4X2 Or 4X4 Fortuner

[corkman]

Hi All,

Been considering a new Fortuner. Looking at the price list and specs etc., and from what I can gather the only difference between the 3.0V 4x2 and the 3.0V 4x4 is the four wheel drive part? I had previsouly been thinking that the 4x4 aspect would be a "must" - but on further consideration, I am thinking not. For normal use (i.e. not going off road) is there any significant disadvantage of not having 4x4? In terms of safety or otherwise? Any big problems with resale value later? From what I can gather, a 4x2 might actually be better ..... namely for better fuel economy?

FYI - I am living in Bangkok and will travel up-country on the occasion, and sometimes to Pattaya / Hua Hin.

You opinion would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[crisp]

I have a Fortuner Aperto (Diesel) & parts , which is 4x2.

I have driven both 4x4 & 4x2 fortuners, & i can say the 4x2 is more than ok for everyday use . I've found it very comfortable, resonably economic & parts, accessories easy to find.

The only down side i found was the lack of power, probably because i'm used to driving higher powered vehicles. but i had the engine chipped & larger brakes fitted .

I would recommend any Fortuner, diesel or petrol models.

I'm sure there are those who disagree with my opinion though!

Cris

[MoonRiverOasis]

Here's some measured differences, if it helps:

0-100km/hr:

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4X4: 15.12

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4X4: 13.28

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4X2: 12.71

80-120km/hr:

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4x4: 11.35

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4x4: 10.3

Fortuner 3.0v 4AT 4x2: 10.14

Top Speed:

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4x4: 160 @ 4,300 rpm

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4x4: 185 @ 3,500 rpm

Fortuner 3.0v 4AT 4x2: 185 @ 3,500 rpm

Highway Fuel Economy (@110km/hr):

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4x4: 9.02 km/l

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4x4: 10.63 km/l

Fortuner 3.0v 4AT 4x2: 12.37 km/l

[H2oDunc]

If you are never going to be going off road then just the 4x2 will be better. If not you are dragging all the extra weight of the extra gearbox and transfer box which makes the car slower and less fuel efficient

[katabeachbum]

If you are never going to be going off road then just the 4x2 will be better. If not you are dragging all the extra weight of the extra gearbox and transfer box which makes the car slower and less fuel efficient

depends

Fortuner full time 4x4 has much better traction on wet paved roads.

performance is almost identical, fuel is approx 20% more. Purchase price as I recall is another 70-100k, maintance is 1000 baht extra every 40k km, I d go 4x4.

[rics21]

so are you considering a Pajero Sport?

look at the HTML address of the Fortuner, it is the 2007 model..... 3 - 4 years ago

"http://www.toyota.co.th/en/models/Fortuner/fortuner2007_spec.asp"

the Pajero sport seems to be a newer model,

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.th/mitsubishi/pajerosport/index.html

it is cheaper and the specs are around the same.... you r not considering resale value.... i guess Pajero Sport will be a better choice.

[MoonRiverOasis]

look at the HTML address of the Fortuner, it is the 2007 model..... 3 - 4 years ago

Fortuner was released in November 2004, with a minor change in August 2008 (new front styling, new wheels and VSC added). Since then there's been a few special edition models (Aperto, Sportivo) but no changes to the base product.

Pajero Sport was released in August 2008, with a minor change in October 2009 (added cruise control, new wheels, slightly different front grille).

it is cheaper and the specs are around the same.... you r not considering resale value.... i guess Pajero Sport will be a better choice.

Total cost of ownership is better for Pajero Sport at 1 year old and beyond - e.g. Fortuner 3.0L V 4x2 loses 220K Baht in the first year (1.27M to 1.05M), while Pajero Sport GT loses 200K baht (1.1M to 900K). From there on the Pajero Sport's TCO keeps on improving against Fortuner. (prices based on current valuations for 1year, 20,000KM, and As New condition).

[corkman]

look at the HTML address of the Fortuner, it is the 2007 model..... 3 - 4 years ago

Fortuner was released in November 2004, with a minor change in August 2008 (new front styling, new wheels and VSC added). Since then there's been a few special edition models (Aperto, Sportivo) but no changes to the base product.

