New model SUV comparisons...

[fullcave]

Just making comparisons between the latest SUVs available in Thailand.

I'm mostly interested in fuel economy and interior layout.

I understand the Ford is due for an update any idea when?

Thanks.

[JAS21]

Didn't Mr IMOH do this a short while back ...think it's in the Everest thread.

Looking there could save you a lot of time.

Are you going to buy something ...

[ardokano]

"Just making comparisons between the latest SUVs available in Thailand.

I'm mostly interested in fuel economy and interior layout."

Obviously a leader SUV in fuel economy Posche Cayenne S E-Hybrid minimum its 1.4 L per 100 km average 3.4 L per 100km

but you can also look at ML350 at low acceleration (more than 10 seconds -do a hundred) and it not agresive driving even in city possible near 6.5 l per 100 km.

also Posche Cayenne disel or Q7 of course if "low acceleration (more than 10 seconds -do a hundred) and it not agresive driving "

if accelerated 13 sec and up ( as old tuna)

think you can achieve fantastic results in fuel savings.

but you need to have nerves of steel. only to gently stroke the pedal

[JaseTheBass]

If fuel economy is paramount why not look at a top of the range truck? They'll be dragging around about half a tonne less that their SUV equivalent.

I'd be surprised if Ford are going to update the Everest within the next 18 months, they can't make enough of the current year old model.

[ChesneyHawkes]

Think the OP needs to be more specific about the size of SUV needed. We could start as small as an HRV in the sub-compact class, going up to the PPV Tuna/EV/Pajero and all sorts of other options in-between.

[ardokano]

Think the OP needs to be more specific about the size of SUV needed. We could start as small as an HRV in the sub-compact class, going up to the PPV Tuna/EV/Pajero and all sorts of other options in-between.

I think that he is from society Greenpeace..

so he is interested in a fuel economy.

HRV, Tuna, EV, PJS it is inefficient eaters fuel in the current modern reality.

[ChesneyHawkes]

Think the OP needs to be more specific about the size of SUV needed. We could start as small as an HRV in the sub-compact class, going up to the PPV Tuna/EV/Pajero and all sorts of other options in-between.

I think that he is from society Greenpeace..

so he is interested in a fuel economy.

HRV, Tuna, EV, PJS it is inefficient eaters fuel in the current modern reality.

Maybe just wait for the OP to tell us. Fuel economy is a relative number depending on the size of the vehicle. If he had said Ecosport I'd know he wanted something small, and if he'd said Everest then it would be much larger.

[JAS21]

If you are worried about fuel consumption ... don't buy the 3.2L EV ... as it has the worst 'body on frame' fuel consumption ... but if you want the best interior, and probably ride ... buy it ...

.

[DavisH]

If you are worried about fuel consumption ... don't buy the 3.2L EV ... as it has the worst 'body on frame' fuel consumption ... but if you want the best interior, and probably ride ... buy it ...

.

I think the 2.2 mazda cx-5 diesel 2wd is worth a look. 0-100 sub 9 seconds and very good economy - that's if the OP doesn't need 7 seats. Also the nissan x-trail hybrid is worth a look. The big suv's are thirsty in comparison.

http://www.headlightmag.com/hlmwp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/suv_update_edit.jpg

[Ace of Pop]

Bit like comparing Belly Buttons these days. I can only spot a Range Rover that stands out, or a Jeep Cherokee when riding round. I like the new Mitsu to drive better than the Tblazer,yet my chum says its all Plasticy,cant win.

[ardokano]

Think the OP needs to be more specific about the size of SUV needed. We could start as small as an HRV in the sub-compact class, going up to the PPV Tuna/EV/Pajero and all sorts of other options in-between.

I think that he is from society Greenpeace..

so he is interested in a fuel economy.

HRV, Tuna, EV, PJS it is inefficient eaters fuel in the current modern reality.

