What Pickup?

Author
Discussion

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Tuesday 10th January 2017
quotequote all
Mammasaid said:
powerstroke said:
I had the previous L200 of ,r a short while it was horrible cheep and everything seemed cheesy /blingy. they are also the truck of choice for our caravan using nomadic types ,and the lower end of the building trade , It seems to be law that you have tats and go to the gym if you own one
must be the daft names some ponce at the importers came up with warrior ,barbarian sperm etc ...
Homophobia, nice.....
Ponce means an effeminate man who might work for a prostitute !!!

spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Tuesday 10th January 2017
quotequote all
If you are doing a lot of road miles then I'd go for one with proper suspension instead of leaf springs.

So that'd be the new Navara or the Amarok.

Leaf springs aren't so bad when you have a 1/2 ton load in the back, but when unloaded they are dire.

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Tuesday 10th January 2017
quotequote all
spookly said:
If you are doing a lot of road miles then I'd go for one with proper suspension instead of leaf springs.

So that'd be the new Navara or the Amarok.

Leaf springs aren't so bad when you have a 1/2 ton load in the back, but when unloaded they are dire.
Depends if you want to tow , don't know about the Amerok but the new Navara isn't great with much load or when towing a bigger trailer ..
too soft and wallowy,

normalbloke

7,401 posts

218 months

Tuesday 10th January 2017
quotequote all
spookly said:
If you are doing a lot of road miles then I'd go for one with proper suspension instead of leaf springs.

So that'd be the new Navara or the Amarok.

Leaf springs aren't so bad when you have a 1/2 ton load in the back, but when unloaded they are dire.
I thought the Amarok still had rear cart springs too? That gets discounted for its wheezy 2.0.
We elected for the 3.2 Ranger, which has worked ok for us. Yep, it has cart springs, but also has fluid filled cab mounts and seems to be a good compromise. We've been around Scotland a couple of times, and down to Monaco, and it's not an unpleasant place to be. I also like the fact it's got a proper steering box, which reaps rewards. They've certainly moved on since the last time I had a double cab.

Mammasaid

3,777 posts

96 months

Tuesday 10th January 2017
quotequote all
normalbloke said:
spookly said:
If you are doing a lot of road miles then I'd go for one with proper suspension instead of leaf springs.

So that'd be the new Navara or the Amarok.

Leaf springs aren't so bad when you have a 1/2 ton load in the back, but when unloaded they are dire.
I thought the Amarok still had rear cart springs too? That gets discounted for its wheezy 2.0.
We elected for the 3.2 Ranger, which has worked ok for us. Yep, it has cart springs, but also has fluid filled cab mounts and seems to be a good compromise. We've been around Scotland a couple of times, and down to Monaco, and it's not an unpleasant place to be. I also like the fact it's got a proper steering box, which reaps rewards. They've certainly moved on since the last time I had a double cab.
^^This^^

Most of the complainants here haven't driven a new version of a pickup and are basing their assumptions on older pick-ups. Nowadays they've come on leaps and bounds, and are perfectly capable of being used everyday as a 'normal' car, whilst retaining their inherant advantages.

Griffalow

88 posts

129 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
I vote for the Mitsubishi Series 5 - 5 year Warranty - four wheel drive at anytime and slim enough to get in a normal parking space (OK it is quite long)

20,000 miles in 12 months not one fault - averaging 32 miles to the gallon

BRIGHTON mitsubishi are great, efficient and friendly, my previous VW dealer was nothing like this.

I think Mitsubishi now offer 0% finance


normalbloke

7,401 posts

218 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Griffalow said:
I vote for the Mitsubishi Series 5 - 5 year Warranty - four wheel drive at anytime and slim enough to get in a normal parking space (OK it is quite long)

20,000 miles in 12 months not one fault - averaging 32 miles to the gallon

BRIGHTON mitsubishi are great, efficient and friendly, my previous VW dealer was nothing like this.

I think Mitsubishi now offer 0% finance
What are your thoughts on the NCAP test and the airbags failing to deploy properly?

Lynch91

471 posts

138 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
normalbloke said:
What are your thoughts on the NCAP test and the airbags failing to deploy properly?
Where is that? Says four stars here; http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/mitsubishi/l200...

normalbloke

7,401 posts

218 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
Lynch91 said:
normalbloke said:
What are your thoughts on the NCAP test and the airbags failing to deploy properly?
Where is that? Says four stars here; http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/mitsubishi/l200...
l
It's in the very report you've just linked to, if you take the time to read the full report. It's quite scary.