Pajero Sport was released in August 2008, with a minor change in October 2009 (added cruise control, new wheels, slightly different front grille).

it is cheaper and the specs are around the same.... you r not considering resale value.... i guess Pajero Sport will be a better choice.

Total cost of ownership is better for Pajero Sport at 1 year old and beyond - e.g. Fortuner 3.0L V 4x2 loses 220K Baht in the first year (1.27M to 1.05M), while Pajero Sport GT loses 200K baht (1.1M to 900K). From there on the Pajero Sport's TCO keeps on improving against Fortuner. (prices based on current valuations for 1year, 20,000KM, and As New condition).

I'm driving around in a Pajero at the moment (its the G wagon I think) ..... its about 4 yrs old (so the older model) ..... and it is aweful!

I suppose it might be worth taking a look at the new Pajero, I'm just put off by the one I'm in at the moment.

[corkman]

Here's some measured differences, if it helps:

0-100km/hr:

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4X4: 15.12

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4X4: 13.28

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4X2: 12.71

80-120km/hr:

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4x4: 11.35

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4x4: 10.3

Fortuner 3.0v 4AT 4x2: 10.14

Top Speed:

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4x4: 160 @ 4,300 rpm

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4x4: 185 @ 3,500 rpm

Fortuner 3.0v 4AT 4x2: 185 @ 3,500 rpm

Highway Fuel Economy (@110km/hr):

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4x4: 9.02 km/l

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4x4: 10.63 km/l

Fortuner 3.0v 4AT 4x2: 12.37 km/l

On the basis of this, I am more or less sold on the 3.0V 4x2. Thanks.

That is not to say that I will not continue to consider others opinions though..... the remark that 4x4 is better on a wet road is a good one ..... but I would be hoping the VSC etc. would take care of that? Thoughts?

THanks eeveryone.

[MoonRiverOasis]

I'm driving around in a Pajero at the moment (its the G wagon I think) ..... its about 4 yrs old (so the older model) ..... and it is aweful!

The G-Wagon is a 1999 design, released in Thailand in 2001 - very old tech. Compare it to the old Hilux Surf and it's reasonable, but a lot has changed in diesels in the last few years alone (let alone the least decade) so both of the aforementioned are in a different class to what's out there now.

[chmiroau]

Seriously now, why would you want to buy a vehicle that started out life as a commercial vehicle, and then pretend that it is a safe family vehicle. If it is safety that you want then buy a vehicle that has (from the forefront) been designed as a passenger carrying vehicle.

It has been a long held wives tale that four wheel drives have been safer to drive. That being fair, they may be, just dont try and turn a corner in a hurry, or ask it to stop quickly. Then should you hit something hard, you have the full chassis (which is designed as a commercial operational instrument to both carry excessive weight, and then go off road, not designed as a passenger carrying chassis) to deal with. These strong chassis have a habit of stopping the 4X4 very quickly, offering virtually no crash safety to the occupants who should be seat belted in. This creates a very sudden stop, one that has the habit of ripping your insides because of the sudden stop.

DONT BELIEVE ME????

Check for yourselves. Check the European (safest cars in the world) crash reports of these vehicles, and see what they say.

If you want a passenger car that will carry lots of luggage, be comfortable for lots of passengers, and is also fuel efficient, then look at the passenger carrying ranges of cars. Back in Australia the best one was the Toyota Tarago, not sure what they call it here in Thailand, but I do know that you can get them as a hybrid.

[MoonRiverOasis]

Check for yourselves. Check the European (safest cars in the world) crash reports of these vehicles, and see what they say.

Pajero Sport (aka Challenger and Montero Sport) gets 4/5 stars on both Euro NCAP and ANCAP. Toyota Estima (aka Torago) also gets 4 stars BTW, as does Fortuner, Vigo, Camry, Yaris etc etc etc.

The only 5/5 star cars in Thailand are luxury European makes and the top-model Mazda 3, as nothing else has the requisite amount of airbags and VSC.

Here's some video links for those interested

2008 Toyota Estima (Torago)

Edited July 7, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[MoonRiverOasis]

2008 Mistubishi L200 (Triton = Pajero Sport)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mGvInhDDbU

2005 Toyota Hilux (=Fortuner)

[katabeachbum]

.... the remark that 4x4 is better on a wet road is a good one ..... but I would be hoping the VSC etc. would take care of that? Thoughts?

