Ford Everest - All New 2015

[mogandave]

Anyway, I was alluding more to the fact that it isn't sponsored by any car companies and nothing like the motorshow awards that give anyone and everyone that joins a prize.

Maybe you should have a look at their website http://tajathailand.com/

Based on the judging criteria and shortlisted cars, I'm gonna guess one of the 4 Benz's nominated takes the prize.

I reckon this is the only COTY in the world that's got a Honda Mobilio, MG3, Triton and Ciaz in the list of 16 qualifying cars

Well it states the judges will all be auto journalists so no idea what their affiliations are, but pretty certain that they'll all be from different publications. On that basis the organisation hosting the event shouldn't be able to influence the judges quite so easily.

I applaud your optimism, but... let's see.

How many auto journalists write for publications that don't sell ad space?

Everyone one is biased, but I think most try to be somewhat objective.

Taste is subjective. For example everyone here seems to think the new 'tuna is hideous, I think it's good looking, but I think most all the new SUVs are good looking, and I imagine they're all great rides.

I don't buy anything i don't drive, and I don't drive anything I don't like.

[IMHO]

Are there any CBU s here.?.

Lots, for a starter

Lexus

Top range MB and BMW

Porsche

Rolls

Bentley

Ferrari

Lamborghini

Range Rover

Many others as well.

IMHO will have the complete list, due to his job.

@Ace: CBU means: "fully imported". I don't really need to make a list do it?

All of these acronyms refer to state of the car as it comes into Thailand, e.g.

CBU: whole car imported in an already assembled state

CKD: only (some) parts imported, assembly in Thailand

SKD: car imported in a partially assembled state, with final assembly in Thailand

Anyways, to get this back onto the sub-topic, the qualifying criteria for entry in the inaugural Thailand Car of the Year awards is:

• The car must have officially launched in the Thai market between Oct 1 2014 and Sep 30 2015 (note: launch/reveal date, not general availability date).
• The model launched must be all-new (not just a minor change), but if it's been re-launched as CKD/SKD (from CBU) with significant changes/price drop it can also qualify.
• The model must have sold at least 500 units before the award is given.

In essence, it's the "Best all-new model that's been launched in the past year" - not the "Best new car available for sale".

Edited February 6, 2016 by IMHO

[IMHO]

How many auto journalists write for publications that don't sell ad space?

Everyone one is biased, but I think most try to be somewhat objective.

Taste is subjective. For example everyone here seems to think the new 'tuna is hideous, I think it's good looking, but I think most all the new SUVs are good looking, and I imagine they're all great rides.

I don't buy anything i don't drive, and I don't drive anything I don't like.

People are people, even auto journalists. They all have different ideas on different subjects, different likes, different sensitivities, different experiences, different bias's. That's why things like COTY awards generally involve as many players as possible to try and level out these differences and get consensus.

Even journos working for the same publication and review guidelines can sometimes have differing outcomes, e.g. look at these two reviews - same publisher, same car, just 2 days apart:

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2016-mitsubishi-triton-exceed-4wd-dual-cab-ute-review-road-test-37655

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2016-mitsubishi-triton-exceed-dual-cab-pick-up-ute-review-road-test-37615

So is it 3 stars or 3.5?

Does it have car-like ride and handling, or is the worst pickup for ride and handling?

The actual drive in the Triton is below the best in the class, by a margin I can easily feel. It is less connected to the road, more prone to jiggling over bumps and wobbling when I apply the brakes.

Cornering is no fun. It also pitches more than its rivals, as the suspension lacks the wheel control of the opposition that allows them to roll through undulations instead of bouncing about.

Mitsubishi has designed extra reinforcement in the rear sub frame to enable the tub to increase overall torsional strength and provide a solid base to attach the rear suspension. This allowed engineers to tune Triton's rear suspension for maximum ride comfort. It makes for car-like ride and handling.

[Ace of Pop]

Ah, my poor command of English again. I read CBU as fully machined,pressed out and trans n engine made here.

