Buying a new pickup: Ford Wildtrak 2016 vs Mazda BT-50 2016

[Pink7]

I have bought the wildtrak 3.2 and it is a very good machine. did the usual and put the obligatory wider wheel and body kit on it (The wife wanted them honest) and it looks a mean machine.....so worth a good look

As for the 2.2, i have never driven one but friends who have or have had them tell me they are seriously under powered ........

+1 ... I agree wholeheartedly!

Hi Pink,

This is a good question and one I wondered about three years ago.

The BT-50 back then (not sure if now is exactly the same) had/has the same chassis and drive train as the Ranger and was made at the same factory. The differences were in the body styling and features.

I wanted a 3.2 Wildtrak but had to wait 14 months to get one. The first dealer I went to took a small deposit (which I got back in the end), but never got the pickup. After over a year and no pickup, I went to another dealer a few provinces over, and paid another deposit. Again, I was told I would be put on a waiting list. But this guy came through a month later, and I got my truck. Definitely no discount.

If you want extra features like; more airbags, traction control, styling, premium sound etc., then the Wildtrak is for you. The six speed auto transmission felt funny at first, but after I learned how to drive it, I now love it. Add the 3.2, and you've got it all.

If you like the Ranger, but want more of a utility vehicle, you can save some money on the XLT. Still a great truck with lots of guts. It will save you some money over the Wildtrak.

If you like the BT-50 styling and features, and want all the guts of the Ranger, get the Mazda. It will save you even more.

Good model descriptions .... could you explain more of your initial experience with driving a six-speed transmission to help the rest of us understand what it's like?

A six speed manual is a pain in the ass.........

I agree,,, i driven mazda bt-50 2.2 manual, my wife have 2 brothers ho both have mazda.. And wher im fromwe gearing with righ hand, not left...and that it was a 6 speed manual, made me very shure im going for auto..

Pink

[JaseTheBass]

A 6 speed manual is fine. My wife can manage it easily, but it might be too much for those with less ability.

[neverdie]

I have bought the wildtrak 3.2 and it is a very good machine. did the usual and put the obligatory wider wheel and body kit on it (The wife wanted them honest) and it looks a mean machine.....so worth a good look

As for the 2.2, i have never driven one but friends who have or have had them tell me they are seriously under powered ........

+1 ... I agree wholeheartedly!

Hi Pink,

This is a good question and one I wondered about three years ago.

The BT-50 back then (not sure if now is exactly the same) had/has the same chassis and drive train as the Ranger and was made at the same factory. The differences were in the body styling and features.

I wanted a 3.2 Wildtrak but had to wait 14 months to get one. The first dealer I went to took a small deposit (which I got back in the end), but never got the pickup. After over a year and no pickup, I went to another dealer a few provinces over, and paid another deposit. Again, I was told I would be put on a waiting list. But this guy came through a month later, and I got my truck. Definitely no discount.

If you want extra features like; more airbags, traction control, styling, premium sound etc., then the Wildtrak is for you. The six speed auto transmission felt funny at first, but after I learned how to drive it, I now love it. Add the 3.2, and you've got it all.

If you like the Ranger, but want more of a utility vehicle, you can save some money on the XLT. Still a great truck with lots of guts. It will save you some money over the Wildtrak.

If you like the BT-50 styling and features, and want all the guts of the Ranger, get the Mazda. It will save you even more.

Good model descriptions .... could you explain more of your initial experience with driving a six-speed transmission to help the rest of us understand what it's like?

A six speed manual is a pain in the ass.........

Transam, try using your hand on the gear stick, it will be much less painful and not nearly as messy.

[Shadychris]

Possibly not what you want to hear, but although you might 'like' the Ford and the Mazda, both of those choices in my experience may not be the wisest you can make in Thailand. Certainly not in the Korat area where I am based.

I bought a s\h Ford Escape 3.0 petrol, with my 'western thinking' that you cant really go wrong with a Ford - reasonable service standards from main dealers, plentiful supply of parts - new and s\h etc. The reality I have found is that Fords are not so common place in Thailand, the service I received from the Ford main dealer (also a Mazda main dealer) in Korat was pretty poor to say the least.