THanks eeveryone.

VSC will engage one or more brakes and/or reduce throttle to keep vehicle on the road. but 4X4 can drive faster before this happens (loose traction), and I m willing to pay for this

[chmiroau]

Check for yourselves. Check the European (safest cars in the world) crash reports of these vehicles, and see what they say.

Pajero Sport (aka Challenger and Montero Sport) gets 4/5 stars on both Euro NCAP and ANCAP. Toyota Estima (aka Torago) also gets 4 stars BTW, as does Fortuner, Vigo, Camry, Yaris etc etc etc.

The only 5/5 star cars in Thailand are luxury European makes and the top-model Mazda 3, as nothing else has the requisite amount of airbags and VSC.

Here's some video links for those interested

2008 Toyota Estima (Torago)

Point taken, however I feel that if you read a report that was done by the Australian car magazine Motor, they stated that although many of the 4X4's that are marked as cars had the 4* ancap rating, their road behaviour was never questioned.

The Ancap rating only deals with what happens after a crash. They do not deal with the fact that a Toyota Yaris will out handle a 4X4 any day of the week. It will turn in faster, tighter, hold its line better, and then to top it off it will stop a heap quicker, as will the Tarago.

This in my book is a safer car, passenger carrying vehicle.

[MoonRiverOasis]

Point taken, however I feel that if you read a report that was done by the Australian car magazine Motor, they stated that although many of the 4X4's that are marked as cars had the 4* ancap rating, their road behaviour was never questioned.

The Ancap rating only deals with what happens after a crash. They do not deal with the fact that a Toyota Yaris will out handle a 4X4 any day of the week. It will turn in faster, tighter, hold its line better, and then to top it off it will stop a heap quicker, as will the Tarago.

This in my book is a safer car, passenger carrying vehicle.

Euro NCAP includes road handling tests, and the star ratings remain consistent with ANCAP. Google for the now infamous Toyota Hilux Moose Test (which has been fixed BTW)... So I guess if you're talking in general terms, there's really only 2/5 pickups that perform like passenger cars in crash testing, so that'll perhaps explain the what was written by the Aussie author of the article (well, that or a predisposed prejudice, sensationalism, or cash-for-comments ;0 )

It's not that all ladder-frame pickups/SUV's are as good on safety as passenger vehicles - the Ford Ranger/Mazda BT-50 and Isuzu D-Max/Chev Colorado fair quite poorly on the frontal offset test (substantial cabin deformation), but so does the Camry Hybrid for that matter..

However, with good engineering it's possible to make them as safe - as demonstrated by Mitsubishi and Toyota. In fact, on side-impact a high-riding pickup/SUV offers magnitudes better occupant protection given the lower-down impact zone.

Edit: Another factor not to be overlooked is that > 50% of the vehicles on Thai roads are pickups or SUV's.. That means in a side-impact in a Yaris, Camry etc you've got a very, very high chance of being dead. Best to bring a gun to a gunfight I say :-P

Edited July 8, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[MoonRiverOasis]

[chmiroau]

Point taken, however I feel that if you read a report that was done by the Australian car magazine Motor, they stated that although many of the 4X4's that are marked as cars had the 4* ancap rating, their road behaviour was never questioned.

The Ancap rating only deals with what happens after a crash. They do not deal with the fact that a Toyota Yaris will out handle a 4X4 any day of the week. It will turn in faster, tighter, hold its line better, and then to top it off it will stop a heap quicker, as will the Tarago.

This in my book is a safer car, passenger carrying vehicle.

Euro NCAP includes road handling tests, and the star ratings remain consistent with ANCAP. Google for the now infamous Toyota Hilux Moose Test (which has been fixed BTW)... So I guess if you're talking in general terms, there's really only 2/5 pickups that perform like passenger cars in crash testing, so that'll perhaps explain the what was written by the Aussie author of the article (well, that or a predisposed prejudice, sensationalism, or cash-for-comments ;0 )

It's not that all ladder-frame pickups/SUV's are as good on safety as passenger vehicles - the Ford Ranger/Mazda BT-50 and Isuzu D-Max/Chev Colorado fair quite poorly on the frontal offset test (substantial cabin deformation), but so does the Camry Hybrid for that matter..

