Just bought an Isuzu Vcross space cab 2.5 4wd. Why do Thais go for the 2wd?

[David48]

My apologies. glad to meet you. Name is Craig :-)

That's OK, no need to apologies, all is forgiven.

BTW, my name is David.

NTMU

.

[David48]

Craig, when I'm in Thailand I live at the Farm ... many of the Guys on the forum know my lifestyle, as I post regularly about it.

We live on a relatively remote Farm.

The Farm Truck is a 17 year old Toyota 2WD.

Handles the conditions fairly well.

This is the Farm Access Road in fairly good condition.

If you like Pick-ups/Utes ... then maybe enjoy looking through this thread ... people-and-their-pickups-in-thailand-images

A member here really worthwhile listening to is IMHO.

He's Thai, a nice bloke and involved in the Motor Trade, so, if you are looking for a Thai Opinion, a good place to start.

.

[pgrahmm]

Personally I prefer the 4x4 - I like the weight distribution on the front end - I like the additional mass as a buffer just in case of front end collision - some manufacturers use a stronger frame for 4x4 applications due to the stresses applied during operation.... liked the solid"er" feel while towing (+ pulling the boat out of a lake - or towing snowmobiles or horse trailers)....I like how you can load them down and still track well....I like having the 4x4 being able to conquer all driving conditions.....anticipated and not - including snowy condition driving.....and I like the higher resale value....

Given - it's a fact that most Thais would not do what I've done with vehicle.....

I've had them since the 80's + been involved in 4 wheeling as a sport....

Currently have 2 - one here & one stored in the states....

I think the Thais are looking at $$$$$ when buying.....also - I think they prefer simple (stuck in their way) over advancements.....I think 4x4's were introduced later.....most are happy to have a good truck - front wheel pulling availabilty is a non factor to them...

[wilcopops]

Chassis / frame vehicles have an inherent disadvantage in a collision.

For the most part, they don't have the same shock absorption properties as modern vehicles.

Mass isn't a "buffer"

Edited December 8, 2014 by wilcopops

[pgrahmm]

Chassis / frame vehicles have an inherent disadvantage in a collision.

For the most part, they don't have the same shock absorption properties as modern vehicles.

Mass isn't a "buffer"

Any info to back that up?

If mass isn't important why are SUVs 3-4 times safer than lesser vehicles?

And true SUVs have a frame - not unibody construction.....

[Don Mega]

chassied vehicles have poorer crumple zones.

Do you have anything to back up your claims SUV's are 3-4 times safer ?

[pgrahmm]

Yes just went through this....Insurance Institute for Highway Safety fatalities per million miles driven insurance tables....

[Don Mega]

Yes just went through this....Insurance Institute for Highway Safety fatalities per million miles driven insurance tables....

USA stats hold no relevance to Thailand.

Have you got anything to back up your claims ?

[Kenny202]

Does anyone know if the V cross has stronger suspension etc? One of the reasons I got the 4WD was I thought

would be a stronger and hence live longer vehicle. From what I can see re drive train, engine etc same spec as Australia

[Kenny202]

A lot depends on what you intend to use your car for - some posers seem to be making assumptions based on their own limited suburban lifestyles - On top of driving to work, I travel extensively around Thailand and Lao and many of the places I've been ,I wouldn't have got to in a standard ground clearance 2WD - or probably not even in a standard 4WD....i even use 4WD going to work sometimes - the flooding and roadworks around the industrial estates ca be pretty challenging at times.

My thoughts exactly. I do live in the country with lots of muddy narrow roads and as stated got bogged in the muddy pond

of a driveway of my girls house let alone some of the other places and water crossings we do. I understand about the lock

on the front wheels as I couldn't believe in my Landrover Defender back home a 4wd actually effectively was only a 2WD...

but having said that to me the extra security of the 4WD is worth the extra small cost and certainly more important than

an in car DVD or electric seats or Steering wheel controls.

If I lived in Pattaya or Bangkok of course would be a different story

Surely your not saying your defender didn't have diff locks???? I've had several "Series" Landrovers and a Defender and they all had locking diffs

Sure am. They're an extra aren't they? Like an extra $3000 I think. Was never into extreme 4wd ing only going shooting, driving on the farm etc. Only ever got stuck once and it was an extreme situation. Didn't even know what diff locks were until I got stuck in basically a pond and saw only the 2 left side wheels spinning in 4wd. Then I realised a 2wd was really a 1wd and a 4wd is really a 2wd. Well I think so anyway the way it was explained to me

[ktm jeff]

The engine power takes the easiest "way out" , IE path of least reistance. With no diff lock you halve your driving wheels. You can have 3 diff locks , 1 - center diff lock (this normally comes on automatically in 4WD low mode) and 2- front diff lock and 3- rear diff locks.Mercedes Unimog has all 3. Dont see many of them (stuck).

