New Prado 3 door
Kev
SX 3 door SWB turbo diesel auto in "Graphite Grey"
has tonne towing capacity, which is 500kg more than the LWB wagon
Very soft suspension and no traditional SWB fore/aft pitching
SX is the base model 3 door and is GXL spec, no GX spec in the 3 door
Almost bought the Kluger V6 AWD, they have huge rear seat room, bigger
than any large cars(statesman/LTD etc.) and 200KW 3.5L V6 + 6 speed auto
with constant AWD
Pick the Prado up after next week end
Kev
Dave
>has tonne towing capacity, which is 500kg more than the LWB wagon
We talk kgs in Australia - online comparison shows 3,000 kgs versus
2,500 kgs.....
D Walford
How much?
We will be in the market for a small wagon soon and I'm thinking of a
Forester but SWB Prado may be another option.
Daryl
D Walford
In Australia "tonne" (note the extra n&e) is metric and denotes 1000kg.
Daryl
Dave
Caught me out.....
Noddy
"Kev" <kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b093bff$0$11509$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Congrats Kev.
Just out of curiosity, what was it about the Kluger that prevented you from
buying it? I'm genuinely interested as I'm looking to replace the Territory
and the Kluger (along with the Prado) is on my short list of vehicles to
evaluate.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:03199ba2$0$1371$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> How much?
> We will be in the market for a small wagon soon and I'm thinking of a
> Forester but SWB Prado may be another option.
I've got a nice LPG equipped Territory if you're interested.
Don't worry. It was a joke. I know you're not :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Dan----
"Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4b09c511$0$59262$c30e...@exi-reader.telstra.net...
>
>
> Congrats Kev.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what was it about the Kluger that prevented you
> from buying it? I'm genuinely interested as I'm looking to replace the
> Territory and the Kluger (along with the Prado) is on my short list of
> vehicles to evaluate.
I was interested in the new Prado that is getting released after I saw this.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=67415
Looks bloody awful but seems well equipped though.
---
Regards
Dan,
D Walford
Sorry its too big, apart from that and the fact that its falling apart
it would be perfect:-)
Daryl
Noddy
> Sorry its too big, apart from that and the fact that its falling apart it
> would be perfect:-)
It's not falling apart yet, but I reckon it won't be too long :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Dan----" <N...@email.com> wrote in message
news:0319c696$0$1303$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> I was interested in the new Prado that is getting released after I saw
> this.
> http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=67415
>
> Looks bloody awful but seems well equipped though.
I don't think any of them are particularly attractive, but it's function
over form in my opinion.
I'd be happy with a regular sedan myself but the trouble and strife is
insisting on a 7 seater, and as she'll be the one who mostly drives the
thing it's her call as far as I'm concerned. The only thing we agree on is
that we both *hate* people movers, so it's down to things like the Prado,
Kluger et al which have the 7 seat option.
The only one that's definitely a non starter at the moment is the Tribeca,
as the dash on that thing does my head in :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Dave
Saw one (5 door) in a dealer's yard yesterday - looks good to me.....
>http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=67415
Dummy's question: Why are the automatics presumably more fuel
efficient than the manuals, as stated above?
Interested in the GXL, but not the standard extra seats.
Quote: "The Prado VX and Kakadu drive drives better thanks to an
advanced KDSS (Kinetic Dynamic Suspension System) suspension system
also used in the Toyota LandCruiser. The KDSS system allows maximum
wheel articulation over bumps while reducing leaning through corners."
Pity you can't get this on the GXL, but then I guess it wouldn't then
be a GXL. Is this feature of any great importance in practice?
Dan----
>
>>
>> Looks bloody awful but seems well equipped though.
>
> I don't think any of them are particularly attractive, but it's function
> over form in my opinion.
Mrs told me that she rather be without a spine than to drive something that
ugly. :-).
My answer was well you still hanging around me!.
>
> I'd be happy with a regular sedan myself but the trouble and strife is
> insisting on a 7 seater, and as she'll be the one who mostly drives the
> thing it's her call as far as I'm concerned. The only thing we agree on is
> that we both *hate* people movers, so it's down to things like the Prado,
> Kluger et al which have the 7 seat option.
>
> The only one that's definitely a non starter at the moment is the Tribeca,
> as the dash on that thing does my head in :)
Probably the vehicle that we haven't thought about considering the first one
looked like a wasp with its head punched in by a ball bearing.