[JAS21]

Ah, my poor command of English again. I read CBU as fully machined,pressed out and trans n engine made here.

Ah ... so you are from the USA then ...

[Ace of Pop]

Not that Luckey .Portugal ,and I spell that wrong sometimes.[emoji571][emoji23]

[mogandave]

Ah, my poor command of English again. I read CBU as fully machined,pressed out and trans n engine made here.

Ah ... so you are from the USA then ...

Yeah, we never "officially" command the English...

[mogandave]

How many auto journalists write for publications that don't sell ad space?

Everyone one is biased, but I think most try to be somewhat objective.

Taste is subjective. For example everyone here seems to think the new 'tuna is hideous, I think it's good looking, but I think most all the new SUVs are good looking, and I imagine they're all great rides.

I don't buy anything i don't drive, and I don't drive anything I don't like.

People are people, even auto journalists. They all have different ideas on different subjects, different likes, different sensitivities, different experiences, different bias's. That's why things like COTY awards generally involve as many players as possible to try and level out these differences and get consensus.

Even journos working for the same publication and review guidelines can sometimes have differing outcomes, e.g. look at these two reviews - same publisher, same car, just 2 days apart:

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2016-mitsubishi-triton-exceed-4wd-dual-cab-ute-review-road-test-37655

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2016-mitsubishi-triton-exceed-dual-cab-pick-up-ute-review-road-test-37615

So is it 3 stars or 3.5?

Does it have car-like ride and handling, or is the worst pickup for ride and handling?

The actual drive in the Triton is below the best in the class, by a margin I can easily feel. It is less connected to the road, more prone to jiggling over bumps and wobbling when I apply the brakes.

Cornering is no fun. It also pitches more than its rivals, as the suspension lacks the wheel control of the opposition that allows them to roll through undulations instead of bouncing about.

Mitsubishi has designed extra reinforcement in the rear sub frame to enable the tub to increase overall torsional strength and provide a solid base to attach the rear suspension. This allowed engineers to tune Triton's rear suspension for maximum ride comfort. It makes for car-like ride and handling.

I wonder if the same guy aired-up the tires for both tests...[emoji15]

[DILLIGAD]

Ah, my poor command of English again. I read CBU as fully machined,pressed out and trans n engine made here.

Ah ... so you are from the USA then ...

Yeah, we never "officially" command the English...

[IMHO]

People are people, even auto journalists. They all have different ideas on different subjects, different likes, different sensitivities, different experiences, different bias's. That's why things like COTY awards generally involve as many players as possible to try and level out these differences and get consensus.

Even journos working for the same publication and review guidelines can sometimes have differing outcomes, e.g. look at these two reviews - same publisher, same car, just 2 days apart:

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2016-mitsubishi-triton-exceed-4wd-dual-cab-ute-review-road-test-37655

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2016-mitsubishi-triton-exceed-dual-cab-pick-up-ute-review-road-test-37615

So is it 3 stars or 3.5?

Does it have car-like ride and handling, or is the worst pickup for ride and handling?

The actual drive in the Triton is below the best in the class, by a margin I can easily feel. It is less connected to the road, more prone to jiggling over bumps and wobbling when I apply the brakes.

Cornering is no fun. It also pitches more than its rivals, as the suspension lacks the wheel control of the opposition that allows them to roll through undulations instead of bouncing about.

Mitsubishi has designed extra reinforcement in the rear sub frame to enable the tub to increase overall torsional strength and provide a solid base to attach the rear suspension. This allowed engineers to tune Triton's rear suspension for maximum ride comfort. It makes for car-like ride and handling.

I wonder if the same guy aired-up the tires for both tests...[emoji15]

Judging by what's written, I'd guess that one journo sat and listened intently, taking plenty of notes during the pre-drive product briefing. And i guess the other guy struggled to get enthused by the sermon of the product evangelist, and just wrote about what he experienced behind the wheel

They don't just hand over the keys on these types of press drive events

Edited February 7, 2016 by IMHO

[thailoht]

From a DIY perspective, I would like to know if performing oil changes on Everest 3.2L engines is as routine as it is on other vehicles or does it require that special steps be followed in order to maintain performance of its unique oil pump system design(?)?