Parts often need to sent from BKK - even fairly common service parts, if you need anything other than normal service parts expect a wait of a week or so as it will likely need to be shipped in from Europe. Second hand parts are like rocking horse sh*t , certainly around the Nakhon area - there just aren't that many Fords about compared to Japanese motors. Of your 2 choices I would go with the Ford every time as personal preference of the better vehicle, but as far as practicality of ownership goes, once you are out of warranty then the Mazda would probably be the easiest to run and maintain long term. Of course if you go with either you will be stuck with a pretty poor main dealer in Korat for the first 12 months or so. Thereafter when you have the option of your friendly local mechanic working on it for you - my experience is that my guy hates to see me bring the Ford in to him for something I don't have the tools or equipment to do myself, but when I turn up in the other half's Vigo it's all smiles.

If you were only planning to keep the vehicle for a few years and then replace with another new one then probably none of the above (with exception of Korat dealer) would be of much concern - but I note you say you wish to keep the vehicle for many years so you do need to give some thought to the pros and cons of running an older Japanese v's Western car in the future

[Pink7]

Possibly not what you want to hear, but although you might 'like' the Ford and the Mazda, both of those choices in my experience may not be the wisest you can make in Thailand. Certainly not in the Korat area where I am based.

I bought a s\h Ford Escape 3.0 petrol, with my 'western thinking' that you cant really go wrong with a Ford - reasonable service standards from main dealers, plentiful supply of parts - new and s\h etc. The reality I have found is that Fords are not so common place in Thailand, the service I received from the Ford main dealer (also a Mazda main dealer) in Korat was pretty poor to say the least.

Parts often need to sent from BKK - even fairly common service parts, if you need anything other than normal service parts expect a wait of a week or so as it will likely need to be shipped in from Europe. Second hand parts are like rocking horse sh*t , certainly around the Nakhon area - there just aren't that many Fords about compared to Japanese motors. Of your 2 choices I would go with the Ford every time as personal preference of the better vehicle, but as far as practicality of ownership goes, once you are out of warranty then the Mazda would probably be the easiest to run and maintain long term. Of course if you go with either you will be stuck with a pretty poor main dealer in Korat for the first 12 months or so. Thereafter when you have the option of your friendly local mechanic working on it for you - my experience is that my guy hates to see me bring the Ford in to him for something I don't have the tools or equipment to do myself, but when I turn up in the other half's Vigo it's all smiles.

If you were only planning to keep the vehicle for a few years and then replace with another new one then probably none of the above (with exception of Korat dealer) would be of much concern - but I note you say you wish to keep the vehicle for many years so you do need to give some thought to the pros and cons of running an older Japanese v's Western car in the future

Thanks for share your view.. The mazda and for dealer i visited in Korat was located side by side, so they are same company?

Yes i had plan to buy a car i could keep for long time... Im not really drive very much...some weekly trips to city to Tesco..then a trip now and then...

Pink

[Jitar]

Hi Pink,

This is a good question and one I wondered about three years ago.

The BT-50 back then (not sure if now is exactly the same) had/has the same chassis and drive train as the Ranger and was made at the same factory. The differences were in the body styling and features.

I wanted a 3.2 Wildtrak but had to wait 14 months to get one. The first dealer I went to took a small deposit (which I got back in the end), but never got the pickup. After over a year and no pickup, I went to another dealer a few provinces over, and paid another deposit. Again, I was told I would be put on a waiting list. But this guy came through a month later, and I got my truck. Definitely no discount.

If you want extra features like; more airbags, traction control, styling, premium sound etc., then the Wildtrak is for you. The six speed auto transmission felt funny at first, but after I learned how to drive it, I now love it. Add the 3.2, and you've got it all.

If you like the Ranger, but want more of a utility vehicle, you can save some money on the XLT. Still a great truck with lots of guts. It will save you some money over the Wildtrak.

If you like the BT-50 styling and features, and want all the guts of the Ranger, get the Mazda. It will save you even more.

Hows the 3.2 on diesel economy? What year is your WT from? You have automatic? 2 wd or 4wd?

Pink

The 3.2L Ford engine has more power than competitors and the WT is also heavier so Fuel consumption will be worse.

Our 3.2L Everest struggles to get to 9km/L in the same conditions our old Fortuner and PJS did 10km/L.

The lighter pickup versions would do better but the Ford or Mazda are likely to be the thirstiest if specs and driving style are equal.

[Caspersfriend]

Thanks for share your view.. The mazda and for dealer i visited in Korat was located side by side, so they are same company?