However, with good engineering it's possible to make them as safe - as demonstrated by Mitsubishi and Toyota. In fact, on side-impact a high-riding pickup/SUV offers magnitudes better occupant protection given the lower-down impact zone.

Edit: Another factor not to be overlooked is that > 50% of the vehicles on Thai roads are pickups or SUV's.. That means in a side-impact in a Yaris, Camry etc you've got a very, very high chance of being dead. Best to bring a gun to a gunfight I say :-P

Sorry if I have offended you. I know that 4X4 drivers need to justify their excessive use of petrol, and they need to justify the fact that 4X4's are harder to park, cost more to service, are harder to wash, but yes they do make your dick bigger.

Isn't a shame that the really big 4X4's aren't available here, so that you can waste space and petrol by the gallon, all for the reason that you believe that a bigger crash is worth it.

[katabeachbum]

Point taken, however I feel that if you read a report that was done by the Australian car magazine Motor, they stated that although many of the 4X4's that are marked as cars had the 4* ancap rating, their road behaviour was never questioned.

The Ancap rating only deals with what happens after a crash. They do not deal with the fact that a Toyota Yaris will out handle a 4X4 any day of the week. It will turn in faster, tighter, hold its line better, and then to top it off it will stop a heap quicker, as will the Tarago.

This in my book is a safer car, passenger carrying vehicle.

Euro NCAP includes road handling tests, and the star ratings remain consistent with ANCAP. Google for the now infamous Toyota Hilux Moose Test (which has been fixed BTW)... So I guess if you're talking in general terms, there's really only 2/5 pickups that perform like passenger cars in crash testing, so that'll perhaps explain the what was written by the Aussie author of the article (well, that or a predisposed prejudice, sensationalism, or cash-for-comments ;0 )

It's not that all ladder-frame pickups/SUV's are as good on safety as passenger vehicles - the Ford Ranger/Mazda BT-50 and Isuzu D-Max/Chev Colorado fair quite poorly on the frontal offset test (substantial cabin deformation), but so does the Camry Hybrid for that matter..

However, with good engineering it's possible to make them as safe - as demonstrated by Mitsubishi and Toyota. In fact, on side-impact a high-riding pickup/SUV offers magnitudes better occupant protection given the lower-down impact zone.

Edit: Another factor not to be overlooked is that > 50% of the vehicles on Thai roads are pickups or SUV's.. That means in a side-impact in a Yaris, Camry etc you've got a very, very high chance of being dead. Best to bring a gun to a gunfight I say :-P

Sorry if I have offended you. I know that 4X4 drivers need to justify their excessive use of petrol, and they need to justify the fact that 4X4's are harder to park, cost more to service, are harder to wash, but yes they do make your dick bigger.

Isn't a shame that the really big 4X4's aren't available here, so that you can waste space and petrol by the gallon, all for the reason that you believe that a bigger crash is worth it.

hmm, Euro NCAP.

Testing a Yaris, its crashed with its own weight.

Testing a Vigo its crashed with its own weight.

Crashing a Vigo with a Yaris, its hard to even find the Yaris after crash. In LOS 50% of vehicles are pickups or larger, and these vehicles cover more km pr year, so its most likely to crash with a pickup or larger vehicle.

Being a 5 star small car is still a small car. I d say any (and Ford/Izu are really bad) LOS pickup manages better than Yaris in a crash.

I think I wont use the Yaris today:unsure:

[chmiroau]

Why 4X4's should be removed from the road.

1/ They are not cars, mostly they are (were) commercial vehicles, and the damage they cause to ecologically responsible car users is unacceptable because;

1a/ Drivers of these large commercial passenger vehicles are no better drivers than other road users.

1b/ In my experience, many of these drivers employ intimidation tactics when driving through traffic, leading to the possibility of more accidents.

1c/ This intimidation tactic leads to an aura of invincibility, dangerous to all road users, including the driver of the 4X4.

1d/ These type of vehicle do not handle anywhere as well as most passenger vehicles, thus reducing their safe use on the road.

1e/ They pose a significant threat to what ever they hit, and as explained above this is more likely to happen.