[JAS21]

I think that it has a pump that maintains a constant pressure without employing a relief valve. So it is probably a swash plate type pump and I guess by its position in the system it won't self prime. No doubt Ford have a proceedure ...someone will no doubt be along soon with the answer

[Jitar]

Media reports referred to the Everest using the same variable flow pump as the previous Ranger so assuming the current Engine's oil pump is unchanged, the oil change procedure would be the same as the Ranger 3.2L. The procedure is virtually the same as for an engine with a normal gear type oil pump except Ford recommend not leaving the engine too long to drain, i.e. <10 min.

If the pump looses prime things get non routine. Vane pumps can be damaged quickly and may not recover, requiring replacement before damaging the rest of the engine.

I don't have the TSB but there is a summary here: http://www.aaen.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AUTODATAtiqbiz.pdf

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jitar

[thailoht]

I think that it has a pump that maintains a constant pressure without employing a relief valve. So it is probably a swash plate type pump and I guess by its position in the system it won't self prime. No doubt Ford have a proceedure ...someone will no doubt be along soon with the answer

If I remember correctly you must replace the drained oil within a time frame... ...fink 10/15 minutes...

Media reports referred to the Everest using the same variable flow pump as the previous Ranger so assuming the current Engine's oil pump is unchanged, the oil change procedure would be the same as the Ranger 3.2L. The procedure is virtually the same as for an engine with a normal gear type oil pump except Ford recommend not leaving the engine too long to drain, i.e. <10 min.

If the pump looses prime things get non routine. Vane pumps can be damaged quickly and may not recover, requiring replacement before damaging the rest of the engine.

I don't have the TSB but there is a summary here: http://www.aaen.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AUTODATAtiqbiz.pdf

Thanx guys, that's it: The fact that these Ford 3.2L engines employ variable flow oil pumps and that when changing the oil, it's best not to let the oil drain for any extended period of time....(I will have to remember to change my oil changing habits when I get my Everest T+).

[digbeth]

Has anyone heard anything about the Ranger 3.2 SWB with an aluminium tray in the back instead of the usual pickup?

It's basically an Everest Chassis without the cabin, even had the terrain management system and the automatic gear, watt link rear suspension from the Everest

For 750grand, it's a decent toy compared to what you get performance wise with the 1.7mil fully loaded Everest

Granted, it doesn't come with any creature comfort, not even power windows and mirror

It's rarer than a hen's teeth, I had a chat to one owner and he said there was only about 30-40 of them and all were delivered around October last year... no sales are willing to take my order, some say they might come back into production again this year after all the Everest order calm down a bit

The spec is still on Ford Thailand's website... there's supposed to be a 2.2 non 4x4 version as well

Anyone seen one?

Edited February 11, 2016 by seedy
large foto

[Don Mega]

Ranger Shorty has been mentioned a few times. In the Ranger thread.

[Disting]

Saw one on Route 9 tollway a week ago. On red plates. Did notice it was the 3.2 variant.

[DavisH]

Saw one on Route 9 tollway a week ago. On red plates. Did notice it was the 3.2 variant.

I reckon traction could be a problem under a heavy foot

[IMHO]

Saw one on Route 9 tollway a week ago. On red plates. Did notice it was the 3.2 variant.

I reckon traction could be a problem under a heavy foot

Yep

But losing traction with AWD is kinda fun - it will still go where you're pointing it

[DavisH]

Saw one on Route 9 tollway a week ago. On red plates. Did notice it was the 3.2 variant.

I reckon traction could be a problem under a heavy foot

Yep

But losing traction with AWD is kinda fun - it will still go where you're pointing it

I think it could be drifted in 2wd mode, but not with those tires:)

[ChesneyHawkes]

It's full time AWD unless you get the 2.2 which is currently only available in RWD

[DavisH]

It's full time AWD unless you get the 2.2 which is currently only available in RWD

Really? So it's a more advanced 4wd system that can be driven on the street?