Yes i had plan to buy a car i could keep for long time... Im not really drive very much...some weekly trips to city to Tesco..then a trip now and then...

Pink

Ford used to have a shareholding in Mazda that gave them controlling interest. They no longer are in that position [due to post-2008 restructuring] but still have an 'alliance'. Hence [as mentioned previously] the Ranger may look and feel different to the BT-50 but much of what goes on out-of-sight is the same, As is the way with the many alliances that exist in vehicle manufacturing these days.

[NanLaew]

Thanks for share your view.. The mazda and for dealer i visited in Korat was located side by side, so they are same company?

Yes i had plan to buy a car i could keep for long time... Im not really drive very much...some weekly trips to city to Tesco..then a trip now and then...

Pink

Forget about the 3.2 and even the 2.2 WT with all the WT bells and whistles then.

Save yourself some cash and get the 2.2 AT XLT. It's got all you need.

I had a 2012 Ranger 2.2 AT XLT for 60,000 km and it was NEVER underpowered. Great cruiser on the highways with enough pickup to skip around or get out of the way of 'annoyances.' Good fuel economy, no mechanical issues when I traded in and only had to replace the battery and one tire that I shredded.

I traded up to a 3.2 AT WT a year ago because I am a big, rich oil and gas man and apart from having a bit more getup and go and maybe an extra +12-15 kph top speed, it's just a more expensive ride. Renewing my road tax next month and it's bloody rude compared to the 2.2's tax!

Mrs NL also wants to comment that the 3.2's five-pot engine is also a bit noisier than the 2.2's four-cylinder plant and the lower gear ratios on the 3.2 aren't as nice for tootling around town.

Bought both of them from the Meuang Udon Thani dealership who are pretty darn good at sales and servicing. The sales girl that talked me into the trade up did a real good job on all aspects; even when I found a last-minute alternative buyer to one she had lined up for the old 2.2 which made an extra 70k baht for me and killed any 'commission' on the deal she had set up.

[bazza40]

Oh dear. Another recruit for the agricultural school of driving. To drive a pickup, surely a tad of nekulturny is a given.

[kwak250]

I'm still trying to work out what freebies you can get for the WT. Unless you want to put a load of shiny plastic crap on it, it comes fully loaded.

Fully loaded 555

Your easily pleased its a Ford Ranger

So you have done nothing to a apart from add fuel ?

Mind you my neighbour just got his Ford ranger fixed after 8 months waiting for parts so i wouldnt spend too much on the Ford junker

[JaseTheBass]

I'm still trying to work out what freebies you can get for the WT. Unless you want to put a load of shiny plastic crap on it, it comes fully loaded.

Fully loaded 555

Your easily pleased its a Ford Ranger

So you have done nothing to a apart from add fuel ?

Mind you my neighbour just got his Ford ranger fixed after 8 months waiting for parts so i wouldnt spend too much on the Ford junker

Please tell me what freebies I missed out on that I would actually want?

[kwak250]

Just wondering how fully loaded and Ford sound in the same sentence.

No such thing as Freebies if you want a good discount.

They will probably give you window film /bed liner/and being Ford tow rope?

[Pink7]

what i like about WT is the airbags...i would like to have more than 2 airbags...Any other pickups have 6-7 airbags? ( i know mazda bt-50 3.2 4x4 have, but thats not what im looking for.

Pink

[JaseTheBass]

I'm still trying to work out what freebies you can get for the WT. Unless you want to put a load of shiny plastic crap on it, it comes fully loaded.

Fully loaded 555

Your easily pleased its a Ford Ranger

So you have done nothing to a apart from add fuel ?

Mind you my neighbour just got his Ford ranger fixed after 8 months waiting for parts so i wouldnt spend too much on the Ford junker

Please tell me what freebies I missed out on that I would actually want?

Just wondering how fully loaded and Ford sound in the same sentence.

No such thing as Freebies if you want a good discount.

They will probably give you window film /bed liner/and being Ford tow rope?

Oh. You can't. Best get on your scooter and toddle off then

[IMHO]

The 2015+ Ranger 2.2L has comparable performance to the old VIGO 3.0L..

Going back just a few years ago, I don't remember anyone calling a VIGO 3.0 "underpowered", LOL.

