pgrahmm Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Can't imagine why in the world anyone would ever want a pickup. Unless you're a builder.The first few years here I had a Vigo 4dr 4x4 3.0 A/T short bed & it was the perfect rig for driving plus the now and then Global/Home Pro run....Unless you're worried about the red carpet limo line or safe people (many) hauling it was the perfect utility rig for Thailand....For tactical traffic anticipation I prefer the high ride height to see around and over other vehicles instead of staring at their trunks....We have an SUV and a Civic - never feel as safe in the Civic - for multiple reasons.....Starting with impact safety.....In the US had 2 SUV's & a Lexus sport car.....On the open road it was fun but preferred the 4x's for 95% of the driving conditions.....Your ideas on impact safety are of course completely wrong.I'll take my chances based on my observations and making my living in the automotive sector for 30+ years....Including fatal accident investigations.....On vehicle to vehicle impact the theory of mass is seldom proven incorrect....If you study the actuarials you'd find smaller car have an 18 to 1 chance of having a fatal accident = 18 die in small cars versus 1 fatality in larger vehicles..... Incorrect - it is design and sock absorption abilities that determine how safe a car is. Mass can have detrimental effects on other vehicles and if your theory were true it would mean that an Oldsmobile from the 1950s would be safer than a Camry. Good try.....You can build in crumple zones/air bags/tank shields and the theory of mass still prevails.....Ever see those pictures of vehicles just raked over and leveled making the aluminum flattened? Nevermind the cars with the plastic skinned doors.....Don't even start on a Camry → my daughter was killed in one on a highway.....If she had been driving your old Olds or either one of my SUVs she'd be alive today to help us debate for arguments sake.....You grab a Camry - I'll grab a Vigo/Izuzu/Mits/Ford 4x4 and you can run into me or I run into you both doing 60kph in a head on and let's see who walks away the better for it..... Really????think again! If I were driving a 1959 Chevy I would be worried....Our discussion in a Vigo/Izuzu/Mits/Ford 4x4 SUV versus your Camry → which follows the topic line of this thread....Not Malibu vrs a 59 Chevy....The Camry would be flattened and raked right over - driver included.... You clearly don'y understand the first thing about crash safety and shock absoption.......if you want to discuss this it is a good idea to get up to speed on current road safety and car construction. Clearly you didn't review the other information I tagged & put a link to....It shows just the scenario we are talking about - and the results found....With 50% of fatal accidents occurring during head ons - possibly higher here due to the U-turn systems sitting in your Camry you ARE the crumple zone against a full sized SUV....How many accidents have you investigated? How many burned of bloodied cars have you sifted through? Which car company investigates Every vehicle that has caught fire in an accident situation?......I found it interesting that on your crash test with the 59 they went driver side to driver side impact instead of a straight head on which would present more of a buffer from the engine itself on both vehicles....But I agree the newer car is designed to be safer......And if you had the choice to hit another car with your midsize car another midsize car would be ideal - but we don't get to make those choices at crunch time.....There's no doubt that crumple zones/cages/shields/air bags work and save many lives....But the link is pitting new technology against new technology & you still have a 7 times higher fatality rate in your modern midsized car versus a full sized SUV.....Look around when you're sitting in traffic.....Your pelvis is about where their feet are....Sorry - but you are wrong .....doesn't bother me → you're the one betting your life on it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Can't imagine why in the world anyone would ever want a pickup. Unless you're a builder.The first few years here I had a Vigo 4dr 4x4 3.0 A/T short bed & it was the perfect rig for driving plus the now and then Global/Home Pro run....Unless you're worried about the red carpet limo line or safe people (many) hauling it was the perfect utility rig for Thailand.... For tactical traffic anticipation I prefer the high ride height to see around and over other vehicles instead of staring at their trunks....We have an SUV and a Civic - never feel as safe in the Civic - for multiple reasons.....Starting with impact safety..... In the US had 2 SUV's & a Lexus sport car.....On the open road it was fun but preferred the 4x's for 95% of the driving conditions..... Your ideas on impact safety are of course completely