[Jitar]

I think it could be drifted in 2wd mode, but not with those tires:)

It's full time AWD unless you get the 2.2 which is currently only available in RWD

Really? So it's a more advanced 4wd system that can be driven on the street?

The 3.2L shorty is supposed to use the same 4WD system as the Everest so on road traction should be better than a 4x2 or part time 4x4.

Cab chassis are popular in Australia. The weight of the tray is usually close to the side-style tub so acceleration would be similar to 3.2L single cab pickup sold in some markets. These are around 1800 kg so with 200hp I doubt they will be winning any drifting competitions.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Jitar

[IMHO]

It's full time AWD unless you get the 2.2 which is currently only available in RWD

Really? So it's a more advanced 4wd system that can be driven on the street?

The short wheel base Ranger's use the Everest's chassis - so have it's coil rear springs, Watts link, and its AWD Terrain Management System Ford got their hands on when they owned Land Rover

No 2WD option - it's full-time AWD with a clutch type transfer case that normally uses a 40:60 front:rear torque split, but can dynamically send up to 97% of torque to the front or rear when needed.

In short, it would be an offroad monster with it's better break-over angles (short wheelbase), that AWD system, and lightness combined with the 3.2's torque

Edited February 12, 2016 by IMHO

[IMHO]

I think it could be drifted in 2wd mode, but not with those tires:)

It's full time AWD unless you get the 2.2 which is currently only available in RWD

Really? So it's a more advanced 4wd system that can be driven on the street?

The 3.2L shorty is supposed to use the same 4WD system as the Everest so on road traction should be better than a 4x2 or part time 4x4.

Cab chassis are popular in Australia. The weight of the tray is usually close to the side-style tub so acceleration would be similar to 3.2L single cab pickup sold in some markets. These are around 1800 kg so with 200hp I doubt they will be winning any drifting competitions.

The SWB AWD is over 400KG lighter than 3.2L Wildtrak 4x4 - and there's not much problem getting tires to spin on the latter

Drifting though? yeah, only on dirt or a very wet road

[Jitar]

IHMO, Do you know the kerb weight of the 3.2 shorty, Ford Thailand are very feminine in that they don't want to talk about weight?

I guess the 400kg reduction is for the cab chassis before a tray is fitted?

The Australian Ranger brochure has the lightest single cab chassis 3.2 4x4 at ~1900kg, (I was low on my earlier guess of 1800kg).

The WT is at 2270kg so ~400kg more. Presumably the Thai shorty and WT would be close to these values. The flat tray will add ~200kg so the 3.2 Shorty is probably still around 2t on the road.

Ford must plan on selling a few shorty's to bother adding the models to the web site and brochure. Unusual formula for LOS - basic stripped down pickup with XL level options and a flat tray but with a good Engine and 4WD system. Will be interesting to see how many sell / Ford want to sell.

[casualbiker]

IHMO, Do you know the kerb weight of the 3.2 shorty, Ford Thailand are very feminine in that they don't want to talk about weight?

I guess the 400kg reduction is for the cab chassis before a tray is fitted?

The Australian Ranger brochure has the lightest single cab chassis 3.2 4x4 at ~1900kg, (I was low on my earlier guess of 1800kg).

The WT is at 2270kg so ~400kg more. Presumably the Thai shorty and WT would be close to these values. The flat tray will add ~200kg so the 3.2 Shorty is probably still around 2t on the road.

Ford must plan on selling a few shorty's to bother adding the models to the web site and brochure. Unusual formula for LOS - basic stripped down pickup with XL level options and a flat tray but with a good Engine and 4WD system. Will be interesting to see how many sell / Ford want to sell.

fit electric windows and it's lovely.. Especially if it 750k... Is that price correct?

[IMHO]

IHMO, Do you know the kerb weight of the 3.2 shorty, Ford Thailand are very feminine in that they don't want to talk about weight?

I guess the 400kg reduction is for the cab chassis before a tray is fitted?