The new one looks better but I don't mind the interior layout although not
as classy as some.
---
Regards
Dan.
John_H
>
>I'd be happy with a regular sedan myself but the trouble and strife is
>insisting on a 7 seater, and as she'll be the one who mostly drives the
>thing it's her call as far as I'm concerned. The only thing we agree on is
>that we both *hate* people movers, so it's down to things like the Prado,
>Kluger et al which have the 7 seat option.
Is the choice of 7 seaters so limited it needs to include serious
off-roaders?
Which is the class I would've thought the Prado belongs in... even has
a ladder chassis and weighs nigh on 2� tonne. Probably drives like a
truck as well. ;-)
--
John H
Jason James
>
> "Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:4b09f128$0$59259$c30e...@exi-reader.telstra.net...
>>
>
>>>
>>> Looks bloody awful but seems well equipped though.
>>
>> I don't think any of them are particularly attractive, but it's function
>> over form in my opinion.
>
> Mrs told me that she rather be without a spine than to drive something
> that ugly. :-).
> My answer was well you still hanging around me!.
>
>>
>> I'd be happy with a regular sedan myself but the trouble and strife is
>> insisting on a 7 seater, and as she'll be the one who mostly drives the
>> thing it's her call as far as I'm concerned. The only thing we agree on
>> is that we both *hate* people movers, so it's down to things like the
>> Prado, Kluger et al which have the 7 seat option.
>>
>> The only one that's definitely a non starter at the moment is the
>> Tribeca, as the dash on that thing does my head in :)
>
> Probably the vehicle that we haven't thought about considering the first
> one looked like a wasp with its head punched in by a ball bearing.
Makes you wonder when styling will go full circle and return to something
bearable.
Jason
Jeßus
a...@ass.com said...
:
<snip>
:Makes you wonder when styling will go full circle and return to something
:bearable.
It's not all bad (IMO). Thanks to the almost universal trend in hideous
styling and cost cutting affecting quality, I have little to no desire
to buy a new vehicle these days.
Dan----
"Jason James" <a...@ass.com> wrote in message
news:4b0a13e1$0$28423$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
>>
>> Probably the vehicle that we haven't thought about considering the first
>> one looked like a wasp with its head punched in by a ball bearing.
>
> Makes you wonder when styling will go full circle and return to something
> bearable.
The Audi Q7 is a rather nice looking tank (built like one as well) The V12
turbodiesel version isn't shy of $240,000+ though. I could buy a nice bit of
land for that and a $10,000 4 wheel drive to tear around in instead. ;-)
---
Regards
Dan.
Jason James
"Je�us" <no...@all.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.2574c5faa...@news.x-privat.org...
I notice a few small cars have returned to a more conventional look (those
little Nissan 2 door cars for example), hope it catches on.
Jason
Jeßus
a...@ass.com said...
:
:"Je�us" <no...@all.org> wrote in message
Not familiar with 'em (I don't think) but take your word for it.
The most recent vehicle I bought was a 2001 Forester GT - I really think
they're a much nicer car (IMO theyre not an off-roader) inside and out
than the models that came after it. Although a 2.5L engine would be
nice...
The current model Foz looks like puss by comparison, although the
current Impreza is considerably worse. Much, much worse...
D Walford
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:34:52 +1100, "Dan----" <N...@email.com> wrote:
>
> Saw one (5 door) in a dealer's yard yesterday - looks good to me.....
>
>> http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=67415
>
> Dummy's question: Why are the automatics presumably more fuel
> efficient than the manuals, as stated above?
Most likely overall gearing is taller so the engine revs less when
cruising at hwy speeds.
They would use more in the city but less on the hwy giving a better
overall figure.