wrong.I'll take my chances based on my observations and making my living in the automotive sector for 30+ years....Including fatal accident investigations.....On vehicle to vehicle impact the theory of mass is seldom proven incorrect....If you study the actuarials you'd find smaller car have an 18 to 1 chance of having a fatal accident = 18 die in small cars versus 1 fatality in larger vehicles..... Incorrect - it is design and sock absorption abilities that determine how safe a car is. Mass can have detrimental effects on other vehicles and if your theory were true it would mean that an Oldsmobile from the 1950s would be safer than a Camry. Good try.....You can build in crumple zones/air bags/tank shields and the theory of mass still prevails.....Ever see those pictures of vehicles just raked over and leveled making the aluminum flattened? Nevermind the cars with the plastic skinned doors..... Don't even start on a Camry → my daughter was killed in one on a highway.....If she had been driving your old Olds or either one of my SUVs she'd be alive today to help us debate for arguments sake..... You grab a Camry - I'll grab a Vigo/Izuzu/Mits/Ford 4x4 and you can run into me or I run into you both doing 60kph in a head on and let's see who walks away the better for it..... Really???? think again! If I were driving a 1959 Chevy I would be worried.... Our discussion in a Vigo/Izuzu/Mits/Ford 4x4 SUV versus your Camry → which follows the topic line of this thread.... Not Malibu vrs a 59 Chevy.... The Camry would be flattened and raked right over - driver included.... You clearly don'y understand the first thing about crash safety and shock absoption.......if you want to discuss this it is a good idea to get up to speed on current road safety and car construction. Clearly you didn't review the other information I tagged & put a link to....It shows just the scenario we are talking about - and the results found....With 50% of fatal accidents occurring during head ons - possibly higher here due to the U-turn systems sitting in your Camry you ARE the crumple zone against a full sized SUV....How many accidents have you investigated? How many burned of bloodied cars have you sifted through? Which car company investigates Every vehicle that has caught fire in an accident situation?...... I found it interesting that on your crash test with the 59 they went driver side to driver side impact instead of a straight head on which would present more of a buffer from the engine itself on both vehicles....But I agree the newer car is designed to be safer......And if you had the choice to hit another car with your midsize car another midsize car would be ideal - but we don't get to make those choices at crunch time.....There's no doubt that crumple zones/cages/shields/air bags work and save many lives....But the link is pitting new technology against new technology & you still have a 7 times higher fatality rate in your modern midsized car versus a full sized SUV.....Look around when you're sitting in traffic.....Your pelvis is about where their feet are.... Sorry - but you are wrong .....doesn't bother me → you're the one betting your life on it.... It is ad that so many people fail to understand the science behind road safety and let their own misjudged assumptions carry the day. It leads to a false sense of security when driving that cab only lead to disaster in the long run. ..and remember the sum of personal experience is just a drop in the ocean compared to the real data collected on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I'm no expert, but what IIHS show and talk about here makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrahmm Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Can't imagine why in the world anyone would ever want a pickup. Unless you're a builder.The first few years here I had a Vigo 4dr 4x4 3.0 A/T short bed & it was the perfect rig for driving plus the now and then Global/Home Pro run....Unless you're worried about the red carpet limo line or safe people (many) hauling it was the perfect utility rig for Thailand.... For tactical traffic anticipation I prefer the high ride height to see around and over other vehicles instead of staring at their trunks....We have an SUV and a Civic - never feel as safe in the Civic - for multiple reasons.....Starting with impact safety..... In the US had 2 SUV's & a Lexus sport car.....On the open road it was fun but preferred the 4x's for 95% of the driving conditions..... Your ideas on impact safety are of course completely wrong.I'll take my chances based on my observations and making my living in the automotive sector for 30+ years....Including fatal accident investigations.....On vehicle to vehicle impact the theory of mass is seldom proven incorrect....If you study the actuarials you'd find smaller car have an 18 to 1 chance of having a fatal accident = 18 