2/ The drivers of these vehicles believe that the 4X4 is a car, which it is defiantly not.

2a/ They do not handle anywhere near as well as the cheapest passenger car, making them more dangerous in every case. This includes turning and braking, to general road stability at high speed.

2b/ Despite the makers best intentions, you cannot make a commercial vehicle handle as good as a car. Mistu Pajero for example, has more roll than a bakers shop, and wanders at high speed (I have driven one)

2c/ Many, if not all drivers of these vehicles drive them beyond their own and the vehicles ability, leading to further possibility of accident.

3/ While the ANCAP safety for the occupants is stated as level with most other passenger cars, it does not take into account the above safety aspects of car and road use. Yes size does matter when you are in a crash, that is why you would be more safe in a camry than you would in a yaris. What ANCAP does not take into account is the damage that a 4X4 does to other more ecologically responsible cars on the road (as depicted very nicely by the above video). IF you are happy with the fact that you have just killed someone in a crash, bearing in mind that you have to live the rest of your life with that fact, then, lets have another arms race.

(I am speaking as an avid hater of the over use of 4X4's on public roads. This is from an Australian point of view, and the topic has reached politics in Aus. Too many accidents have occurred between 4X4's and small cars that the death rate cannot be ignored. Also the single vehicle accident rate, and subsequent loss of life in 4X4 is over represented statistically. These vehicles should be treated very carefully and all other options to a 4X4 should be examined by the purchaser prior to satisfying their ego.)

[katabeachbum]

Why 4X4's should be removed from the road.

1/ They are not cars, mostly they are (were) commercial vehicles, and the damage they cause to ecologically responsible car users is unacceptable because;

1a/ Drivers of these large commercial passenger vehicles are no better drivers than other road users.

1b/ In my experience, many of these drivers employ intimidation tactics when driving through traffic, leading to the possibility of more accidents.

1c/ This intimidation tactic leads to an aura of invincibility, dangerous to all road users, including the driver of the 4X4.

1d/ These type of vehicle do not handle anywhere as well as most passenger vehicles, thus reducing their safe use on the road.

1e/ They pose a significant threat to what ever they hit, and as explained above this is more likely to happen.

2/ The drivers of these vehicles believe that the 4X4 is a car, which it is defiantly not.

2a/ They do not handle anywhere near as well as the cheapest passenger car, making them more dangerous in every case. This includes turning and braking, to general road stability at high speed.

2b/ Despite the makers best intentions, you cannot make a commercial vehicle handle as good as a car. Mistu Pajero for example, has more roll than a bakers shop, and wanders at high speed (I have driven one)

2c/ Many, if not all drivers of these vehicles drive them beyond their own and the vehicles ability, leading to further possibility of accident.

3/ While the ANCAP safety for the occupants is stated as level with most other passenger cars, it does not take into account the above safety aspects of car and road use. Yes size does matter when you are in a crash, that is why you would be more safe in a camry than you would in a yaris. What ANCAP does not take into account is the damage that a 4X4 does to other more ecologically responsible cars on the road (as depicted very nicely by the above video). IF you are happy with the fact that you have just killed someone in a crash, bearing in mind that you have to live the rest of your life with that fact, then, lets have another arms race.

(I am speaking as an avid hater of the over use of 4X4's on public roads. This is from an Australian point of view, and the topic has reached politics in Aus. Too many accidents have occurred between 4X4's and small cars that the death rate cannot be ignored. Also the single vehicle accident rate, and subsequent loss of life in 4X4 is over represented statistically. These vehicles should be treated very carefully and all other options to a 4X4 should be examined by the purchaser prior to satisfying their ego.)

glad to hear you actually have driven a suv. So in short, your advice to OP is to choose the Fortuner with 2wd only since its safer?

Audi makes cars with both frontwheeldrive and fourwheeldrive, some of their models are identical except for the 4wd. Its no secret buyers of 4wd are more agressive and "sporty" drivers, Should 4wd on Audi be removed from the road too? Would that make these drivers safer?

Edited July 8, 2010 by katabeachbum

[MoonRiverOasis]

Sorry if I have offended you. I know that 4X4 drivers need to justify their excessive use of petrol, and they need to justify the fact that 4X4's are harder to park, cost more to service, are harder to wash, but yes they do make your dick bigger.