Daryl
Kev
Manual Prado is 6 speed while auto is 5
the diff ratio on the auto is 3.9
not sure why it would be more fuel efficient though
Kev
Kev
The Kluger was ok, just that the 3.5L V6 is a bit thirsty, the trip
computer was showing 16L/100 average from the test drive, with only two
short flat out sprints 10 100kph and the rest just toddling along for
about 1/2 hour, no real traffic to contend with
we were looking at the 5 seater, 7 seater version is another $3000 as it
also incorporates 4 extra airbags, all seats folded down to a flat floor
about 7 feet long
but the Prado was just so much nicer and had a lot more for the extra
$10,000 I will pay + it is a proper 4WD with low range and locking
centre diff(rear diff locks on VX and Kakadu, probably be able to get it
on the GXL also, ZR 3 door had it
compare the standard features for both on the Toyota web page and the
list for the Prado is much better
SWB has very little room behind the rear seat, like less than 18 inches
between the rear door and the rear seat, rear seat is also narrower due
to the wheel arches encroaching into them(like the old Nissan Patrol
SWB) but it's too bad, just wouldn't want to sit there for a few hours
Kluger is around $48,000 drive away for the KX-R, almost another $10,000
for the KX-S
GX 5 door LWB Prado is something like $73,000 drive away, GXL is around
$80,000
Kev
Noddy
> It's not all bad (IMO). Thanks to the almost universal trend in hideous
> styling and cost cutting affecting quality, I have little to no desire
> to buy a new vehicle these days.
Me either, but purely for economic reasons.
I've had two new cars before and I took such a depreciation hit on the
things that I swore after the last one I'd leave that for someone else and
buy slightly used as it makes a *huge* difference at the end of the day.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
D Walford
If it was possible to check engine rpm at 100kph in an auto and a manual
I'd guess that the auto is revving at least a couple of hundred rpm less
resulting in a better figure.
We owed a 2001 manual Corolla, our friends had the same model which was
an auto, auto's economy on the hwy was noticeably better, manual was
better in the city.
Daryl
Noddy
"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:bf1kg598u082er7s1...@4ax.com...
> Is the choice of 7 seaters so limited it needs to include serious
> off-roaders?
The only "wagons" (as opposed to dedicated off-road types) that I know of
are the Subaru Tribeca, the Holden Captiva, the Hyundai Santa Fe, the Mazda
Cx-9, the Mitsubishi Outlander, the Toyota Kluger and the Ford Territory. Of
the "up-market" variety is the Audi Q7, BMW x5, Mercedes GL and R class, and
Volvo XC90. In dedicated truck style is the Prado, the 100 series Cruiser,
The Mitsu Pajero and Land Rover Disco. I'm sure there'll be others but I
can't think of them off the top of my head at the minute.
We've been down the Territory road and it's one lined with pot-holes and
won't be going back there. I drove a Kluger a few weeks ago and found it to
be pretty decent, although it was a tad floaty and soft compared to the
Territory. The Captiva is a heap of shit and the thrid row of seats is
practially useless for anything other than a couple of bags of groceries.
I'd like to get the wife's bum into the CX-9 and the Outlander and see what
she thinks, as they're both pretty decent vehicles on paper at least.
The Prado and 100 series are a bit agricultural for my tastes, but again
it's the trouble and strife who'll be putting the majority of the miles on
it, and if that's what she prefers then so be it. At the moment she doesn't
have any particular leaning towards anything, but she's not interested in a
people mover and I've told her that the Land Rover is definitely not on :)
> Which is the class I would've thought the Prado belongs in... even has
> a ladder chassis and weighs nigh on 2� tonne. Probably drives like a
> truck as well. ;-)
The only "recent" one I've driven was a 6 year old one, and while it was
okay it wasn't anything to write home about. It drove like a pretty nice
truck, but like a truck just the same.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> compare the standard features for both on the Toyota web page and the list
> for the Prado is much better
>
> SWB has very little room behind the rear seat, like less than 18 inches
> between the rear door and the rear seat, rear seat is also narrower due to
> the wheel arches encroaching into them(like the old Nissan Patrol SWB) but
> it's too bad, just wouldn't want to sit there for a few hours
>
>
> Kluger is around $48,000 drive away for the KX-R, almost another $10,000
> for the KX-S
>
> GX 5 door LWB Prado is something like $73,000 drive away, GXL is around
> $80,000
Appreciated. I'll check them out, thanks.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
D Walford
> The only "wagons" (as opposed to dedicated off-road types) that I know of
> are the Subaru Tribeca, the Holden Captiva, the Hyundai Santa Fe, the Mazda
> Cx-9, the Mitsubishi Outlander, the Toyota Kluger and the Ford Territory. Of
> the "up-market" variety is the Audi Q7, BMW x5, Mercedes GL and R class, and
> Volvo XC90. In dedicated truck style is the Prado, the 100 series Cruiser,
> The Mitsu Pajero and Land Rover Disco. I'm sure there'll be others but I
> can't think of them off the top of my head at the minute.