die in small cars versus 1 fatality in larger vehicles..... Incorrect - it is design and sock absorption abilities that determine how safe a car is. Mass can have detrimental effects on other vehicles and if your theory were true it would mean that an Oldsmobile from the 1950s would be safer than a Camry. Good try.....You can build in crumple zones/air bags/tank shields and the theory of mass still prevails.....Ever see those pictures of vehicles just raked over and leveled making the aluminum flattened? Nevermind the cars with the plastic skinned doors..... Don't even start on a Camry → my daughter was killed in one on a highway.....If she had been driving your old Olds or either one of my SUVs she'd be alive today to help us debate for arguments sake..... You grab a Camry - I'll grab a Vigo/Izuzu/Mits/Ford 4x4 and you can run into me or I run into you both doing 60kph in a head on and let's see who walks away the better for it..... Really???? think again! If I were driving a 1959 Chevy I would be worried....Our discussion in a Vigo/Izuzu/Mits/Ford 4x4 SUV versus your Camry → which follows the topic line of this thread.... Not Malibu vrs a 59 Chevy.... The Camry would be flattened and raked right over - driver included.... You clearly don'y understand the first thing about crash safety and shock absoption.......if you want to discuss this it is a good idea to get up to speed on current road safety and car construction. Clearly you didn't review the other information I tagged & put a link to....It shows just the scenario we are talking about - and the results found....With 50% of fatal accidents occurring during head ons - possibly higher here due to the U-turn systems sitting in your Camry you ARE the crumple zone against a full sized SUV....How many accidents have you investigated? How many burned of bloodied cars have you sifted through? Which car company investigates Every vehicle that has caught fire in an accident situation?...... I found it interesting that on your crash test with the 59 they went driver side to driver side impact instead of a straight head on which would present more of a buffer from the engine itself on both vehicles....But I agree the newer car is designed to be safer......And if you had the choice to hit another car with your midsize car another midsize car would be ideal - but we don't get to make those choices at crunch time.....There's no doubt that crumple zones/cages/shields/air bags work and save many lives....But the link is pitting new technology against new technology & you still have a 7 times higher fatality rate in your modern midsized car versus a full sized SUV.....Look around when you're sitting in traffic.....Your pelvis is about where their feet are.... Sorry - but you are wrong .....doesn't bother me → you're the one betting your life on it.... It is ad that so many people fail to understand the science behind road safety and let their own misjudged assumptions carry the day. It leads to a false sense of security when driving that cab only lead to disaster in the long run. ..and remember the sum of personal experience is just a drop in the ocean compared to the real data collected on this subject. This is tedious.....Again read the link I provided.....It comes from the same sources you are using and shows you are incorrect.....Full sized SUV versus Camry/midsize the car driver has a 4.5-7+ times more chance of a fatality ....... From General Motors → different from the first link I provided which you should also view..... This paper shows that answers to three related questions on the relationship between car size and safety increase our basic knowledge about driver behavior. The three related questions are: 1) Given a car crash, how does the likelihood that the driver is killed depend on the size of the car? 2) How does the probability of a car being involved in a crash depend on its size? 3) How does the number of driver fatalities per car per year depend on car size? These questions are answered by reviewing a number of published studies performed by scientists at General Motors Research Laboratories. In all studies car size is characterized by the physical variable car mass. In examining the first question it is found that, given a crash, a driver in a 900 kg car is 2.6 times as likely to be killed as is a driver in a 1800 kg car. This has nothing to do with SUV V Camry in a head on......This is just about the risk factor of two different sized vehicles..... So far you've supplied no useful corrobotive information over your gut feeling citing "engineering superiority"......But other than that you bring nothing of substance.... So cling to your feigned superiority.... On the same token → a fullsize SUV and a dump truck crash head on at 60kph - who walks away? Same result as that midsize hitting the same SUV....The theory of mass - just like the theory of gravity is a natural law...... For the Now let's give it a rest..