Hi all,
In my absence I have been doing some research for my company. Just thought you might be interested in the results. It's not as colourful as my other reviews but it does the job and boy was I pleased to test drive some "utes" and actually get paid for it
.
Note: Some details have had to be changed IAW Commercial Confidentiality.
Project XXXXX
Author:
MIKMAK
Scope:
Assessment and recommendation of tow vehicle for XXXXXX trailer.
Process:
Identification of vehicle with the following general requirements;
·Towing capacity > 2500kg
·Cost < 55KAUD
·Minimum seating capacity of 5
·Availability of Turbo Diesel Engine
Via Excel Spread Sheet (Ref A.) establish hierarchy in accordance with the following priorities;
1.Towing Capacity
2.“Value X”
3.Cost
4.Fuel Consumption
5.Drive assessment (Section 2)
6.Noted additional concerns (individually stated in Section 2)
Identify 3 remaining candidates in Section 3 of this document.
Note: “Value X” is determined by subtracting the kerb weight from the Gross combined mass. This is determined to provide the largest possible window for Project “XXXXXX” and its associated accessories.
Process
This part of the assessment program was undertaken on XXXXX, XXXXX, Queensland. This road has had pothole repairs carried out over the last decade without full resurfacing. In addition, the “sealed” section is less than 2 car widths wide. The result is significant variation in impacts on the suspension of candidates. In addition the site has a long straight section with good visibility, moderately high speed sweeping corners (60-80kph), a well sealed short radius corner (25-35kph) and both smooth and slightly corrugated dirt sections, again with sweeping bends.
As a result, all reasonable tests of each vehicle could be carried out on a consistent venue. Weight distribution and suspension bound and rebound was tested on the long straights at between 80-90kph. Body roll and seat lateral support was tested in long sweepers. Understeer levels were tested on the sealed short radius corner and ESP(if applicable)/ABS activation was tested concurrently with low traction behaviour during the dirt section. The transit to and from dealers took in 100kph straight smooth surfaces on the Sunshine motorway.
Holden Rodeo
Good cabin comfort combined with light damper settings at the top of suspension travel. Had good un-laden comfort level with a clear indication of stronger rebound as pothole impact increased due to deterioration of road surface and increases in speed. During the sweepers, initial body roll was tamed early into the corner and remained settled, even during putting 2 wheels in the dirt due to oncoming traffic.
Although this vehicle was an automatic (all others tested were manual transmissions) the engine exhibited very strong torque characteristics. The automatic did make it difficult to harness the appropriate torque band though, and consequently, care needed to be taken in the low traction section of the test. The initial suspension softness was a weakness in the short radius corner. That slight body roll identified earlier, placed significant weight over the front outside tyre. Whilst it didn’t break into understeer, this may be amplified when towing large loads.
Nissan Navara
Cabin accommodation is cavernous and the manual gearshift throw is long though easy enough. Negatives for the Navara include the smaller capacity engine with a more narrow torque band than most. As a result, it is fitted with a 6 speed manual transmission to aid accessibility of Max Torque, the downside being more self shifting required.
The Navara ST-X has the widest body of all vehicles tested. In order to curb associated body roll, it exhibited harsh suspension over much of the test. More concerning was its consistent tendency to “porpoise” from front to rear. A surprising result was the tight radius sealed corner. Even though it felt wide and had hard suspension, understeer was not evident. Control on unsealed surfaces was devoid of feedback leading to an low level of confidence.
Nissan Patrol
No manual Turbo Diesel available for test. Expected delivery date of Feb 08.
Nissan Pathfinder
Excluded due to excess weight and therefore lower “Value X”.
Jeep Cherokee
In addition to poor damping and over sensitive ESP activation, the transmission control computer inadvertently actuated 4H or 4L transmission whilst selector remained in 2H. This occurred under steady throttle, on smooth level cruising on the Sunshine Motorway. As a result, the Cherokee has been excluded.
Mazda BT 50/Ford Ranger
These vehicles are identical with different badges and therefore will be assessed by any commercial benefit between dealers, should they make the final selection. Initial hard damper settings reflect the “worker” appearance of this vehicles interior. The seats are comfortable, but basic and only provide a slight protection against the bouncy performance of the un-laden vehicle. Although there is plenty of movement, the Ranger still remained stable as far as control and composure.
Performance of the Diesel engine, coupled with the 5 speed manual transmission, was exceptional. Torque arrived early and was easy to exploit, with less pronounced tail off after the arrival of Max torque, resulting in the need for less shifting.
Pushing the front end during the short radius corner resulted in the earliest presentation of understeer due to the hardest damper settings of all tested vehicles. It was, however, consistent and easy to drive around with familiarity. The harder dampers also aided in predictability on the dirt section where the Ranger was easily controlled and its availability of the manual for test, ensured that there were no surprises in torque delivery.
Mitsubishi Pajero
No manual Turbo Diesel available for test. Unknown date for availability, however cost is prohibitive with a low “Value X”, so it was unlikely to qualify for final selection.
Toyota Hilux SR5
Toyota Hilux was excluded due to low max. towing limit of 2250kg.
Mitsubishi Triton
Mitsubishi Triton was excluded due to low max. towing limit of 2250kg.
(Note to GMIers: This section isn't yet completed as the Patrol hasn't been available for a test, so I have just included the interesting bit)
Value X Results:
BT/Ranger 4115
Rodeo 4028
Navara 3820
Fuel Economy (ADR rating in l/100km)
Rodeo 8.5Navara 9.0
BT/Ranger 9.2
As you can see the Rodeo is winning. It also has a longer range and price wise each competitor is $1000 either side. Did I mention that my "boss" is a Holden man?