Maybe just wait for the OP to tell us. Fuel economy is a relative number depending on the size of the vehicle. If he had said Ecosport I'd know he wanted something small, and if he'd said Everest then it would be much larger.

I am kidding. but in every joke there a grain of truth.

I do not think that the discussion of fuel economy in the context of few penny savings serious.

if you want to save a few dollars.

should be considered together.

fuel price + service + price of the purchase price +lost in sales.

if we consider the frame SUV - its NEW PJS!!!

the difference in the purchase price of several hundred thousand baht.

If we consider only the fuel economy is evident Greenpeace thinks.

Lider its Porsche Cayenne S E hybrid.. becouse I do not know another SUV can do 1.4 L per 100km

maybe only if its fuul electric SUV?

Porsche Cayenne S E-hybrid as i know have in Thai market.

[fullcave]

Didn't Mr IMOH do this a short while back ...think it's in the Everest thread.

Looking there could save you a lot of time.

Are you going to buy something ...

Yes, I was following that thread as well but it was closed due to "off topic" posts.

Thus the necessity for an all-inclusive thread.

Yes, I'm going to buy something.

[fullcave]

If running costs are paramount then perhaps the interior doesn't matter much....

Manufacturers fuel consumption figures to me should be taken with a pinch of salt..Seems Mitsu was naughty with their advertised figures.

But we all drive differently, this has an effect on your pocket, up or down...

Manual rides will always be better on fuel though the new bread of multi geared/lockup autos have closed that gap.

I would not think there was much difference between them all, perhaps a kilometer here and there. Toyota says the Revo is way better than the old Vigo, l don't know, but sure members here can clarify..

Yes, but aren't the Revo and the new Fortuna using the same powertrain?

However, the Revo is actually a new model while the Fortuna has merely been updated (major update). Is that correct?

[fullcave]

Think the OP needs to be more specific about the size of SUV needed. We could start as small as an HRV in the sub-compact class, going up to the PPV Tuna/EV/Pajero and all sorts of other options in-between.

Yes sorry, Midsize - under 2 million. Tuna/EV/Pajero/MUX etc..

Here's another review.

[Ace of Pop]

I've been using A new Revo 4 door this week nice like Tuna but goodvalue. Cab noise is better than the older one. Gets my vote for Value but so dated.

[IMHO]

Think the OP needs to be more specific about the size of SUV needed. We could start as small as an HRV in the sub-compact class, going up to the PPV Tuna/EV/Pajero and all sorts of other options in-between.

Yes sorry, Midsize - under 2 million. Tuna/EV/Pajero/MUX etc..

Here's another review.

Just watch the price bias in Australian comparisons - in Thailand these are all similarly spec'd and priced, not so in the land Downunder.

[IMHO]

If fuel economy is paramount why not look at a top of the range truck? They'll be dragging around about half a tonne less that their SUV equivalent.

I'd be surprised if Ford are going to update the Everest within the next 18 months, they can't make enough of the current year old model.

Even with the added weight, the SUV versions of these pickups still manage better overall FE than their pickup counterparts on official testing cycles. On the city cycle they're very similar, but on the highway cycle, the SUV body style can get around 10% better FE than the tray back.

[fullcave]

If fuel economy is paramount why not look at a top of the range truck? They'll be dragging around about half a tonne less that their SUV equivalent.

I'd be surprised if Ford are going to update the Everest within the next 18 months, they can't make enough of the current year old model.

Only farmers and window cleaners buy trucks.

Or people who can't afford a real car or have a small member

Or for people that can afford both...

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed as well as the replies.

[JaseTheBass]

If fuel economy is paramount why not look at a top of the range truck? They'll be dragging around about half a tonne less that their SUV equivalent.

I'd be surprised if Ford are going to update the Everest within the next 18 months, they can't make enough of the current year old model.

Even with the added weight, the SUV versions of these pickups still manage better overall FE than their pickup counterparts on official testing cycles. On the city cycle they're very similar, but on the highway cycle, the SUV body style can get around 10% better FE than the tray back.