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The 59 Chevy crash is not really a good example. The old Chevy had a frame and the newer one is a uni-body. Had the crash been head on, the old Chevy would likely have had an advantage because of the inline engine and frame. As it was the crash point missed the engine and the frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I know which car I'd prefer to be in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeW Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I know which car I'd prefer to be in The Smart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeW Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You can just see the Benz's kinetic energy being transferred into that little Smart. Auch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You can just see the Benz's kinetic energy being transferred into that little Smart. Auch. Smart owned by Daimler AG, who own Mercedes Benz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The 59 Chevy crash is not really a good example. The old Chevy had a frame and the newer one is a uni-body. Had the crash been head on, the old Chevy would likely have had an advantage because of the inline engine and frame. As it was the crash point missed the engine and the frame. "The old Chevy had a frame" - as do the current pick-ups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrahmm Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The 59 Chevy crash is not really a good example. The old Chevy had a frame and the newer one is a uni-body. Had the crash been head on, the old Chevy would likely have had an advantage because of the inline engine and frame. As it was the crash point missed the engine and the frame."The old Chevy had a frame" - as do the current pick-ups Don't you ever stop with your out of your a** nonsense to justify a bad argument - you clearly and positively do not know what you are talking about....The 59 Chevy had an X frame which was a fundamentally flawed design....It was ultimately replaced due to the myriad lawsuits and deaths caused by this design.... It DID NOT have a box or ladder type design as do the current vehicles...It was a waspish design leaving it vunerable and unstable including to impact at almost every point of it's construction....The body took the hit while the frame twisted and folded......There are now kits available for restorers that want to restore the old muscle cars and don't want the frame torquing out from under them......Rust also affected them badly so the east coast cars didn't fare or age well..... I have to believe whoever set up this crash test knew exactly what type of vehicle to use to enhance whatever data he was mining for..... Most - if not all framed vehicles are now boxed/laddered with the strongest of them also X'd inside the box.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 That crash test was obviously setup to show the superiority of modern design over the old design. The offset crash targeted the weakest portion of the old Chevy. Of course I'm not a crash expert like you are, but I can see the intent of that crash test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefSlapper Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Jeep is disgrace. Many comains on new ones in EU and AUS Sent from my SM-A800F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KonaRain Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I agree.. with all of YouAll.. I live in the 4x4 capital.. Maybe not of the world. Cherokee's used to be called 'Kona Cadillac' Whatever. Jeeps are fun but can be cheesy. I mean the brand. Those Thai vehicles look nice.. Listen to these guys! And yes, they're right, there is no best possible choice. Yer just asking for it..No toy will satisfy..keep it down if earth I enjoy being raked over.. You know what mean.. Aloha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I have only ever had one Jeep product. The Jeep Honcho was the worst excuse for a 4X4 that I ever had. The full time four wheel drive really stunk. That has forever soured me on that type of drive train. They are probably better now but I still would never buy another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardokano Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I have only ever had one Jeep product. The Jeep Honcho was the worst excuse for a 4X4 that I ever had. The full time four wheel drive really stunk. That has forever soured me on that type of drive train. They are probably better now but I still would never buy another one.Haha very funny. Ypu just get one model from brand but talking about all brand model. Now I have Fortuner. And it worst car ever i have any new car. But i cant say this is about brand Toyota. If Toyota have camry 2.4 fortuner 3.0 disel. Its can't say it bad brand. Have