[ignis]

Maybe wait awhile.. So say there will be a 2017 Benz Pickup, Poss later this year ? but expect it will be the same price or more expensive than the VW Amarok which was something like 1.8 million baht.

[Ace of Pop]

Ting is if the most constructive thing you do here ,like me is take. Trucks for a Sevice for something to do for friends,I notice there are "Thats Nice" features in all the makes ,but not one with them all.If that makes sense. I like the Isuzu for easy ride.

[fredob43]

I have bought the wildtrak 3.2 and it is a very good machine. did the usual and put the obligatory wider wheel and bodykit on it (The wife wanted them honest) and it looks a mean machine.....so worth a good look

As for the 2.2, i have never driven one but friends who have or have had them tell me they are seriously under powered.

The truck is mostly driven by the wife, but when home i do drive it and even driven from Nakon Sawan to Pattaya in it with no fatigue (from driving) what so ever.

I got a deal when i bought it as i paid cash (200,000 off list). Dont like Nissan, Mazda or Mitsu so the only others i have had are Izuzu,and Toyota but i would rate this as good if not slightly better but time will tell as it ages - for reliability.

I change my vehicles every 2 years and depending on the time i spend at home they could have driven 9 to 15 thousand kms (we also have cars) as the wife only uses it to go from home to her office most of the time which is 4-5 kms.

Thais tend to think the Fords lose money when you come to sell it, maybe true for older models but this one seems quite popular.

Even my wife likes this one and she is thai, she was surprised how well equipped and comfortable it was

Fuel economy is reasonable (never recorded figures) but nakon sawan - pattaya-nakon sawan cost me about 3000 baht with fuel left.

Rumour is that Ford Thailand is going to stop production of the 3.2 but i have been hearing that for over a year now so we will see.

Good luck

Good post.

But was quite shocked at your cost fuel wise. I have often done the same trip as you but mine is from K.P.Phet some 230km further round trip, I use 2,400bt worth also for return/round trip. (Fuel Shell V power or similar)

I have a Spivo that has had the engine sorted and use's more fuel than the normal 3lt. I also don't drive slow, but do use C/Control when possible. Your 3,000bt does seem a trite excessive even though you had some??? over.

[NanLaew]

I have bought the wildtrak 3.2 and it is a very good machine. did the usual and put the obligatory wider wheel and bodykit on it (The wife wanted them honest) and it looks a mean machine.....so worth a good look

As for the 2.2, i have never driven one but friends who have or have had them tell me they are seriously under powered.

The truck is mostly driven by the wife, but when home i do drive it and even driven from Nakon Sawan to Pattaya in it with no fatigue (from driving) what so ever.

I got a deal when i bought it as i paid cash (200,000 off list). Dont like Nissan, Mazda or Mitsu so the only others i have had are Izuzu,and Toyota but i would rate this as good if not slightly better but time will tell as it ages - for reliability.

I change my vehicles every 2 years and depending on the time i spend at home they could have driven 9 to 15 thousand kms (we also have cars) as the wife only uses it to go from home to her office most of the time which is 4-5 kms.

Thais tend to think the Fords lose money when you come to sell it, maybe true for older models but this one seems quite popular.

Even my wife likes this one and she is thai, she was surprised how well equipped and comfortable it was

Fuel economy is reasonable (never recorded figures) but nakon sawan - pattaya-nakon sawan cost me about 3000 baht with fuel left.

Rumour is that Ford Thailand is going to stop production of the 3.2 but i have been hearing that for over a year now so we will see.

Good luck

Good post.

But was quite shocked at your cost fuel wise. I have often done the same trip as you but mine is from K.P.Phet some 230km further round trip, I use 2,400bt worth also for return/round trip. (Fuel Shell V power or similar)

I have a Spivo that has had the engine sorted and use's more fuel than the normal 3lt. I also don't drive slow, but do use C/Control when possible. Your 3,000bt does seem a trite excessive even though you had some??? over.

With the rather dynamic downward cost of fuel, quoting vehicle fuel economy in terms of tanks to get to Nakhon Nowhere and back are pretty pointless unless your comparison trips are similar length, within a month of each other... in the same sort of vehicle... of similar age.... with very similar driving styles.

[fredob43]

I have bought the wildtrak 3.2 and it is a very good machine. did the usual and put the obligatory wider wheel and bodykit on it (The wife wanted them honest) and it looks a mean machine.....so worth a good look

As for the 2.2, i have never driven one but friends who have or have had them tell me they are seriously under powered.