Isn't a shame that the really big 4X4's aren't available here, so that you can waste space and petrol by the gallon, all for the reason that you believe that a bigger crash is worth it.

Offended me? no way - that's quite impossible

I simply deal in facts - if someone disagrees with them, they are the one's who should be offended

As for your bullet-point list, if you can remove all the generalisations and pare it down to known facts only, I'll be more than happy to respond. Right now there's just too much noise in it for me to respond in a timely fashion.

Edit: If/when you do respond with an edited, factual, scientific list of arguments, please do take the time to cite some references. Unfortunately for many readers here, your credibility may have been tarnished by the over-emotional response posted earlier.Please also quote facts pertaining to the Thai market, road conditions and drivers. Citing data from Australia bears little to no relevance in Thailand.

Edited July 8, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[GM1955]

This is from an Australian point of view

And totally irrelevant in Thailand.

[corkman]

Thank you all for your replies.

I'll be honest and say that I personally would prefer a Camry than a fortuner - it looks nice, its more confortable, and taking a macroscopic view at it, it is probably safer. In my opinion, there are two types of cash - single vehicle and multivehicle. A single vehicle crash in "farang land" or here is infinitely more avoidable in a porper car - couple that with the low incidents of SUV / car crashes in farang land, then in my opinion IN FARANG LAND you are much safer in a car than an SUV. But, in Thaialnd, if you are sitting low in any "car" and some nutter thai farmer with a couple of tonnes of coconuts in the back of a 1980 Hi-lux ploughs into the side of you at the traffic lights or similar - well if your head and torso, or your childs entire little body are at bumper level, then you / they are dead - it is as simple as that. So, in Thailand, for safety, if one should drives a bit more carefully to minimise the risk of a single car crash, then all round I think you are allot safer in an SUV.

My reasons for wanting an SUV over a car are thus two fold:

1. Safety, as discussed above.

2. Space (I know a people carrier could provide this equally, or better) - put two babay seats in the back of a car and two buggies in the boot, and you can forget carrying any other luggage, much less, other people!

This comes at a premium - purchase price, runnign costs, and at a cost to the environment. The latter is a big deal for me, however being human, I am more concerned for the safety of my kids than I am for teh safety of the planet. Selfish and short sighted as that may be, I am just being honest - and we like in reality, not in an ideal world, so until it becomes the law that all pick ups will have ABS and will not be over loaded, and pickups are banned in urban centres where I spend most of my time driving, then I am afraid I am reluctant to take the risk.

[katabeachbum]

Thank you all for your replies.

I'll be honest and say that I personally would prefer a Camry than a fortuner - it looks nice, its more confortable, and taking a macroscopic view at it, it is probably safer. In my opinion, there are two types of cash - single vehicle and multivehicle. A single vehicle crash in "farang land" or here is infinitely more avoidable in a porper car - couple that with the low incidents of SUV / car crashes in farang land, then in my opinion IN FARANG LAND you are much safer in a car than an SUV. But, in Thaialnd, if you are sitting low in any "car" and some nutter thai farmer with a couple of tonnes of coconuts in the back of a 1980 Hi-lux ploughs into the side of you at the traffic lights or similar - well if your head and torso, or your childs entire little body are at bumper level, then you / they are dead - it is as simple as that. So, in Thailand, for safety, if one should drives a bit more carefully to minimise the risk of a single car crash, then all round I think you are allot safer in an SUV.

My reasons for wanting an SUV over a car are thus two fold:

1. Safety, as discussed above.

2. Space (I know a people carrier could provide this equally, or better) - put two babay seats in the back of a car and two buggies in the boot, and you can forget carrying any other luggage, much less, other people!

This comes at a premium - purchase price, runnign costs, and at a cost to the environment. The latter is a big deal for me, however being human, I am more concerned for the safety of my kids than I am for teh safety of the planet. Selfish and short sighted as that may be, I am just being honest - and we like in reality, not in an ideal world, so until it becomes the law that all pick ups will have ABS and will not be over loaded, and pickups are banned in urban centres where I spend most of my time driving, then I am afraid I am reluctant to take the risk.

agree with you

except my 2007 Camry 2,4 and 2008 Accord 2,4 both needed 20% more fuel than my 2005 Fortuner 3,0D auto 4x4, indicating less cost for the environment by driving Fortuner/Pajero diesel

[corkman]

Thank you all for your replies.

