Hej. Been reading a lot of coments abaut plus and minus on the Isuzu, Toyota and Ranger, but for me one importent thing is missing. I wanted to buy the new Ranger Wildtrak (2.5 xlt highrider) . Very equeped and good looking fore the price of 724K. Was told from dealer up til 22km/l. Mmmm, had too look fore more info. Simuler spec. as the old US motor with and averige at 9.5/l up til 13km. How sudently 22/l. Can eny one here please give me info about the real driving econemy fore these 3 cars as i have to do many km. I here about 16 fore the Isuzu withs sem`s more realistik. Thank you fore a good homeside.

Hej. Been reading a lot of coments abaut plus and minus on the Isuzu, Toyota and Ranger, but for me one importent thing is missing. I wanted to buy the new Ranger Wildtrak (2.5 xlt highrider) . Very equeped and good looking fore the price of 724K. Was told from dealer up til 22km/l. Mmmm, had too look fore more info. Simuler spec. as the old US motor with and averige at 9.5/l up til 13km. How sudently 22/l. Can eny one here please give me info about the real driving econemy fore these 3 cars as i have to do many km. I here about 16 fore the Isuzu withs sem`s more realistik. Thank you fore a good homeside.

The lower powered (116HP) Isuzu 2.5L, driven for economy, can achieve 16-17KM/L on the highway. Any of the newer 140+ HP engines will max. out at around 13-14KM/L on the highway.

The only way 22KM/L would be possible in a vehicle with the weight of a pickup would be a <= 2.0L engine making very lower specific power - which doesn't exist.

Hej. Been reading a lot of coments abaut plus and minus on the Isuzu, Toyota and Ranger, but for me one importent thing is missing. I wanted to buy the new Ranger Wildtrak (2.5 xlt highrider) . Very equeped and good looking fore the price of 724K. Was told from dealer up til 22km/l. Mmmm, had too look fore more info. Simuler spec. as the old US motor with and averige at 9.5/l up til 13km. How sudently 22/l. Can eny one here please give me info about the real driving econemy fore these 3 cars as i have to do many km. I here about 16 fore the Isuzu withs sem`s more realistik. Thank you fore a good homeside.

The lower powered (116HP) Isuzu 2.5L, driven for economy, can achieve 16-17KM/L on the highway. Any of the newer 140+ HP engines will max. out at around 13-14KM/L on the highway.

The only way 22KM/L would be possible in a vehicle with the weight of a pickup would be a <= 2.0L engine making very lower specific power - which doesn't exist.

Thanks fore the reply. I understand that the reason the Fords have lowe resale prices is because of the bad fuel economi. Do you know if its stil actuel or just a Thai myte they still belive in. Stil thinks that the Ranger is a good offer, also in mention that it just got 5 star in crash test (europe) as the first pick up ever . Dont think the Thai version will do same, as the tuch several airbags aut, but still.

Hej. Been reading a lot of coments abaut plus and minus on the Isuzu, Toyota and Ranger, but for me one importent thing is missing. I wanted to buy the new Ranger Wildtrak (2.5 xlt highrider) . Very equeped and good looking fore the price of 724K. Was told from dealer up til 22km/l. Mmmm, had too look fore more info. Simuler spec. as the old US motor with and averige at 9.5/l up til 13km. How sudently 22/l. Can eny one here please give me info about the real driving econemy fore these 3 cars as i have to do many km. I here about 16 fore the Isuzu withs sem`s more realistik. Thank you fore a good homeside.

The lower powered (116HP) Isuzu 2.5L, driven for economy, can achieve 16-17KM/L on the highway. Any of the newer 140+ HP engines will max. out at around 13-14KM/L on the highway.

The only way 22KM/L would be possible in a vehicle with the weight of a pickup would be a <= 2.0L engine making very lower specific power - which doesn't exist.

Thanks fore the reply. I understand that the reason the Fords have lowe resale prices is because of the bad fuel economi. Do you know if its stil actuel or just a Thai myte they still belive in. Stil thinks that the Ranger is a good offer, also in mention that it just got 5 star in crash test (europe) as the first pick up ever . Dont think the Thai version will do same, as the tuch several airbags aut, but still.

I have a 2004 ranger (pre commonrail) and while my friends Vigo does have better fuel economy MOST of the Thai myth of BAD fuel economy comes from the fact that the Ranger actually has/had a smaller fuel tank. therefor less km's per tank.