The truck is mostly driven by the wife, but when home i do drive it and even driven from Nakon Sawan to Pattaya in it with no fatigue (from driving) what so ever.

I got a deal when i bought it as i paid cash (200,000 off list). Dont like Nissan, Mazda or Mitsu so the only others i have had are Izuzu,and Toyota but i would rate this as good if not slightly better but time will tell as it ages - for reliability.

I change my vehicles every 2 years and depending on the time i spend at home they could have driven 9 to 15 thousand kms (we also have cars) as the wife only uses it to go from home to her office most of the time which is 4-5 kms.

Thais tend to think the Fords lose money when you come to sell it, maybe true for older models but this one seems quite popular.

Even my wife likes this one and she is thai, she was surprised how well equipped and comfortable it was

Fuel economy is reasonable (never recorded figures) but nakon sawan - pattaya-nakon sawan cost me about 3000 baht with fuel left.

Rumour is that Ford Thailand is going to stop production of the 3.2 but i have been hearing that for over a year now so we will see.

Good luck

Good post.

But was quite shocked at your cost fuel wise. I have often done the same trip as you but mine is from K.P.Phet some 230km further round trip, I use 2,400bt worth also for return/round trip. (Fuel Shell V power or similar)

I have a Spivo that has had the engine sorted and use's more fuel than the normal 3lt. I also don't drive slow, but do use C/Control when possible. Your 3,000bt does seem a trite excessive even though you had some??? over.

With the rather dynamic downward cost of fuel, quoting vehicle fuel economy in terms of tanks to get to Nakhon Nowhere and back are pretty pointless unless your comparison trips are similar length, within a month of each other... in the same sort of vehicle... of similar age.... with very similar driving styles.

For your information I was comparing my fuel cost for a trip via N/S to K.P.Phet some 117km further up than his.

Both engines about the same his being a 3.2 pick up Mine a 3lt SUV 3 up with luggage. My last trip some 3 months ago so the fuel wasn't at it's lowest point. You can only go max 160kph if you don't want to kill yourself on most of the roads. Even if he drives at the same speed it should be comparable. I also didn't quote Tanks I quoted cost bt wise for round trip.

Regards age forgot that bit mine is in it's 7 year his is new.

[JaseTheBass]

I have bought the wildtrak 3.2 and it is a very good machine. did the usual and put the obligatory wider wheel and bodykit on it (The wife wanted them honest) and it looks a mean machine.....so worth a good look

As for the 2.2, i have never driven one but friends who have or have had them tell me they are seriously under powered.

The truck is mostly driven by the wife, but when home i do drive it and even driven from Nakon Sawan to Pattaya in it with no fatigue (from driving) what so ever.

I got a deal when i bought it as i paid cash (200,000 off list). Dont like Nissan, Mazda or Mitsu so the only others i have had are Izuzu,and Toyota but i would rate this as good if not slightly better but time will tell as it ages - for reliability.

I change my vehicles every 2 years and depending on the time i spend at home they could have driven 9 to 15 thousand kms (we also have cars) as the wife only uses it to go from home to her office most of the time which is 4-5 kms.

Thais tend to think the Fords lose money when you come to sell it, maybe true for older models but this one seems quite popular.

Even my wife likes this one and she is thai, she was surprised how well equipped and comfortable it was

Fuel economy is reasonable (never recorded figures) but nakon sawan - pattaya-nakon sawan cost me about 3000 baht with fuel left.

Rumour is that Ford Thailand is going to stop production of the 3.2 but i have been hearing that for over a year now so we will see.

Good luck

Good post.

But was quite shocked at your cost fuel wise. I have often done the same trip as you but mine is from K.P.Phet some 230km further round trip, I use 2,400bt worth also for return/round trip. (Fuel Shell V power or similar)

I have a Spivo that has had the engine sorted and use's more fuel than the normal 3lt. I also don't drive slow, but do use C/Control when possible. Your 3,000bt does seem a trite excessive even though you had some??? over.

With the rather dynamic downward cost of fuel, quoting vehicle fuel economy in terms of tanks to get to Nakhon Nowhere and back are pretty pointless unless your comparison trips are similar length, within a month of each other... in the same sort of vehicle... of similar age.... with very similar driving styles.