[wilcopops]

I've seen some Landcruisers here without locking diffs - it seems pointless to me. All my Landrovers - and my family and I have had many,many models from 88 inch to RangeRovers have all had locking diffs....the last one I drove extensively was owned by my company in Oz and was aa huge disappointment.

In Thailand I stick to modified pickups.

[IMHO]

chassied vehicles have poorer crumple zones.

Do you have anything to back up your claims SUV's are 3-4 times safer ?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim the ladder chassis vehicles have poorer crumple zones? Cars from the early 1900's don't count BTW

Of course you don't because it's all just a matter of how each car was designed to perform

Edited December 8, 2014 by IMHO

[ktm jeff]

I would rather have a collision in a 4x4 than a car. If you look at the ladder chassis of a 4x4 you will see it kinks (buckle zones) built in , and has sections of the chassis that act as crumple zones .Or use the other car as one !.I see the "mass" advantage over a light car , but controled de-acceleration is still needed. And airbags . With a 4x4 you can often ride above the accident impact. This is why they are safer in general , but they need to be driven , remembering their higher center of gravity , and often a light rear end.

[wilcopops]

O level physics will supply the answers.....deceleration of things like your internal organs and CoG are factors you might look into. You might also look into stats from Europe for the last couple of decades and comparebthem to US where frames are more common.

You also could take a trip to any of the towns in Thailand where pickups are built and you'll get a good look at their chasses as they are often left for all to see. You will note that these vehicles are in fact VERY similar to vehiclesbgrom an earlier era of motoring.

[wilcopops]

O level physics will supply the answers.....deceleration of things like your internal organs and CoG are factors you might look into. You might also look into stats from Europe for the last couple of decades and comparebthem to US where frames are more common.

You also could take a trip to any of the towns in Thailand where pickups are built and you'll get a good look at their chasses as they are often left for all to see. You will note that these vehicles are in fact VERY similar to vehicles from an earlier era of motoring.

Don't cling to one idea of SUV s being "safest" this is not accurate and pickups...are built to a significally different design to keep them out of this Category. Also you can take a lot of the US testing with a pinch of salt as it is aimed solely at reducing insurance claims.

[wilcopops]

Chassis / frame vehicles have an inherent disadvantage in a collision.

For the most part, they don't have the same shock absorption properties as modern vehicles.

Mass isn't a "buffer"

Any info to back that up?

If mass isn't important why are SUVs 3-4 times safer than lesser vehicles?

And true SUVs have a frame - not unibody construction.....

In short Thai pickups and the SUVs based on them are not what you are talking about, they are not safer or safest and your concept of mass is wrong.

I don't get involved in the stats as most people don't seem to be able to understand them..citing asny set they can find that they think supports their erroneous ideas.

It is fair to say that their are " lies, damned lies and statistics" and that my experience is that the average TV member shows no ability either to research or understand them.

PS - If your concept of mass were true a car with 4 fat people in it would be safer than the same car with only one skinny driver.

Edited December 9, 2014 by wilcopops

[pgrahmm]

This is a picture of one of my tires up close - (leaning against) my wife's Honda Civic ..... It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out which vehicle you're safer in - including crumple zones......crumple zones are wonderful things as are airbags when needed and deployed - but the theory of mass applies in pretty near every instance....I'll take a framed 4x4 every time - I like my chances much more than in a crumple zone tin can - because people get crumpled too in those......regardless of "backward" technology cited as used here in Thailand....

Edited December 9, 2014 by pgrahmm

[wilcopops]

This is a picture of one of my tires up close - (leaning against) my wife's Honda Civic ..... It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out which vehicle you're safer in - including crumple zones......crumple zones are wonderful things as are airbags when needed and deployed - but the theory of mass applies in pretty near every instance....I'll take a framed 4x4 every time - I like my chances much more than in a crumple zone tin can - because people get crumpled too in those......regardless of "backward" technology cited as used here in Thailand....

10-12 Samsung Girls.Trups 347.jpg

imagination and science are not the same.

Edited December 9, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

It is sadly a popular misconception that "bigger" or 4x4 is "safer" unfortunately nobody has told that to a car involved in a real collision.

[pgrahmm]

It is sadly a popular misconception that "bigger" or 4x4 is "safer" unfortunately nobody has told that to a car involved in a real collision.

I'll go the the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety and their actuarial charts/fatalities per million miles....also there was an article within the past two weeks stating the same thing...

I think I'll hold off on that "real" collision thing to find out - go ahead and get involved if you wish.....check in after with your report - if you can.....

[mogandave]

So is it your position that if a Brio and a Fortuner are in a head-on collision that the passengers in the Brio are less likely to be injured?

If not, what is your position?

If so, where are your numbers?

[pgrahmm]

This is a picture of one of my tires up close - (leaning against) my wife's Honda Civic ..... It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out which vehicle you're safer in - including crumple zones......crumple zones are wonderful things as are airbags when needed and deployed - but the theory of mass applies in pretty near every instance....I'll take a framed 4x4 every time - I like my chances much more than in a crumple zone tin can - because people get crumpled too in those......regardless of "backward" technology cited as used here in Thailand....