I'm not sure what size the newer Rangers fuel tanks are.

Hej. Been reading a lot of coments abaut plus and minus on the Isuzu, Toyota and Ranger, but for me one importent thing is missing. I wanted to buy the new Ranger Wildtrak (2.5 xlt highrider) . Very equeped and good looking fore the price of 724K. Was told from dealer up til 22km/l. Mmmm, had too look fore more info. Simuler spec. as the old US motor with and averige at 9.5/l up til 13km. How sudently 22/l. Can eny one here please give me info about the real driving econemy fore these 3 cars as i have to do many km. I here about 16 fore the Isuzu withs sem`s more realistik. Thank you fore a good homeside.

The lower powered (116HP) Isuzu 2.5L, driven for economy, can achieve 16-17KM/L on the highway. Any of the newer 140+ HP engines will max. out at around 13-14KM/L on the highway.

The only way 22KM/L would be possible in a vehicle with the weight of a pickup would be a <= 2.0L engine making very lower specific power - which doesn't exist.

Thanks fore the reply. I understand that the reason the Fords have lowe resale prices is because of the bad fuel economi. Do you know if its stil actuel or just a Thai myte they still belive in. Stil thinks that the Ranger is a good offer, also in mention that it just got 5 star in crash test (europe) as the first pick up ever . Dont think the Thai version will do same, as the tuch several airbags aut, but still.

I have a 2004 ranger (pre commonrail) and while my friends Vigo does have better fuel economy MOST of the Thai myth of BAD fuel economy comes from the fact that the Ranger actually has/had a smaller fuel tank. therefor less km's per tank.

I'm not sure what size the newer Rangers fuel tanks are.

70 l fore this model.

Thanks fore the reply. I understand that the reason the Fords have lowe resale prices is because of the bad fuel economi. Do you know if its stil actuel or just a Thai myte they still belive in. Stil thinks that the Ranger is a good offer, also in mention that it just got 5 star in crash test (europe) as the first pick up ever . Dont think the Thai version will do same, as the tuch several airbags aut, but still.

The 2010 Ford Ranger 3.0L in top-spec trim (i.e. 4-door AT 4x4) gets 11KM/L highway, and 7.8KM/L city.

By comparison:

A top spec 2011 Isuzu D-Max 3.0L does 12.7KM/L highway / 9.2KM/L city

A top spec 2011 Toyota Hilux 3.0L does 12.6KM/L highway / 8.5KM/L city

A top spec 2011 Mitsubishi Triton 2.5L does 12.0KM/L highway / 8.4KM/L city

So yes, it's not rumor that the old Ford/Mazda pickups use more fuel, it's a fact.

It's also not a rumor that Isuzu have always been the most fuel effecient..

Note that the 2011 T6 Ranger 3.2L in top-spec trim does 12.3KM/L highway / 8.2KM/L city, so vastly improved.

also in mention that it just got 5 star in crash test (europe) as the first pick up ever . Dont think the Thai version will do same, as the tuch several airbags aut, but still.

The top-spec 3.2L Wildtrak model gets the full safety pack in TH, so 5-star rated.

Thanks fore the reply. I understand that the reason the Fords have lowe resale prices is because of the bad fuel economi. Do you know if its stil actuel or just a Thai myte they still belive in. Stil thinks that the Ranger is a good offer, also in mention that it just got 5 star in crash test (europe) as the first pick up ever . Dont think the Thai version will do same, as the tuch several airbags aut, but still.

The 2010 Ford Ranger 3.0L in top-spec trim (i.e. 4-door AT 4x4) gets 11KM/L highway, and 7.8KM/L city.

By comparison:

A top spec 2011 Isuzu D-Max 3.0L does 12.7KM/L highway / 9.2KM/L city

A top spec 2011 Toyota Hilux 3.0L does 12.6KM/L highway / 8.5KM/L city

A top spec 2011 Mitsubishi Triton 2.5L does 12.0KM/L highway / 8.4KM/L city

So yes, it's not rumor that the old Ford/Mazda pickups use more fuel, it's a fact.

It's also not a rumor that Isuzu have always been the most fuel effecient..

Note that the 2011 T6 Ranger 3.2L in top-spec trim does 12.3KM/L highway / 8.2KM/L city, so vastly improved.