Mammasaid

3,777 posts

96 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
normalbloke said:
It's in the very report you've just linked to, if you take the time to read the full report. It's quite scary.
Not really, it says that that the airbag allowed the dummy head to come in contact with the bottom of the steering wheel, but the protection was still adequate.

normalbloke

7,401 posts

218 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
"In the frontal offset test, there was extensive deformation of the bodyshell. There was a rupture of the floorpan in the driver's seatingposition, considerable buckling of the floor in the rear of the passenger compartment and spot welds had failed at the point where thebottom sill meets the C-pillar (the rearmost pillar of the passenger compartment). The car was penalised for this and Mitsubishi wereprecluded from demonstrating that structures in the instrument panel, such as the steering column and column shroud, would not presenta risk of injury to the knees and femurs of occupants in the front seats. Protection of the knees, femurs and pelvis was rated as marginal. There was also insufficient pressure in the airbag to prevent the driver's head from bottoming-out against the steering wheel. Dummyhead readings showed that contact had been made with the steering wheel through the deflated airbag and protection of the head wasdowngraded to adequate. In the full width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver dummy was good for all critical body areas while, forthe rear passenger, protection of the neck was adequate and that of the chest was marginal. In both side impact tests - the side barrierand more severe side pole - the L200 scored maximum points, with good protection of all critical body areas. The front seats and headrestraints showed good protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision and a geometric assessment of the rear seatsalso indicated good whiplash protection. The L200 does not have an autonomous emergency braking system to assist further in whiplash protection."

It wasn't for me!

CardinalFang

639 posts

167 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
2014 Ranger Limited driver here, now with 70k on the clock, including a 1500km round trip to La Rochelle this summer. Given the choice I'd have gone for the limited spec (mine has some extras thrown at it - loadbed top, towbar, reversing camera) with the larger 5cyl engine, but it wasnt available when we got ours (small company running 2 after half a dozen consecutive Isuzu Denvers). Other than that, 0 complaints. 2016 models look much better specced inside (DAB? front parking sensors, better dash finish, media interface etc), but I haven't driven one. Standard spec is v good - cool box, DSP stereo, heated front seats, elec drivers, 2 zone climate, leather, cruie (now radar on 2016 I think) etc. Dont forget the Ford, clearscreen or whatever it's called - brilliant bit of kit.

Poster above is right about them being better riding with the load bed full, but TBH I don't notice the ride any more. We looked at the Amarok & it definitely looks & feels a more premium product, but there was a £150 - £200/mth (IIRC) difference in lease costs when comparing spec-for-spec. Yes it's a shipping hazard around town, but at DC/Motorway speeds it just bowls along all day. Seats are good, climate control is spot on, ergonomics are fine. I've covered 350+miles in 1 day & been frazzled (wind & tyre noise is noticeable, but I just turn the stereo up), but not in any discomfort. Avg 25/26mpg according to the OBC. Mrs Fang loves driving it - she doesn't get bullied around so much as in her VW Up (which could probably fit in the back).

Issues? 1 blown headlight bulb, new windscreen & 6 tyres (I think). It graunches in 4wd, at parking speeds - I thought I'd broken something the first time I switched it on. Dash & interior is by no means premium, but its not bad. A client runs a new RR Sport & he really really rates the ford when I'm running him up & down the country. MY BIL runs an RR Autobiography & he borrows mine every summer holiday.

If it was mine, Id have paid extra for DAB & maybe a subwoofer, both ford approved accessories. Stereo is pretty good for a commercial vehicle, but not brilliant (no surprise).(It got better when after 18 months, I discovered the DSP - at first glance it looked like a greyed out extra on the Audio menu. Doh!)

Bottom line is that, having not had this kind of vehicle before, I was expecting a terrible bag of old bones, but it's been a real surprise. I'd definitely be tempted to get one myself, rather than a 2nd hand large SUV. Happy to answer any questions. Hope that helps.

Griffalow

88 posts

129 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
Having not crashed my Mitsubishi yet I can not comment if my airbags will deploy, I would like to think they will?

I do generally drive with a thick wooly hat on so I would imagine this will give me added protection.

I agree after testing the Ford i did quite like it but was just too big for me.

It was the warranty and the way it drove that swayed me.


diesel piston

287 posts

213 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Hilux yes

D_T_W

Original Poster:

2,502 posts

214 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Well having done a bit more research, I appear to have hit a minor snag. The Ranger Wildtrak appears to only have a load capacity of 1005kgs, which means if I add the hard top cover it drops it below the magical 1000kg payload capacity for my BIK to remain at a sensible level. Having spoken to 3 Ford dealers and Ford themselves, none of them can actually agree what the payload capacity is, the answer varied from 995kgs to 1050kgs, all without a rear hard top fitted. Having read every review I could find then referencing it with Fords own brochure, then digging around the HMRC website it isn't actually clear what method is used to work out the kerb weight vs the gross weight.