10-12 Samsung Girls.Trups 347.jpg

imagination and science are not the same.

I'll go with the theory of mass.....it's pretty solid.....

[Ace of Pop]

This is a picture of one of my tires up close - (leaning against) my wife's Honda Civic ..... It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out which vehicle you're safer in - including crumple zones......crumple zones are wonderful things as are airbags when needed and deployed - but the theory of mass applies in pretty near every instance....I'll take a framed 4x4 every time - I like my chances much more than in a crumple zone tin can - because people get crumpled too in those......regardless of "backward" technology cited as used here in Thailand....

10-12 Samsung Girls.Trups 347.jpg

The Wonders of Photo Shop. A Civic has 15 or 16 inch rims same applies to Trucks.Arguments becoming desperate now.Id rather be in our truck if i whacked a Mo/Cy, less chance of it popping in through the window.!!,But 50/50 either way depending on circumstance otherwise.Anyone had an Airbag go Off, bet its a bit of a shock.?.

[pgrahmm]

This is a picture of one of my tires up close - (leaning against) my wife's Honda Civic ..... It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out which vehicle you're safer in - including crumple zones......crumple zones are wonderful things as are airbags when needed and deployed - but the theory of mass applies in pretty near every instance....I'll take a framed 4x4 every time - I like my chances much more than in a crumple zone tin can - because people get crumpled too in those......regardless of "backward" technology cited as used here in Thailand....

10-12 Samsung Girls.Trups 347.jpg

The Wonders of Photo Shop. A Civic has 15 or 16 inch rims same applies to Trucks.Arguments becoming desperate now.Id rather be in our truck if i whacked a Mo/Cy, less chance of it popping in through the window.!!,But 50/50 either way depending on circumstance otherwise.Anyone had an Airbag go Off, bet its a bit of a shock.?.

No photo shop there....I've never used it - that's simply a 16 inch Pajero tire leaning againt the Civic .... desperation might be your specialty but it doesn't raise it's head in my neighborhood....or PC....

You are correct about the m/c - had one try and shoot the gap while turning left - hit my drivers door and step and eased to a sliding stop - if - we had been in one of our smaller / lower cars the rider would have hit about the same spot but the dynamics of the car probably would have separated the rider from the bike maybe after twisting/breaking a leg on the lower curved exterior and the rider would have gone flying @$$ over tea kettle over the hood and it could have been grisly as there was a canal very close by....

50/50 on the airbags in our family - one lived - one didn't ..... 2 different accidents.....

Edited December 9, 2014 by pgrahmm

[Ace of Pop]

Get a new camera and stop being silly, its out of proportion, anyone can see that..Its taller than Mrs POP.

[pgrahmm]

Get a new camera and stop being silly, its out of proportion, anyone can see that..Its taller than Mrs POP.

Actually - was mounting the spare on the Paj.....set it exactly as you see it there - looked over and thought "damn" and took the pic with my phone.....no hokus - no pokus.....

[wilcopops]

unfortunately road safety falls into the same category as education...everyone thinks they are an expert and they roll out the same cliches time after time. most are ill-informed tenets based on pseudo-physics and preconception.

the science of what happens in a road incident - whether single vehicle or multiple is a varied as the number of vehicles, trying to draw rules and conclusions by looking at one single component - e.g. the size of a wheel - is anal in the extreme and really sums up much of the thinking - or lack of it - on this topic.

it is however no coincidence that the dreadful road death figures in Thailand that the country also has a disproportionate number of vehicles - 2 and 4 wheel that simply are not of the highest safety specification.

Edited December 9, 2014 by wilcopops

[pgrahmm]

unfortunately road safety falls into the same category as education...everyone thinks they are an expert and they roll out the same cliches time after time. most are ill-informed tenets based on pseudo-physics and preconception.

the science of what happens in a road incident - whether single vehicle or multiple is a varied as the number of vehicles, trying to draw rules and conclusions by looking at one single component - e.g. the size of a wheel - is anal in the extreme and really sums up much of the thinking - or lack of it - on this topic.

it is however no coincidence that the dreadful road death figures in Thailand that the country also has a disproportionate number of vehicles - 2 and 4 wheel that simply are not of the highest safety specification.

Thanks wilcopops.....

You're always interesting and entertaining......

Sometimes you're even correct - seem to have a degree in anality.....

I'll stop here so you can have the last word - you seem to need that & I like to help the needy.....

Keep spluttering....

Edited December 9, 2014 by pgrahmm

[IMHO]

it is however no coincidence that the dreadful road death figures in Thailand that the country also has a disproportionate number of vehicles - 2 and 4 wheel that simply are not of the highest safety specification.

If you subtract motorcycle deaths, Thailand ranks about the same as New Zealand. We are talking about cars right?