Thanks again. Do you think or know if dates (13.1KM/L highway /9.5KM/L city) of the 2.5er is right. Seems ok if real with 143hp/330nM

PS. The American dates. 22 (averige) as dealer said witch is simular to US dates, but in miles an gallons. But divided with 2.35 (hope right) gives 9.36KM/L and up about 13KM/L. Great to se the first real KM/L dates from you, but i have to seatle with a 2.5. 750K is the most i want to use.

Thanks fore the reply. I understand that the reason the Fords have lowe resale prices is because of the bad fuel economi. Do you know if its stil actuel or just a Thai myte they still belive in. Stil thinks that the Ranger is a good offer, also in mention that it just got 5 star in crash test (europe) as the first pick up ever . Dont think the Thai version will do same, as the tuch several airbags aut, but still.

The 2010 Ford Ranger 3.0L in top-spec trim (i.e. 4-door AT 4x4) gets 11KM/L highway, and 7.8KM/L city.

By comparison:

A top spec 2011 Isuzu D-Max 3.0L does 12.7KM/L highway / 9.2KM/L city

A top spec 2011 Toyota Hilux 3.0L does 12.6KM/L highway / 8.5KM/L city

A top spec 2011 Mitsubishi Triton 2.5L does 12.0KM/L highway / 8.4KM/L city

So yes, it's not rumor that the old Ford/Mazda pickups use more fuel, it's a fact.

It's also not a rumor that Isuzu have always been the most fuel effecient..

Note that the 2011 T6 Ranger 3.2L in top-spec trim does 12.3KM/L highway / 8.2KM/L city, so vastly improved.

MRO are those fuel figures for the ranger from Australia? I wonder how comparable they will be to Thailand. Our "city" is much different to theirs, unless it's Sydney at peak hour:)

Thanks fore the reply. I understand that the reason the Fords have lowe resale prices is because of the bad fuel economi. Do you know if its stil actuel or just a Thai myte they still belive in. Stil thinks that the Ranger is a good offer, also in mention that it just got 5 star in crash test (europe) as the first pick up ever . Dont think the Thai version will do same, as the tuch several airbags aut, but still.

The 2010 Ford Ranger 3.0L in top-spec trim (i.e. 4-door AT 4x4) gets 11KM/L highway, and 7.8KM/L city.

By comparison:

A top spec 2011 Isuzu D-Max 3.0L does 12.7KM/L highway / 9.2KM/L city

A top spec 2011 Toyota Hilux 3.0L does 12.6KM/L highway / 8.5KM/L city

A top spec 2011 Mitsubishi Triton 2.5L does 12.0KM/L highway / 8.4KM/L city

So yes, it's not rumor that the old Ford/Mazda pickups use more fuel, it's a fact.

It's also not a rumor that Isuzu have always been the most fuel effecient..

Note that the 2011 T6 Ranger 3.2L in top-spec trim does 12.3KM/L highway / 8.2KM/L city, so vastly improved.

MRO are those fuel figures for the ranger from Australia? I wonder how comparable they will be to Thailand. Our "city" is much different to theirs, unless it's Sydney at peak hour:)

Yes your right. This is offcouse same all time as Sydney at russ hour. But going night hours from Pattaya to east Thai (800KM) about to times a month it makes a different how many Km on highway. Doesnt matter about a few Km more or less in city

Thanks again. Do you think or know if dates (13.1KM/L highway /9.5KM/L city) of the 2.5er is right. Seems ok if real with 143hp/330nM

It totally depends on model, as weight changes and as you move up in range/cab space the fuel effiecieny suffers. Also, the aerodynamics of "hi rider" variants impacts highway fuel consumption numbers. The numbers you've quoted for the 2.5L sound about right.

MRO are those fuel figures for the ranger from Australia? I wonder how comparable they will be to Thailand. Our "city" is much different to theirs, unless it's Sydney at peak hour:)

Yes, they are based on Australian ADR rules. There's no established fuel consumption measuring system under Thailand's TIS, so it's either Australian ADR or Japanese JIS - we chose to standardize on the former as JIS numbers are completely unachievable in the real world.

Note that all of these fuel consumption numbers are measured on a dyno (i.e. in a closed room), with very specific drive patterns and sophisticated formulae to account for wind resistance and weight. As such they're not Syndey nor Bangkok numbers - just a very good representation of what someone who drives for economy can achieve - YMMV.