Does anybody actually have one they use via a business that has the hard top canopy or roll cover that can clarify? I found a couple that my boss is willing to buy, but one with and one without a rear cover and I'd rather not get shafted by the tax man if I can avoid it by buying the wrong one!

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
The hard top or any other accessories are part of your load so yes they reduce the payload capacity but they don't change the manufactures quoted weights which have to show a payload of 1000kg or more to be VAT reclaimable and classed as a commercial for tax purposes !!
the hard top would be classed as part of the load like passengers or cargo so won't affect the tax position ...

D_T_W

Original Poster:

2,502 posts

214 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
powerstroke said:
The hard top or any other accessories are part of your load so yes they reduce the payload capacity but they don't change the manufactures quoted weights which have to show a payload of 1000kg or more to be VAT reclaimable and classed as a commercial for tax purposes !!
the hard top would be classed as part of the load like passengers or cargo so won't affect the tax position ...
I know, but according to the HMRC website if you add a hardtop to a double cab pickup you must take a generic weight of 45kgs off the payload, which if the initial payload was 1040kgs would make it 995kgs which brings it under the magic 1000kgs

Extract below

From 2002/03, when deciding whether double cab pick-ups count as cars or vans, HMRC will interpret the legislation that defines car and van for tax purposes in line with the definitions used for VAT purposes. The position in respect of earlier tax years remains unchanged.

Under this measure, a double cab pick-up that has a payload of 1 tonne (1,000kg) or more is accepted as a van for benefits purposes. Payload means gross vehicle weight (or design weight) less unoccupied kerb weight (care is needed when looking at manufacturers’ brochures as they sometimes define payload differently).

Under a separate agreement between Customs and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), a hard top consisting of metal, fibre glass or similar material, with or without windows, is accorded a generic weight of 45kg. Therefore the addition of a hard top to a double cab pick-up with an ex-works payload of 1,010 kg will convert the vehicle into a car (net payload reduced to 965 kg). Under this agreement, the weight of all other optional accessories is disregarded. HMRC has also adopted this treatment.

308mate

13,757 posts

221 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
D_T_W said:
powerstroke said:
The hard top or any other accessories are part of your load so yes they reduce the payload capacity but they don't change the manufactures quoted weights which have to show a payload of 1000kg or more to be VAT reclaimable and classed as a commercial for tax purposes !!
the hard top would be classed as part of the load like passengers or cargo so won't affect the tax position ...
I know, but according to the HMRC website if you add a hardtop to a double cab pickup you must take a generic weight of 45kgs off the payload, which if the initial payload was 1040kgs would make it 995kgs which brings it under the magic 1000kgs

Extract below

From 2002/03, when deciding whether double cab pick-ups count as cars or vans, HMRC will interpret the legislation that defines car and van for tax purposes in line with the definitions used for VAT purposes. The position in respect of earlier tax years remains unchanged.

Under this measure, a double cab pick-up that has a payload of 1 tonne (1,000kg) or more is accepted as a van for benefits purposes. Payload means gross vehicle weight (or design weight) less unoccupied kerb weight (care is needed when looking at manufacturers’ brochures as they sometimes define payload differently).

Under a separate agreement between Customs and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), a hard top consisting of metal, fibre glass or similar material, with or without windows, is accorded a generic weight of 45kg. Therefore the addition of a hard top to a double cab pick-up with an ex-works payload of 1,010 kg will convert the vehicle into a car (net payload reduced to 965 kg). Under this agreement, the weight of all other optional accessories is disregarded. HMRC has also adopted this treatment.
I thin they mean a canopy, not a hardtop/load cover(?)

D_T_W

Original Poster:

2,502 posts

214 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
That's what I don't know, and I can't get a straight answer from Ford. I spoke to their Commercial Vehicles customer service team today and they couldn't actually answer the question which was more than a little frustrating. I read it as anything that covers the loading bay, be that a roller cover the same height as the side or a full canopy would impact the load capacity, but even our company account isn't sure and he's apparently done this before!

Mammasaid

3,777 posts

96 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
D_T_W said:
That's what I don't know, and I can't get a straight answer from Ford. I spoke to their Commercial Vehicles customer service team today and they couldn't actually answer the question which was more than a little frustrating. I read it as anything that covers the loading bay, be that a roller cover the same height as the side or a full canopy would impact the load capacity, but even our company account isn't sure and he's apparently done this before!
Having investigated this before purchasing a couple of L200s, I was under the impression that it was any additions to the vehicle, BAR the towball that would count towards the payload reduction.

BTW< speaking of weight, any pickup with a UNLADEN weight of more than 2040kg can't be classified as a dual purpose vehicle, and such is subject to lower speed limits on NSL/DC/Motorways of 50/60/70, instead of the DP vehicle limits of 60/60/70.