New Navarra Suspension???

[zildjian]

Amarok;
out of interest then, when did the engine struggle most in rev range?
and what was the rated power output the one you tried please

[Madmountainman]

Amarok;
out of interest then, when did the engine struggle most in rev range?
and what was the rated power output the one you tried please

I was in the BiTDi 180, full leather etc. I wasn't watching the revs, just driving by feel and, going by that, it just felt sluggish from a standstill and then was hunting through the - very smooth - dsg box for gears when travelling down flowing, winding, country roads around 40-50mph. Part of the sluggishness may also be put down to the slightly ponderous steering, but with the weight already high on an empty Amarok, I think performance would suffer, unless you're happy driving in pipe and slippers mode and/or giving it loads of welly, which strains everything, especially the fuel gauge! When kicking down there was a lot of initial noise from the engine, followed by a bit of acceleration, which then whooshed in once the turbos got up to speed, so overtakes were fairly fuss free on the empty truck I took out. Planted is a word you could use to describe the Amaroks road manners, which isn't a bad thing, but price, performance, mpg and bells & whistles, do make it seem a hefty outlay for the perceived quality of the truck and its' road manners.

[Gary W]

Just a little update, as I took an Amarok out yesterday. It's big, but quite manageable, even down country lanes. It handles the bumps very well, with virtually no chatter on the rear springs over bumps. In comparison to the new Navara, it's still leagues ahead, showing up how bad the new one is. I find it hard to comprehend how Autoexpress can say it's the best pickup on the UK market today, given the wallowy handling, tin of spaghetti gearbox and cramped cabin. The only downsides to the Amarok are it's big, so heavy on the fuel (I got 34mpg on a mixed run) and the DSG changes gears - a lot - to make the best of the smaller engine, which you do notice and leads to the question of the lifespan of the clutches in this particular truck. It was very planted on the road and also very quiet in the cabin, but forward progress always felt a little strained on that little engine.The sound stage was a bit flat, despite my adjustments of the various controls, certainly not as good as my little I10. For the money, it cossets you and feels like it's well built, but it lacks airbags for rear passengers and is sparse of a fair few bells and whistles that are standard features on the competition. These count against it as it makes the Amarok rather pricey by comparison.
It's also still only Euro 5, with no updated model coming till sometime next year, so i've no idea what they're planning to sell once Euro 6 is in force this coming September.
However, due to the quality of the drive, it's not off the list, but a back to back try out of the seating position, with the new L200, puts the Mitsubishi back at the top of my preferred pickups at the moment, along with price, colour scheme, drivability (i thought it was a nicer drive than the much lauded Ranger) and their 5 year warranty, I feel it's currently one of the better pickup choices.
If I can avoid having to rush out and get one soon, due to my work situation possibly changing, i'm still going to wait for the new Hi-Lux and compare it with the L200, to see which will be the better choice.
On paper, the Hi-Lux reviews state it as handling heavy loads really well, but claimed mpg figures are way wide of the mark, with the L200 being reviewed as very poor on the handling with weight on board. Mind you, those were the same reviewers that claimed the L200 was a poor handler on the road when empty as well, compared to the Amarok and Ranger, but I personally thought it was better than the Ranger.
Given some of the Ozzie reviews for the new Hi-Lux, i've been having some random thoughts on buying a current 2.5 Hi-Lux and getting the front seat(s) moved back a couple of inches. Any comments on that as a plan, from current Hi-Lux owners out there - especially if you've been out comparing the new stuff to your current steed - would be appreciated.

Interesting to read your driving impressions, especially regarding fuel consumption. Our last L200 ('04 KIngCab) would manage between 200 and 300 miles per 70 litre tank. The '08 Ranger was a little better (but not much) and our current Hilux (2010) manages between 350 and 450 miles. It might just manage 30mpg, unloaded, on road tyres and driven very very carefully (but not on BFGs and driven at normal highway speeds). The MPG figures you are reporting are staggering, even the worst of them!

It's worth remembering that engines and suspension settings can differ enormously between markets and the L200 (along with all the others) might be a very different drive in the UK the Aussie versions. Either way the double cab variant is not a good base car for a full size demountable (let's say fixed roof, fixed bed, full standing height). In the UK it's marketed as the 'ultimate sport utility truck', and we all know that even a light demountable is loading the truck to the max. A 'sport utility truck', even one with the axle set so far forward, will have it's fans, but demountable owners won't be amongst them. The reason the Isuzu, Ranger and HiLux make such good base cars may not be totally unrelated to the fact that these manufacturers still have the commercial market very much in their sights.

Best wishes

Gary

[Toshbins]

We're getting a computer average of 32 on our Amarok over the last 4000 miles which I'm OK with. We all know that real world figures are way off the published ones.
Incidentally the Amarok doesn't actually have the DSG box. I thought it did at first, but looked it up and found that its actually a ZF 8 speed auto. The DSG isn't so good for off-road apparently. The torque converter locks up at 1000rpm or so and after that its just swapping gears. Although it does this very often, to me its a lot smoother than the 5 speed auto on our previous Jeep.

[Madmountainman]

Cheers Gary,

One of the first things i'd clocked when looking at the L200 was the short wheelbase and how much of a camper sits on and behind the rear axle. Yes, the l200 can take over a ton, but it places your load a bit far back. This is why i'm waiting for the Hi-Lux still, but i'm also considering a current Hi-Lux, with the front seats moved back a couple of inches. I might go and take a gander at one later this week.
For anyone that may be interested in the new Hi-Lux, Iron Man suspension in Australia already has a full system to upgrade your truck. The wait continues....

[Gary W]

Cheers Gary,

One of the first things i'd clocked when looking at the L200 was the short wheelbase and how much of a camper sits on and behind the rear axle. Yes, the l200 can take over a ton, but it places your load a bit far back. This is why i'm waiting for the Hi-Lux still, but i'm also considering a current Hi-Lux, with the front seats moved back a couple of inches. I might go and take a gander at one later this week.
For anyone that may be interested in the new Hi-Lux, Iron Man suspension in Australia already has a full system to upgrade your truck. The wait continues....

There are some REALLY good deals to be had on the outgoing Hilux, same with the Amarok. Both are great trucks, and you'd have to do an awful lot of miles before the saving in fuel costs gets even close to covering the extra cost of the new version

Best wishes

Gary

[Madmountainman]

Worst case fuel cost difference on an average 10K miles a year is circa £400, best is £250. So if you get a mint, low mileage truck for half the price of a new one, factor in 10 years of ownership, it'll cost you no more than around £4K extra in fuel, saving you approximately £10K in depreciation.... and that's only the conservative estimate. Yes, fuel will go up in price over that 10 years, but not so much as to eat in to the depreciation hit to any major degree.

[sabconsulting]

Worst case fuel cost difference on an average 10K miles a year is circa £400, best is £250. So if you get a mint, low mileage truck for half the price of a new one, factor in 10 years of ownership, it'll cost you no more than around £4K extra in fuel, saving you approximately £10K in depreciation.... and that's only the conservative estimate. Yes, fuel will go up in price over that 10 years, but not so much as to eat in to the depreciation hit to any major degree.

Also, there is the question of reliability and therefore maintenance costs. Is a truck with a claimed very good fuel consumption as robust and reliable as something a bit more old-school like a Hilux? You could soon burn through a large percentage of fuel saving if a truck turns out to need major maintenance.

Steve.