many Very good car from this is brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 My point was that if you want a serious 4X4, don't buy a full time drive train. The new part time 4X4's are much better in that up to about 100 kph, you can just turn a knob to go into 4X4 high. You do have to stop to use the low range 4X4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 My point was that if you want a serious 4X4, don't buy a full time drive train. The new part time 4X4's are much better in that up to about 100 kph, you can just turn a knob to go into 4X4 high. You do have to stop to use the low range 4X4. There's a man who doesn't understand 4x4. If your serious about 4x4 you chose the system that fits your demands - nowadays that is usually the FT systems, but it larely depends on how much control you have over that system - they are not all the same and not intended to be to suggest there are only two options is just showing how little you understand about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrahmm Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 My point was that if you want a serious 4X4, don't buy a full time drive train. The new part time 4X4's are much better in that up to about 100 kph, you can just turn a knob to go into 4X4 high. You do have to stop to use the low range 4X4.There's a man who doesn't understand 4x4.If your serious about 4x4 you chose the system that fits your demands - nowadays that is usually the FT systems, but it larely depends on how much control you have over that system - they are not all the same and not intended to be to suggest there are only two options is just showing how little you understand about it. Always good to have options.....Some systems have FWD then engage the rear wheels for 4 wheel drive.....Most conventional is the RWD then engage the front wheels when needed..... The only real negatives about full time 4 wheel drive is a loss of fuel ecconomy & if/when you lose it in 4 wheel drive it's almost unrecoverable once any degree of control is lost...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canthai55 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Full time systems work well in slippery conditions - think snow and ice, mud. And you need to unlearn old habits when driving in such conditions. Same as FWD - if car starts to over or understeer, turn wheel in direction you want to go and floor the throttle. It will pull/push the car/truck in the direction of travel. Worse thing to do - back off the throttle or step on the brake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardokano Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 My point was that if you want a serious 4X4, don't buy a full time drive train. The new part time 4X4's are much better in that up to about 100 kph, you can just turn a knob to go into 4X4 high. You do have to stop to use the low range 4X4. What you mean part time or full time? If for offroad 4X4 Yes part time its fine but more imprortant have lock dif. how many diff have. have reduced transmission in the gearbox. so i know 4 type 4X4 : 1. Fulltime almast with lock dif: LC, Prado, Defender, Discovery, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee ,Pajero, Pajero sport etc In my Opinion its best for Offroad and ofcouse it hight cost buy and use. 2. Fulltime but not lock diff and in costruktion diff can slippage. its in my opinion not really used for off road, can be on snow o raining. so it almast car for road : Q7,Q5,Grand Cherokee, X5(old), RX(old) etc 3.Part time yes it mean can on/off 4X4 and i guess it good for offroad but if this is car buy used for road its only be same universal but not as universal comfort and use alot oil( if compare with same size universal) And its chepest cost buy oofroad car and its: Jimny, LC ( before in some marcket low cost spec), Patrol, Cherokee, Wrangler, Liberty , Vitara, 4runner(old) etc 4 On demand Its some brand sell it as "full time" some sell as "part time" In my opinion its not for real offroad, it mostly crossovers but some car I like And its: X5,X3, SLX, H_RV, C-RV,Rave4, X-Trail, RX450, Grand Cherokee , FX etc... so Realy do not understand your point 1 what you mean "serious 4X4"? 2. what you mean part time 4X4? 3. Toyota LC or Prado... Defennder... Gelenwagen.. Pajero its NOT "serious 4X4" because its Fultime 4X4? and last If you can see Jeep have model and spec in ALL 4 different type 4X4 as i know.. And i do not anderstand your point.. My point is: cant say about brand if use only one model even some times one spec in model. Because in my opinion for example.. Camry VX40 with 2.4 its worst car I had from new car( its be befor i buy Fortuner) but even Camry 3.5 it not bad in class.. and ofcouse many model from Toyota I like or even Love... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I think people need to get up to date on 4WD systems and how they work and what they do. firstly they are designed for everything from sports cars to full-on off road vehicles. The Thai pickups in general have the most BASIC of all 4WD systems - in fact they barely qualify as 4WD at all. They can if required engage drive transferred to the front wheels as well- there is no allocation of proportional power and far more important the majority of these vehicles have no locking differentials at all and just a limited slip diff on the rear with nothing on the front. this means if you lose traction you will find you are in effect in a 1 WD vehicle!! Modern f/t systems can deliver power in differing amounts to whatever wheel needs it or is loosing traction. As for citing models - well Toyotas Landcruiser/Prado range alone has a huge range of variations and options, so don't just assume that because it's a "Prado" it has serious off-road capabilities...in Thailand they usually don't. there are of course many other factors in off-road ability besides 4WD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 OK, if we're talking 4x4 pickups.... There are two standouts on the Thai market: The Mitsubishi Triton 4-door 4x4 2.4L 6AT model comes with the Super-Select II 4WD system: * RWD * 4x4 High (full-time with Torsen centre diff and 33/67 front/rear torque split), * 4x4 High with locked centre diff * 4x4 Low with locked centre diff * Electronic rear diff locking Note that the MT version does not have this system though. Ford Ranger cab-chassis 2-door 3.2L 6AT 4WD: * Full time AWD with clutch type centre diff that dynamically splits front/rear torque up to 97% to each end * Terrain Management System with 4 modes * Selectable Low range * Electronic rear diff locking Based on the Everest chassis and drivetrain, so also includes rear disc brakes and rear coil springs. Outside of those two, the Revo and Ranger range include models that are available with 2H/4H/4L switching, with electronic rear diff lock, but no special centre diff. The Ranger Wildtrak 2x4 versions also have electronic rear diff lock. Most of the others are 2H/4H/4L with LSD rear only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 OK, if we're talking 4x4 pickups.... There are two standouts on the Thai market: The Mitsubishi Triton 4-door 4x4 2.4L 6AT model comes with the Super-Select II 4WD system: * RWD * 4x4 High (full-time with Torsen centre diff and 33/67 front/rear torque split), * 4x4 High with locked centre diff * 4x4 Low with locked centre diff * Electronic rear diff locking Note that the MT version does not have this system though. Ford Ranger cab-chassis 2-door 3.2L 6AT 4WD: * Full time AWD with clutch type centre diff that dynamically splits front/rear torque up to 97% to each end * Terrain Management System with 4 modes * Selectable Low range * Electronic rear diff locking Based on the Everest chassis and drivetrain, so also includes rear disc brakes and rear coil springs. Outside of those two, the Revo and Ranger range include models that are available with 2H/4H/4L switching, with electronic rear diff lock, but no special centre diff. The Ranger Wildtrak 2x4 versions also have electronic rear diff lock. Most of the others are 2H/4H/4L with LSD rear only. These vehicles or at least similar systems have been available in places like oz for some time....I tried buying one from Mitsu about 6 years ago and although the vehicle was being built in Thailand there was no way I could legally purchase it for use in Thailand. These kind of systems really do improve a vehicles off-road capabilities. It would seem that some posters are completely unaware of these systems. My own vehicle is a pickup with post-production front and rear diff locks. PS - interesting that the Ford has coil rear springs as that was a a govt/tax prerequisite; pickups had to have leaf sprung rear axles. THis was changed for the Fortuna and subsequent SUV variants but I didn't realise that it had happened for pickups.\ ....but after all is said and done, does this make them the "best" vehicle for Thailand?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 PS - interesting that the Ford has coil rear springs as that was a a govt/tax prerequisite; pickups had to have leaf sprung rear axles. THis was changed for the Fortuna and subsequent SUV variants but I didn't realise that it had happened for pickups.\ ....but after all is said and done, does this make them the "best" vehicle for Thailand?????? There hasn't been any changes - those cab-chassis models with the Everest chassis are taxed as cars As for best vehicle, I wouldn't mind a Bentley Continental - but I'm pretty sure a pineapple farmer, or someone who buys only on resale values, or fuel efficiency numbers, or someone who can't stand walking an extra 50M to get to Tesco Lotus thinks it's a crap choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 PS - interesting that the Ford has coil rear springs as that was a a govt/tax prerequisite; pickups had to have leaf sprung rear axles. THis was changed for the Fortuna and subsequent SUV variants but I didn't realise that it had happened for pickups.