For your information I was comparing my fuel cost for a trip via N/S to K.P.Phet some 117km further up than his.

Both engines about the same his being a 3.2 pick up Mine a 3lt SUV 3 up with luggage. My last trip some 3 months ago so the fuel wasn't at it's lowest point. You can only go max 160kph if you don't want to kill yourself on most of the roads. Even if he drives at the same speed it should be comparable. I also didn't quote Tanks I quoted cost bt wise for round trip.

Regards age forgot that bit mine is in it's 7 year his is new.

Is it a new WT or the MkI PX? Sounds like the old one if he got 200k off it as he wouldn't get that of the new one.

The new model is more fuel efficient apparently.

[ardokano]

Hi Pink,

This is a good question and one I wondered about three years ago.

The BT-50 back then (not sure if now is exactly the same) had/has the same chassis and drive train as the Ranger and was made at the same factory. The differences were in the body styling and features.

I wanted a 3.2 Wildtrak but had to wait 14 months to get one. The first dealer I went to took a small deposit (which I got back in the end), but never got the pickup. After over a year and no pickup, I went to another dealer a few provinces over, and paid another deposit. Again, I was told I would be put on a waiting list. But this guy came through a month later, and I got my truck. Definitely no discount.

If you want extra features like; more airbags, traction control, styling, premium sound etc., then the Wildtrak is for you. The six speed auto transmission felt funny at first, but after I learned how to drive it, I now love it. Add the 3.2, and you've got it all.

If you like the Ranger, but want more of a utility vehicle, you can save some money on the XLT. Still a great truck with lots of guts. It will save you some money over the Wildtrak.

If you like the BT-50 styling and features, and want all the guts of the Ranger, get the Mazda. It will save you even more.

Hows the 3.2 on diesel economy? What year is your WT from? You have automatic? 2 wd or 4wd?

Pink

The 3.2L Ford engine has more power than competitors and the WT is also heavier so Fuel consumption will be worse.

Our 3.2L Everest struggles to get to 9km/L in the same conditions our old Fortuner and PJS did 10km/L.

The lighter pickup versions would do better but the Ford or Mazda are likely to be the thirstiest if specs and driving style are equal.

10l per 100km?

Its where and how drive?

Chiang Mai - Kalasin 12.5 km per liter(8L ) drive mountain roads 60-120. Highway 100-150, at traffic lights and overtaking acceleration is not the fastest.

10 liters or more Fortuner is in traffic in town Bangkok( and now some part chiang Mai) or Bangkok - Pattaya 120-170 with the fastest acceleration after braking.

So 10 L its extrem drive on Fortuner.

[fredob43]

You could be right JTB, as I have calculated not spot on I know but at least 50% worse than my Gas guzzler.

That by the way is 50% worse than the new Nissan Narvara fuel wise. Just had a trip to Udon Thani with friend and his chipped one and it run rings around my Sportivo kpl wise.

Just read RKO post before I had my engine sorted on my Spivo, I could get 15kpl admittedly that was driving on flat roads at a steady 80kph in C/Control nothing like that now. Well below 12 if lucky. Stick my foot down and Buddha only knows what.

[ardokano]

I have bought the wildtrak 3.2 and it is a very good machine. did the usual and put the obligatory wider wheel and bodykit on it (The wife wanted them honest) and it looks a mean machine.....so worth a good look

As for the 2.2, i have never driven one but friends who have or have had them tell me they are seriously under powered.

The truck is mostly driven by the wife, but when home i do drive it and even driven from Nakon Sawan to Pattaya in it with no fatigue (from driving) what so ever.

I got a deal when i bought it as i paid cash (200,000 off list). Dont like Nissan, Mazda or Mitsu so the only others i have had are Izuzu,and Toyota but i would rate this as good if not slightly better but time will tell as it ages - for reliability.

I change my vehicles every 2 years and depending on the time i spend at home they could have driven 9 to 15 thousand kms (we also have cars) as the wife only uses it to go from home to her office most of the time which is 4-5 kms.

Thais tend to think the Fords lose money when you come to sell it, maybe true for older models but this one seems quite popular.

Even my wife likes this one and she is thai, she was surprised how well equipped and comfortable it was

Fuel economy is reasonable (never recorded figures) but nakon sawan - pattaya-nakon sawan cost me about 3000 baht with fuel left.