I got a rollerdeck and saved about 300k over the slower and now less fuel efficient Everest. Plus, the 3.2 top spec is the only one worth buying so I would've had to fork out about 650k more.

[IMHO]

If fuel economy is paramount why not look at a top of the range truck? They'll be dragging around about half a tonne less that their SUV equivalent.

I'd be surprised if Ford are going to update the Everest within the next 18 months, they can't make enough of the current year old model.

Even with the added weight, the SUV versions of these pickups still manage better overall FE than their pickup counterparts on official testing cycles. On the city cycle they're very similar, but on the highway cycle, the SUV body style can get around 10% better FE than the tray back.

I got a rollerdeck and saved about 300k over the slower and now less fuel efficient Everest. Plus, the 3.2 top spec is the only one worth buying so I would've had to fork out about 650k more.

A 2.2L MT RWD Ranger is using less fuel than a 3.2L Titanium+ AT 4x4 Everest, yep.

A 2.2L MT Ranger could get off the line a little better with a little clutch wear, but no pickup or PPV is good off the line anyway, and the 3.2L Everest is a better performer when climbing hills, carrying weight and overtaking.

When it comes to ride, handling and noise, there are significant differences between the Ranger and the Everest. That's not to say the Ranger is bad - it's best in class - but the Everest does a very good job of hiding / fixing it's pickup origins.

[JaseTheBass]

If fuel economy is paramount why not look at a top of the range truck? They'll be dragging around about half a tonne less that their SUV equivalent.

I'd be surprised if Ford are going to update the Everest within the next 18 months, they can't make enough of the current year old model.

Even with the added weight, the SUV versions of these pickups still manage better overall FE than their pickup counterparts on official testing cycles. On the city cycle they're very similar, but on the highway cycle, the SUV body style can get around 10% better FE than the tray back.

I got a rollerdeck and saved about 300k over the slower and now less fuel efficient Everest. Plus, the 3.2 top spec is the only one worth buying so I would've had to fork out about 650k more.

A 2.2L MT RWD Ranger is using less fuel than a 3.2L Titanium+ AT 4x4 Everest, yep.

A 2.2L MT Ranger could get off the line a little better with a little clutch wear, but no pickup or PPV is good off the line anyway, and the 3.2L Everest is a better performer when climbing hills, carrying weight and overtaking.

When it comes to ride, handling and noise, there are significant differences between the Ranger and the Everest. That's not to say the Ranger is bad - it's best in class - but the Everest does a very good job of hiding / fixing it's pickup origins.

I'm saying it will use less fuel than the 2.2 Everest.

[Big Guns]

My 4wd 3.2 Everest gets away from the lights a lot better than my BT 50 3.2R 4x4 did as the Everest has permanent 4wd. I've never encountered any wheel spin but I used to get a lot of that in the Mazda if I gave it some welly at the lights.

[IMHO]

A 2.2L MT RWD Ranger is using less fuel than a 3.2L Titanium+ AT 4x4 Everest, yep.

A 2.2L MT Ranger could get off the line a little better with a little clutch wear, but no pickup or PPV is good off the line anyway, and the 3.2L Everest is a better performer when climbing hills, carrying weight and overtaking.

When it comes to ride, handling and noise, there are significant differences between the Ranger and the Everest. That's not to say the Ranger is bad - it's best in class - but the Everest does a very good job of hiding / fixing it's pickup origins.

I'm saying it will use less fuel than the 2.2 Everest.

Uh huh, but only because it's manual transmission. An AT Ranger uses around the same fuel as an AT Everest, with the same engine and drivetrain.

[JaseTheBass]

A 2.2L MT RWD Ranger is using less fuel than a 3.2L Titanium+ AT 4x4 Everest, yep.

A 2.2L MT Ranger could get off the line a little better with a little clutch wear, but no pickup or PPV is good off the line anyway, and the 3.2L Everest is a better performer when climbing hills, carrying weight and overtaking.