\ ....but after all is said and done, does this make them the "best" vehicle for Thailand?????? There hasn't been any changes - those cab-chassis models with the Everest chassis are taxed as cars As for best vehicle, I wouldn't mind a Bentley Continental - but I'm pretty sure a pineapple farmer, or someone who buys only on resale values, or fuel efficiency numbers, or someone who can't stand walking an extra 50M to get to Tesco Lotus thinks it's a crap choice Isn't the Everest a shorter wheelbase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mega Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Are those cab chassis Ranger actually available now ? I enquired about one not long after they popped up on the Thai Ford website and was told not being sold here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 The 59 Chevy crash is not really a good example. The old Chevy had a frame and the newer one is a uni-body. Had the crash been head on, the old Chevy would likely have had an advantage because of the inline engine and frame. As it was the crash point missed the engine and the frame."The old Chevy had a frame" - as do the current pick-ups Don't you ever stop with your out of your a** nonsense to justify a bad argument - you clearly and positively do not know what you are talking about....The 59 Chevy had an X frame which was a fundamentally flawed design....It was ultimately replaced due to the myriad lawsuits and deaths caused by this design.... It DID NOT have a box or ladder type design as do the current vehicles...It was a waspish design leaving it vunerable and unstable including to impact at almost every point of it's construction....The body took the hit while the frame twisted and folded......There are now kits available for restorers that want to restore the old muscle cars and don't want the frame torquing out from under them......Rust also affected them badly so the east coast cars didn't fare or age well..... I have to believe whoever set up this crash test knew exactly what type of vehicle to use to enhance whatever data he was mining for..... Most - if not all framed vehicles are now boxed/laddered with the strongest of them also X'd inside the box.... Again no idea of shock absorption of any frame chassis, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 PS - interesting that the Ford has coil rear springs as that was a a govt/tax prerequisite; pickups had to have leaf sprung rear axles. THis was changed for the Fortuna and subsequent SUV variants but I didn't realise that it had happened for pickups.\ ....but after all is said and done, does this make them the "best" vehicle for Thailand?????? There hasn't been any changes - those cab-chassis models with the Everest chassis are taxed as cars As for best vehicle, I wouldn't mind a Bentley Continental - but I'm pretty sure a pineapple farmer, or someone who buys only on resale values, or fuel efficiency numbers, or someone who can't stand walking an extra 50M to get to Tesco Lotus thinks it's a crap choice Isn't the Everest a shorter wheelbase? It sure is - which is probably why they only offer them as cab-chassis (no styleside tub) Are those cab chassis Ranger actually available now ? I enquired about one not long after they popped up on the Thai Ford website and was told not being sold here. Did you ask HO? "no have" is a pretty generic response here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 PS - interesting that the Ford has coil rear springs as that was a a govt/tax prerequisite; pickups had to have leaf sprung rear axles. THis was changed for the Fortuna and subsequent SUV variants but I didn't realise that it had happened for pickups.\ ....but after all is said and done, does this make them the "best" vehicle for Thailand?????? There hasn't been any changes - those cab-chassis models with the Everest chassis are taxed as cars As for best vehicle, I wouldn't mind a Bentley Continental - but I'm pretty sure a pineapple farmer, or someone who buys only on resale values, or fuel efficiency numbers, or someone who can't stand walking an extra 50M to get to Tesco Lotus thinks it's a crap choice Isn't the Everest a shorter wheelbase? It sure is - which is probably why they only offer them as cab-chassis (no styleside tub) Are those cab chassis Ranger actually available now ? I enquired about one not long after they popped up on the Thai Ford website and was told not being sold here. Did you ask HO? "no have" is a pretty generic response here I have to concur- the lat person to ask about product details is one of the idiots in a dealership showroom....regardless of brand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.