>
Don't forget the Nissan Patrol, I like the very versatile interior, the
seats can be put into a number of configurations, when all the rear
seats are laid flat the available load area is huge.
Daryl
Kev
Typical strategy, gone the corporate look across the whole 4WD/AWD
wagon(or I hate to use the term, SUV) range, so now the Rav, Kluger,
Prado and cruiser all look very similar
Kev
Kev
You seen the centre console in the Mazda CX-9?
like the bloody great wall of china, it's ridiculously high, almost door
level
As soon as I opened the door and saw it I closed the door and didn't
give that car a second glance
The CX-7, while much more appealing had such woeful turbo lag on the
petrol version, you think the "drive by wire" on ya Terry is bad, you
could make a cup of tea in the time that thing decides to get going.
It was so bad it would be like driving an old diesel landrover, planning
every move well in advance
Kev
John_H
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:34:52 +1100, "Dan----" <N...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=67415
>
>Dummy's question: Why are the automatics presumably more fuel
>efficient than the manuals, as stated above?
Which deserves a reasonable answer. But first....
You've confusing fuel efficiency with fuel consumption, which isn't
quite the same thing! Blame the motoring journos, a considerable
number of whom are technical illiterates, and who've been perpetuating
the furphy for years in an attempt to sound like they're not. :)
Fuel efficiency is an engine's efficiency at converting the fuel it
burns to power, which is directly related to thermodynamic efficiency.
It's measured on an engine dynamometer and, like power output, it's a
fixed characteristic of a particular engine. It's but one factor
affecting fuel consumption.
Fuel consumption is the correct term for the volume of the fuel a car
uses to travel a certain distance (or vice versa). It's affected by
many things other than just the engine's efficiency... weight and
gearing being a couple of obvious ones.
To answer the original question: You'd reasonably expect an otherwise
identical car with manual transmission to give better fuel consumption
than an auto (ie use less fuel) and in real life it almost certainly
will.
The consumption figures the journo is quoting (even if he doesn't say
so) will almost certainly be the ADR 81/02 figures manufacturers are
now required to provide. The catch being that the numbers are derived
from a laboratory simulation, not an on-road test (I recently provided
a link in another thread). Assuming he's got the numbers correct for
identical models, which I haven't bothered to check, any difference in
favour of the auto as determined by ADR 81/02 ought be relatively
small. In real life it's likely to be larger, and in the opposite
direction.
You might also note that the manufacturers (as well as the ADR) always
refer to fuel consumption... not fuel efficiency. More than a few
ignorant journos persist in treating the terms as being
interchangeable, which technically they're not.
--
John H
Dave
>Dave wrote:
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:34:52 +1100, "Dan----" <N...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=67415
>>
>>Dummy's question: Why are the automatics presumably more fuel
>>efficient than the manuals, as stated above?
>
>Which deserves a reasonable answer. But first....
>
>You've confusing fuel efficiency with fuel consumption, which isn't
>quite the same thing! Blame the motoring journos, a considerable
>number of whom are technical illiterates, and who've been perpetuating
>the furphy for years in an attempt to sound like they're not. :)
Yep, I meant consumption.
The mistake was probably mine. Thanks for reply, and yes I did ask
because I was always led to believe that manuals would be more
efficient, er sorry, produce better fuel consumption results overall.
Noddy
> You seen the centre console in the Mazda CX-9?
> like the bloody great wall of china, it's ridiculously high, almost door
> level
Yeah, it's not nice, but it's nowhere near as appalling as the dash in the
Tribeca in my opnion. That just looks like a bad LSD trip :)
> As soon as I opened the door and saw it I closed the door and didn't give
> that car a second glance
I've only looked at one in a carpark the other day, but apart from that one
feature t looked quite good.
> The CX-7, while much more appealing had such woeful turbo lag on the
> petrol version, you think the "drive by wire" on ya Terry is bad, you
> could make a cup of tea in the time that thing decides to get going.
Lol :)
It was so bad it would be like driving an old diesel landrover, planning
> every move well in advance
Jeez, it must be shitful, as I find myself doing that with the Territory.
When I'm driving that I find that at stop signs on busy roads I'm either
waiting for *ages* until I think the lag will be okay, or everyone in the
car has whiplash after the car lurches off when I've pressed the pedal
progressively to the floor and nothing's happened.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Don't forget the Nissan Patrol, I like the very versatile interior, the
> seats can be put into a number of configurations, when all the rear seats
> are laid flat the available load area is huge.