Rumour is that Ford Thailand is going to stop production of the 3.2 but i have been hearing that for over a year now so we will see.

Good luck

Good post.

But was quite shocked at your cost fuel wise. I have often done the same trip as you but mine is from K.P.Phet some 230km further round trip, I use 2,400bt worth also for return/round trip. (Fuel Shell V power or similar)

I have a Spivo that has had the engine sorted and use's more fuel than the normal 3lt. I also don't drive slow, but do use C/Control when possible. Your 3,000bt does seem a trite excessive even though you had some??? over.

With the rather dynamic downward cost of fuel, quoting vehicle fuel economy in terms of tanks to get to Nakhon Nowhere and back are pretty pointless unless your comparison trips are similar length, within a month of each other... in the same sort of vehicle... of similar age.... with very similar driving styles.

Sorry.

But its go-back 720-750km

Cost Vpover 23-24 bpl

You spell 120L up for 750 km?

How wild you drive? What is car and engine? Or you stay in traffic many hour?

Pattaya Bangkok

Fortuner 2013 3.0 4×4 average speed 100 up. Drive speed 90-165 near 13 l per 100km full acceleration almast time

Fortuner 2012 3.0 4×2 average speed 100 up drive 90-170 near 12

Full acceleration

Audi q7 3 turbodisel.

Averge speed 110

90-200 near 11 L

Wow

16 l per 100 km its what car?

Or how is drive?

[IMHO]

Hi Pink,

This is a good question and one I wondered about three years ago.

The BT-50 back then (not sure if now is exactly the same) had/has the same chassis and drive train as the Ranger and was made at the same factory. The differences were in the body styling and features.

I wanted a 3.2 Wildtrak but had to wait 14 months to get one. The first dealer I went to took a small deposit (which I got back in the end), but never got the pickup. After over a year and no pickup, I went to another dealer a few provinces over, and paid another deposit. Again, I was told I would be put on a waiting list. But this guy came through a month later, and I got my truck. Definitely no discount.

If you want extra features like; more airbags, traction control, styling, premium sound etc., then the Wildtrak is for you. The six speed auto transmission felt funny at first, but after I learned how to drive it, I now love it. Add the 3.2, and you've got it all.

If you like the Ranger, but want more of a utility vehicle, you can save some money on the XLT. Still a great truck with lots of guts. It will save you some money over the Wildtrak.

If you like the BT-50 styling and features, and want all the guts of the Ranger, get the Mazda. It will save you even more.

Hows the 3.2 on diesel economy? What year is your WT from? You have automatic? 2 wd or 4wd?

Pink

The 3.2L Ford engine has more power than competitors and the WT is also heavier so Fuel consumption will be worse.

Our 3.2L Everest struggles to get to 9km/L in the same conditions our old Fortuner and PJS did 10km/L.

The lighter pickup versions would do better but the Ford or Mazda are likely to be the thirstiest if specs and driving style are equal.

10l per 100km?

Its where and how drive?

Chiang Mai - Kalasin 12.5 km per liter(8L ) drive mountain roads 60-120. Highway 100-150, at traffic lights and overtaking acceleration is not the fastest.

10 liters or more Fortuner is in traffic in town Bangkok( and now some part chiang Mai) or Bangkok - Pattaya 120-170 with the fastest acceleration after braking.

So 10 L its extrem drive on Fortuner.

I'm gonna guess Jitar spends a lot of time in traffic - he's getting 10% worse FE than we get in our 3.2L Everest.

That said, at just 2 Baht/KM who really cares anyway?

[thpon]

"With the rather dynamic downward cost of fuel, quoting vehicle fuel economy in terms of tanks to get to Nakhon Nowhere and back are pretty pointless unless your comparison trips are similar length, within a month of each other... in the same sort of vehicle... of similar age.... with very similar driving styles"

Well i did not record KMS so the only reference i have now is tanks..what exact kms i did is the trip so is a general guide of my experience, by the way i did not hang about if i remember correctly..had a date but dont tell the wife

Also as i said i have never driven the 2.2 so i have no idea what its like, only going on other peoples view, I have a friend who lives by me and he loved the 2.2 but was pissed of with the engine, so much so he sold it after 6 months and bought the 3.2.

And to be fair i dont really watch what i spend on fuel as we dont put that much on the clock.