When it comes to ride, handling and noise, there are significant differences between the Ranger and the Everest. That's not to say the Ranger is bad - it's best in class - but the Everest does a very good job of hiding / fixing it's pickup origins.

I'm saying it will use less fuel than the 2.2 Everest.

Uh huh, but only because it's manual transmission. An AT Ranger uses around the same fuel as an AT Everest, with the same engine and drivetrain.

With a covered rear deck and the 3 or 400 kgs less weight the Ranger would get better fuel economy whatever Ford's official nonsense numbers say.

[melovethai]

I have the latest Fortuner 2.8 diesel auto 4x4 is getting 8.1 litres per 100Km in the City and 7.9-8.0 country. Compared to the previous models it an improvement. I use to have a Nissan Patrol 12 litres/100km so i thought the fortuner was not too bad until i read the porche facts. Mind you i could not get a Porche for 1.7 mil.

[ardokano]

Think the OP needs to be more specific about the size of SUV needed. We could start as small as an HRV in the sub-compact class, going up to the PPV Tuna/EV/Pajero and all sorts of other options in-between.

Yes sorry, Midsize - under 2 million. Tuna/EV/Pajero/MUX etc..

Here's another review.

Or you trolling as or..

why you need "interested in fuel economy"

PJS top spec price 1469k B

Tuna top spec price 1629k B

defference 160 k

even as you 30k km per year and difference 1 litr price 1l=30 B

its only 9000 B..

how many yer you need cover 160k B?

And do you not think about spec? PJS had super select... Tuna not have multi.. even IF have its suck

So Pjs you can drive any road 2wd or 4 wd

Everest get up class(half).. yes its not LC for compare but it more near for LC than for Tuna or PJS

And one more thinks why you need so big?

Two more seats? but in Tuna and PJS its as fun and can use only for children 10 year old..

In Tuna It not very convenient folded and take up much space.

In tuna 2016 even second row seats are not comfortable and small ..

I have feelings its do for asia not tall people.

I am only 188 cm tall but my head almost rests on the ceiling in New Tuna.

Its more comfort in NEW civic in second row seats..

Normaly people first think what you need from car.

After check how deep their pocket

and after check cost price buy+ cost use(fuel+ service)

just look fuel economy its..... not serious

Anyway good luck

and injoy whatever you buy

[ardokano]

I have the latest Fortuner 2.8 diesel auto 4x4 is getting 8.1 litres per 100Km in the City and 7.9-8.0 country. Compared to the previous models it an improvement. I use to have a Nissan Patrol 12 litres/100km so i thought the fortuner was not too bad until i read the porche facts. Mind you i could not get a Porche for 1.7 mil.

if you turn the engine on 3000 and above or if if a lot of cars and frequent acceleration brake I no think have 8 even out city..

in a straight line at 100-130 km per hour + little city( as example from Bangkok to Pattaya) even old fortuner can easy do 7.5 l 2wd or 8 4WD

[ardokano]

With a covered rear deck and the 3 or 400 kgs less weight the Ranger would get better fuel economy whatever Ford's official nonsense numbers say.

Maybe because the aerodynamics still worse?

I do not think that 120 km/h this critical +/-0.2 L

I think if you do not need a third row of seats and consumption is so important in terms of saving money.

Difference price so big for start talking about fuel economy.. In Thailand many gas stations..

My IMHO

Ranger be great choice in this is way... Ofcouse if no need third-row seat.

[JaseTheBass]

With a covered rear deck and the 3 or 400 kgs less weight the Ranger would get better fuel economy whatever Ford's official nonsense numbers say.

Maybe because the aerodynamics still worse?

I do not think that 120 km/h this critical +/-0.2 L

I think if you do not need a third row of seats and consumption is so important in terms of saving money.

Difference price so big for start talking about fuel economy.. In Thailand many gas stations..

My IMHO

Ranger be great choice in this is way... Ofcouse if no need third-row seat.

120 in Thailand? Tut, tut!