I'd have to look at the Patrol but if we had to have something that big it'd
probably be a Cruiser. The V8 petrol version goes pretty well.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jeßus
Yep, another good reason I avoid buying new. Plenty of low mileage late
model vehicles on the market to choose from. So what if it doesn't have
the 'new car' feel to it? That feel will only last a year at best anyway.
John_H
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:18:46 +1000, John_H <john...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>Dave wrote:
>>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:34:52 +1100, "Dan----" <N...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=67415
>>>
>>>Dummy's question: Why are the automatics presumably more fuel
>>>efficient than the manuals, as stated above?
>>
>>You might also note that the manufacturers (as well as the ADR) always
>>refer to fuel consumption... not fuel efficiency. More than a few
>>ignorant journos persist in treating the terms as being
>>interchangeable, which technically they're not.
>
>The mistake was probably mine. Thanks for reply, and yes I did ask
>because I was always led to believe that manuals would be more
>efficient, er sorry, produce better fuel consumption results overall.
In terms of power loss a manual is more efficient... nothing wrong
with that. :)
Nor would one trivial mistake qualify you as a motoring journo. For a
lesson in real gobblededook you need look no further than the opening
sentence in the example above....
"It�s safer, better equipped and up to 12 per cent more fuel
efficient...."
As it happens engine designers have struggled for more than a century
to achieve thermodynamic efficiencies somewhere in the order of
35%.... Thermodynamic efficiency being defined as the percentage of
fuel energy that gets converted to power at the flywheel. What the
statement clearly implies is that Toyota have now succeeded in raising
it to something nearer to 47%. (Our pollies can forget the ETS and
the Saudis will be pissed!)
If the ignorant journo means fuel economy has improved by 12% WTF
can't he learn to say it, instead of misleading his readers! :)
--
John H
hippo
>
> Dave wrote:
> >On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:18:46 +1000, John_H <john...@inbox.com> wrote:
> >>Dave wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:34:52 +1100, "Dan----" <N...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>>
But most of the Saudis won't be pissed, because they don't drink alcohol.
:)
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Dave
am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (hippo) wrote:
>But most of the Saudis won't be pissed, because they don't drink alcohol.
Well, at least not "officially".....
hippo
Kev
>> Me either, but purely for economic reasons.
>>
>> I've had two new cars before and I took such a depreciation hit on the
>> things that I swore after the last one I'd leave that for someone else
>> and buy slightly used as it makes a *huge* difference at the end of
>> the day.
>
> Yep, another good reason I avoid buying new. Plenty of low mileage late
> model vehicles on the market to choose from. So what if it doesn't have
> the 'new car' feel to it? That feel will only last a year at best anyway.
Depreciation is part of the reason I'm buying new
all claimable
but yeah if you were not doing it for economic reasons then buying a
fairly new, used car makes much more sense
Kev
Kev
> Jeez, it must be shitful,
the problem is off boost the engine is just a 2.3L low compression 4 cyl
trying to pull along a 2 tonne vehicle
> as I find myself doing that with the Territory.
> When I'm driving that I find that at stop signs on busy roads I'm either
> waiting for *ages* until I think the lag will be okay, or everyone in the
> car has whiplash after the car lurches off when I've pressed the pedal
> progressively to the floor and nothing's happened.
Maybe it needs the accelerator unit replaced
was a common thing on some trucks I've driven over the years, mostly on
Macks
Kev
Noddy
> the problem is off boost the engine is just a 2.3L low compression 4 cyl
> trying to pull along a 2 tonne vehicle
Yuk.
> Maybe it needs the accelerator unit replaced
> was a common thing on some trucks I've driven over the years, mostly on
> Macks
The throttle lag is a common problem on the Territory (amongst other
things). It's so bad that a normal throttle blip on any other car with a
conventional throttle that would see a gutful of revs won't even move the
tacho needle off idle in the Terry.
The throttle lag in the Territory is *appallingly* bad, and it's bordering
on dangerous. I can't help wondering if there's been a few Terry owners
T-boned because of it.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Fraser Johnston
For bang for your buck the Ti Patrol is brilliant. 99% of the Lexus 4x4 for
1/2 the cost. The new 4800 motor is a powerhouse too. Just make sure the
fucker is on gas. : )
Fraser