The Australian Ranger brochure has the lightest single cab chassis 3.2 4x4 at ~1900kg, (I was low on my earlier guess of 1800kg).

The WT is at 2270kg so ~400kg more. Presumably the Thai shorty and WT would be close to these values. The flat tray will add ~200kg so the 3.2 Shorty is probably still around 2t on the road.

Ford must plan on selling a few shorty's to bother adding the models to the web site and brochure. Unusual formula for LOS - basic stripped down pickup with XL level options and a flat tray but with a good Engine and 4WD system. Will be interesting to see how many sell / Ford want to sell.

I was actually told "around 1800KG"... I don't have a specific number. That same person also commented that 2 women would be able to lift the alloy tray, so I'm guessing that means under 100KG.

I suppose the SWB has less chassis weight too - shorter chassis, springs lighter than leaves, discs lighter than drums, but OTOH Watts link heavier than Panhard rod - I'm not sure what that all adds up to though.

As for the formula - Ford didn't really pioneer it - Mitsu did that with the last generation Triton, where they offered a single cab SWB 4x4 with Super-Select 4WD and coil spring chassis from the PJS, and the old 3.2L diesel that was retired elsewhere in the range back 2010. The new generation has an updated version of it, but now using the old 4D56 178HP 2.5L diesel engine, and a leaf spring/drum rear end this time.

The Mistu SWB's have always had style-side trays though.

Edited February 12, 2016 by IMHO

[digbeth]

IHMO, Do you know the kerb weight of the 3.2 shorty, Ford Thailand are very feminine in that they don't want to talk about weight?

I guess the 400kg reduction is for the cab chassis before a tray is fitted?

The Australian Ranger brochure has the lightest single cab chassis 3.2 4x4 at ~1900kg, (I was low on my earlier guess of 1800kg).

The WT is at 2270kg so ~400kg more. Presumably the Thai shorty and WT would be close to these values. The flat tray will add ~200kg so the 3.2 Shorty is probably still around 2t on the road.

Ford must plan on selling a few shorty's to bother adding the models to the web site and brochure. Unusual formula for LOS - basic stripped down pickup with XL level options and a flat tray but with a good Engine and 4WD system. Will be interesting to see how many sell / Ford want to sell.

fit electric windows and it's lovely.. Especially if it 750k... Is that price correct?

750k was last year price before the excise tax increase by measured co2... who know what the current price is..... I tried to order one since January but no dealer is willing to take my order

urban legend goes that in order to qualify the Everest for the Thai government PPV (pickup passenger vehicle) lower tax or something, the exact chassis that was used to make the PPV need to be sold as a pickup also, hence the shortened Everest platform as pickup truck.... the fact that the previous generation shortened Fortuner and Pajero Sport chassis with coil spring had never been sold to the public maybe that they only need to make one and sell it to an employee only....

Had a look through Ford Australia and the top of the range 3.2 shorty there has better kit, like proper radio with bluetooth and even two batteries....

The Thai one don't even have heater, if they want to sell some to homologate the everest chassis for PPV programme, they could have just taken a few Australian shorty and sell it and that's it, it seem they have made a new configuration just for Thailand.. and to only sell 30-40 even though there's still people asking for it is puzzling, maybe they'll have more made later this year, I'm hopeful.

The owner I spoke to said that the air-con compressor must have been lifted whole from the Everest though, he said that it got freezing in the cabin real fast.

Other things lifted from the everest which is nice is the bonnet strut, the engine had the thick rubber noise cover like the normal ranger/everest but no plastic cosmetic cover... which is very utilitarian

[Jitar]

Thanks IMHO, interesting, I didn't know about the PJS chassis Triton.

Digbeth, Interesting thoery about the SUV tax implications of sharing chassis with a pick up. Wonder if this is true? IMHO mentioned the Mitsu version so hard to believe Toyota and Isuzu could avoid it though?

Note The Australian cab chassis use the standard Ranger chassis, not short wheel base, no coil rear end etc. They would not serve the purpose.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Jitar