I'll be honest and say that I personally would prefer a Camry than a fortuner - it looks nice, its more confortable, and taking a macroscopic view at it, it is probably safer. In my opinion, there are two types of cash - single vehicle and multivehicle. A single vehicle crash in "farang land" or here is infinitely more avoidable in a porper car - couple that with the low incidents of SUV / car crashes in farang land, then in my opinion IN FARANG LAND you are much safer in a car than an SUV. But, in Thaialnd, if you are sitting low in any "car" and some nutter thai farmer with a couple of tonnes of coconuts in the back of a 1980 Hi-lux ploughs into the side of you at the traffic lights or similar - well if your head and torso, or your childs entire little body are at bumper level, then you / they are dead - it is as simple as that. So, in Thailand, for safety, if one should drives a bit more carefully to minimise the risk of a single car crash, then all round I think you are allot safer in an SUV.

My reasons for wanting an SUV over a car are thus two fold:

1. Safety, as discussed above.

2. Space (I know a people carrier could provide this equally, or better) - put two babay seats in the back of a car and two buggies in the boot, and you can forget carrying any other luggage, much less, other people!

This comes at a premium - purchase price, runnign costs, and at a cost to the environment. The latter is a big deal for me, however being human, I am more concerned for the safety of my kids than I am for teh safety of the planet. Selfish and short sighted as that may be, I am just being honest - and we like in reality, not in an ideal world, so until it becomes the law that all pick ups will have ABS and will not be over loaded, and pickups are banned in urban centres where I spend most of my time driving, then I am afraid I am reluctant to take the risk.

agree with you

except my 2007 Camry 2,4 and 2008 Accord 2,4 both needed 20% more fuel than my 2005 Fortuner 3,0D auto 4x4, indicating less cost for the environment by driving Fortuner/Pajero diesel

That does not surprise me, but I wouldn't have thought of that other than you mentioning it.

Coming from back home where fuel efficiency is much more to the fore, what is surprising is how some cars which you would think are gas-guzzlers are in fact quite efficient. BMW 3.20d for example puts out about the same CO2 emmisions as a Yaris (from vague memory).

When the "green brigade" start talking about cars like they are the ruination of the planet, they quite often forget some very interesting facts, such as:

1. Hybrids 9with their huge battery packs) actaulyl do more harm than good, as compared to an efficient diesel, and a 3.30d BMW is actaully more efficient that the fames Toyota Prius.

2. Embedded carbon is a huge factor - take a little yaris with all the trimmings and comapre it to a basic pick up and I bet there is very little difference in terms of the emmissions accounted for in manufacturing.....

3. a single cow, eating and farting and crapping emits the same emmissions as 12 4.2 supercharged petrol rangrovers ..... 12 of them!!!! So, before anyone starts to lecture on buying "green" cars, I hope they have stopped eating all dairy and beef products!

[FarangBuddha]

3. a single cow, eating and farting and crapping emits the same emmissions as 12 4.2 supercharged petrol rangrovers ..... 12 of them!!!! So, before anyone starts to lecture on buying "green" cars, I hope they have stopped eating all dairy and beef products!

Moooooo!

[CHdiver]

Looks like we need Gen manipulated Cows with a Catalysator

[aussiebebe]

I think the OP pretty well answered his own quesiton - buy the 4x2 Fortuner as it's sufficient for his intended purposes. I quite liked chmiroau's post, but what I think is exciting about Thailand is how much the market is changing by itself, without so much political intervention as Australia. I know the Thai government offers tax incentives for these eco-cars (www.nissan.co.th) to be manufactured and when sold, but it doesn't need to legislate against 4x4s. I'm seeing lots of cars coming onto the market like the March, Mazda 2, Ford Fiesta, which I think will change the face of Thai roads over time. I guess rising fuel prices, which people who have been in Thailand longer than me can attest to, are having an influence on this.

[fredob43]

2 wheel drive dosen't have C/C or VSC I think. Sorry but to knackered to look it up. Check it out.