold the mirrors flat, remove all excess weight including the tool set and spare wheel.

Then under no circumstance run the airconditioner, better still, remove the belt that drives the thing as well. also keep the windows shut, of course. Tyres should be inflated to the recommended pressure (or a bit above that perhaps?)

Then quickly shift up to 5th gear and keep it there, going around 55-65 km/h. DONT EVER BRAKE! People think that 'a heavy right foot' costs money, but at least with your right pedal you get something useful in return (speed). When hitting the brakes however you only get heat in return, and lose your speed-investment.

Take corners like you see F1 drivers do so as wide a line through a corner as possible. For a left turn that means first moving all the way to the right side of the road, then aim your arc through the bend just hitting the apex in the middle almost touching the left edge of the road, then ending up all the way on the right again after the turn. All of this in 5th gear if at all possible, needless to say.

Then for red lights, better not stop at all, though if you must then let it roll (in gear) until around 1000 rpm when the engine starts to want to push the car even when not pressing the gas, then put it in neutral (or shut down the engine) and roll to a stop. If that happens to be short of the actual intersection then so be it, we're talking minimum fuel consumption here, not safety or common sense.

Edited June 11, 2007 by chanchao

[phutoie2]

As a former Nissan fan, I wouldn't buy a new one. They made the truck bigger and took out the old reliable very efficient 3.0 liter NON turbo engine and put in a hopped up 2.5 liter turbo. I would guess they have stressed this engine just to make the claim that it is the most powerful truck engine available in Thailand. I'm sure the fuel economy suffers and probably the engine life is shorter too.

I too have preferred Nissan's and have just traded my 5 year old 2.7 in for a new Navaro. (half belonging to me and the other to Siam C bank!)

Its the 2.5 4x2 model, the 106kw version.

I particulary liked the utility cab doors and the 6th gear addition. Its the LE model too so has ABS and airbags, so thats an improvement on my old one.

I went to view some used Vigo's and Isuzu's but the high prices put me off

Nissans to me are rugged beasts and if anything falls off I will be peeved. Fuel consumption will be interesting to monitor over the next few months too, with the 6 speed gearbox.

Yesterday it was given the blessing in our towns temple, so its clear for take off now

Will report back!!

[Thaiboxer]

If you guys think a truck which gets only 10km per liter is thirsty, you should try my Toyota Corona. That old tub gets 7km per liter! Perhaps it was designed for the sole purpose of depleting our fossil fuel supply:)

[technocracy]

So when are they going do a proper test and report on there off-road ability???!?!?

If I want a car for the road - I buy believe it or not . . . a car NOT a pickup!!!

I don't for one understand the love of the Vigo - I liked the older Hilux Tigers but I think the Vigo is just butt ugly.

I am a Mitsubishi fan however I think they spoiled the L200 with the Triton - they threw away most of it off-road ability (and ground clearance) for car like looks.

I'll keep my L200 thanks!

[chanchao]

> they threw away most of it off-road ability (and ground clearance) for car like looks.

How's that? What does it lack that the previous model had?

One thing that would actually count as a plus is that the rear leaf springs are now moved to the top of the axle; In the previous model they sit below the axel with the potential to catch ground/rocks/debris. Currently the Isuzu/Chevrolet are the only ones that still have the old setup with springs below the axle.

But is the new model actually lower, and by how much? If so, is that just due to the choice of wheels/tyres? Typically you'd want a truck to be not higher than needed to fit the tyre; Raising it a bit when you want to fit bigger tyres is very cheap and easy to do.

I drive the Isuzu Dragon Eyes (pre D-Max) Isuzu, and that one really is a bit lower than all the other ones. I don't think I mind, it's high enough for typical use and if I ever feel the need to turn it in to a more serious off-roader then I will need different tyres anyway, and will raise it a bit at that time. (Possibly just a bit of lift, but a full set that also raise the leaf springs above the rear axle is widely available).

My personal opinion: ANY Thai made 4x4 truck will make an excellent off-roader as long as the engine doesn't suck. In the past this was true for the Ford Ranger / Mazda Fighter. Currently this MAY apply to the new Nissan Navarra as it also has a 2.5 liter engine and potentially (don't know for sure) a problem with extreme low end torque.

Edited June 18, 2007 by chanchao

[Greenside]

I have to admit that I've never had a pickup but went in an Isuzu D-Max at the company roadshow in Chiang Mai last weekend. Wow, that thing went over a nine metre (metal clad) hill with 40 degree ascent and descents and along the side of a 45 degree bank without breaking sweat. If I ever need to really go off road I know where I'll be looking...

[chanchao]

Yah.. well they all do that though. Except for the previous model Ford/Mazda in 2.5 TD form, those lack torque beyond any belief. But Toyota and Mitsubishi also often do these road shows with either an artificial metal hill, or even an off-road little test track.

It's indeed amazing, you just point it at the thing and it goes. Don't even need to hit the gas on the way up or the brakes on the way down; just put it in 4WD-Low, 1st gear, and point it at whatever you want to go over.

Edited June 20, 2007 by chanchao