[JAS21]

Here is some info on my EV (3.2L)fuel consumption ... gathered between BK and Chiang Rai and return.

I have now done about 4K Kms so know that my onboard computer is reasonably accurate. We averaged about 80Km/Hr driving back (just under 10 Hrs), so most of the time 100-120Km/Hr. Fuel consumption, me driving 8.9Ltrs/100Kms and Mrs Jas driving 9.1Ltrs/100Kms. I used cruise control quite often, Mrs Jas did until it got darkish, but she wore my brakes out somewhat also! I never knew that it was possible to hit nearly every red traffic light!

Now on the way up, we were early for the hotel, so I drove at about 80Kms/Hr for an hour or so and in Cruise Control... boring I know ... but I got an indicated 6.2Ltrs/100Kms.

So if you multiply my figures by X% (where X<1) you will get some idea of the WT fuel consumption.

Any help or not ... I don't know.

[Jitar]

Hows the 3.2 on diesel economy? What year is your WT from? You have automatic? 2 wd or 4wd?

Pink

The 3.2L Ford engine has more power than competitors and the WT is also heavier so Fuel consumption will be worse.

Our 3.2L Everest struggles to get to 9km/L in the same conditions our old Fortuner and PJS did 10km/L.

The lighter pickup versions would do better but the Ford or Mazda are likely to be the thirstiest if specs and driving style are equal.

10l per 100km?

Its where and how drive?

Chiang Mai - Kalasin 12.5 km per liter(8L ) drive mountain roads 60-120. Highway 100-150, at traffic lights and overtaking acceleration is not the fastest.

10 liters or more Fortuner is in traffic in town Bangkok( and now some part chiang Mai) or Bangkok - Pattaya 120-170 with the fastest acceleration after braking.

So 10 L its extrem drive on Fortuner.

I'm gonna guess Jitar spends a lot of time in traffic - he's getting 10% worse FE than we get in our 3.2L Everest.

That said, at just 2 Baht/KM who really cares anyway?

Yes, country roads with lots of stop lights. Not BKK type traffic but not highway cruise either.

I don't drive especially economically and I am talking about long term averages here not one trip or instantaneous values from a display.

Anyway the point is the relative difference between the Everest and the Fortuner and PJS.

The Ford 3.2 is good to drive but not likely to be the most economical.

Only really an issue for those doing very high km/year.

[JAS21]

My fun ride did about 1.5km to the litre............

you rich man ...yes

[JAS21]

Hows the 3.2 on diesel economy? What year is your WT from? You have automatic? 2 wd or 4wd?

Pink

The 3.2L Ford engine has more power than competitors and the WT is also heavier so Fuel consumption will be worse.

Our 3.2L Everest struggles to get to 9km/L in the same conditions our old Fortuner and PJS did 10km/L.

The lighter pickup versions would do better but the Ford or Mazda are likely to be the thirstiest if specs and driving style are equal.

10l per 100km?

Its where and how drive?

Chiang Mai - Kalasin 12.5 km per liter(8L ) drive mountain roads 60-120. Highway 100-150, at traffic lights and overtaking acceleration is not the fastest.

10 liters or more Fortuner is in traffic in town Bangkok( and now some part chiang Mai) or Bangkok - Pattaya 120-170 with the fastest acceleration after braking.

So 10 L its extrem drive on Fortuner.

I'm gonna guess Jitar spends a lot of time in traffic - he's getting 10% worse FE than we get in our 3.2L Everest.

That said, at just 2 Baht/KM who really cares anyway?

Yes, country roads with lots of stop lights. Not BKK type traffic but not highway cruise either.

I don't drive especially economically and I am talking about long term averages here not one trip or instantaneous values from a display.

Anyway the point is the relative difference between the Everest and the Fortuner and PJS.

The Ford 3.2 is good to drive but not likely to be the most economical.

Only really an issue for those doing very high km/year.

Those traffic lights were on the big roads ... just get up to 110ish and then you have to stop again.

Those Ltrs/100Km were what the computer said over quite long periods (hours), not instantaneous values! ... actually the Chaing Rai to BK run.

It is very thirsty in BK traffic though... still it's a pleasure to drive ....

If you want to look up the records for the complete 4K Kms ... look me up Jas21 at fuelly.com (google fuelly Jas21)