Edited October 30, 201114 yr by MoonRiverOasis

Thanks again. Do you think or know if dates (13.1KM/L highway /9.5KM/L city) of the 2.5er is right. Seems ok if real with 143hp/330nM

It totally depends on model, as weight changes and as you move up in range/cab space the fuel effiecieny suffers. Also, the aerodynamics of "hi rider" variants impacts highway fuel consumption numbers. The numbers you've quoted for the 2.5L sound about right.

MRO are those fuel figures for the ranger from Australia? I wonder how comparable they will be to Thailand. Our "city" is much different to theirs, unless it's Sydney at peak hour:)

Yes, they are based on Australian ADR rules. There's no established fuel consumption measuring system under Thailand's TIS, so it's either Australian ADR or Japanese JIS - we chose to standardize on the former as JIS numbers are completely unachievable in the real world.

Note that all of these fuel consumption numbers are measured on a dyno (i.e. in a closed room), with very specific drive patterns and sophisticated formulae to account for wind resistance and weight. As such they're not Syndey nor Bangkok numbers - just a very good representation of what someone who drives for economy can achieve - YMMV.

Wow, now its getting complicated. Any idea abaut how mutch more economic (in general) the same size (2.5 intercoler turbo) Isuzu are.

Thanks again. Do you think or know if dates (13.1KM/L highway /9.5KM/L city) of the 2.5er is right. Seems ok if real with 143hp/330nM

It totally depends on model, as weight changes and as you move up in range/cab space the fuel effiecieny suffers. Also, the aerodynamics of "hi rider" variants impacts highway fuel consumption numbers. The numbers you've quoted for the 2.5L sound about right.

MRO are those fuel figures for the ranger from Australia? I wonder how comparable they will be to Thailand. Our "city" is much different to theirs, unless it's Sydney at peak hour:)

Yes, they are based on Australian ADR rules. There's no established fuel consumption measuring system under Thailand's TIS, so it's either Australian ADR or Japanese JIS - we chose to standardize on the former as JIS numbers are completely unachievable in the real world.

Note that all of these fuel consumption numbers are measured on a dyno (i.e. in a closed room), with very specific drive patterns and sophisticated formulae to account for wind resistance and weight. As such they're not Syndey nor Bangkok numbers - just a very good representation of what someone who drives for economy can achieve - YMMV.

Wow, now its getting complicated. Any idea abaut how mutch more economic (in general) the same size (2.5 intercoler turbo) Isuzu are.

Its much more complicated in the real world. My 2010 Vigo 4x4auto 3,0 4 door loaded with 4 adults, 2 Ninja 650R at 210Kg each returns 9km/liter at 160kmh crusingspeed.

last week did 3.800km in an identical 2011 with one Ninja 650R in bed, same figures.

and around Phuket going with the flow, they return +10km/liter, which is better than OZ studio figures

Fortuna, ad approx 10%. Full time 4x4 and dual AC and black paint needs fuel

Using the figures provided by MRO you get an indication on difference in fuel consumption between vehicles

Interestingly, in Europe several markets tax cars based on pollution and fuel consumption. Black cars use an average of 2% more fuel

Wow, now its getting complicated. Any idea abaut how mutch more economic (in general) the same size (2.5 intercoler turbo) Isuzu are.

Well, there's no other way. You drive differently to everyone else. For some people, city driving means being stuck for 2 hours going nowhere in BKK, for others it means crawling along at 10km/hr in Pattaya, for others it's Chiangmai with and average speed of 45km/hr or more. For some people, highway driving means drivign at 90km/hr, for others it's crusing at 140+.. Then there's people who accelerate slowly and always coast to a stop vs those that punch the gas as soon as they can, and jump on the brakes hard everytime the traffic slows down..

So the only fair way to compare fuel economy is a controlled test.

The Isuzu 136HP 2.5L in double-cab, 2WD, 5MT form gets 14.0KM/L highway / 10.2KM/L city - which you also may or may not get, but it's comparable to the numbers I've posted previously

Edited October 31, 201114 yr by MoonRiverOasis

I like the front, but not those wheel archers.. They are going to get really scratched up.

Thanks again again. Thats figures i can use, then the rest is up to mee and my driving. Isuzu a bit better, but more power and better offer in Ford. Also think that resale will improve a bit because of the bigger tank ("god fore oi") he he. Of cause to sell before 2014 when new Toyota come. The offer i got included 18" wheels whitch must be good in Bangkok now. Only about 1KM/l in difference and the better security. No daubt now. Saw the crashtest picture on the Isuzu 2010 (better now). It nearly slipped the chasis. Thats why not in EU. Thanks again fore making my choice