2.8 colorado chevrolet or 3.2mazda bt_50?????

[al_medos]

sino pong lamang?????? plano ko pong bumili at pinagpipilian ko po between 3.2 ng bt50 and 2.8 ng colorado. gagamitin service pang supervice sa construction project, long distance travel, at dating po para sa pag follow up sa opisina pandagdag tiwala.

[albert_b]

Ang daming question marks naman ;-)

Anyways, i believe in terms of body's stiffness lamang si Colorado. This is specially beneficial to extreme roads that puts a lot of twisting forces to the vehicles

[d_mac]

sino pong lamang?????? plano ko pong bumili at pinagpipilian ko po between 3.2 ng bt50 and 2.8 ng colorado. gagamitin service pang supervice sa construction project, long distance travel, at dating po para sa pag follow up sa opisina pandagdag tiwala.

ENGINE:
Makina and low-rpm pulling force lamang ang Mazda BT-50 3.2 and/or Ford Ranger 3.2 Duratorq TDCi (470 Nm that starts at a low 1500 rpm, where 95% of that is already available by 1200 rpm) over the Chevrolet Colorado 2.8 VCDi (470 Nm at a higher 2000 rpm).

Therefore less-stressed ang mga 5-straight cylinder 3.2's - indicative sequential pressure combustion on the 3.2 occuring at 750 times per minute versus 1000 times per minute on the 2.8 to produce the same amount of pulling-force.

CHASSIS:
In terms of chassis, you have to verify sir; while the Colorado had always adopted the concept behind the Isuzu D-max 3.0 iTEQ VGS Turbo's 8-cross member chassis, it however has different main frame metal thickness from the end-to-end. The Mazda (and/or the Ranger) might have less cross members than the Colorado but the longitudinal main ladder frame thickness might be thicker than the Colorado or D-max.

LOOKS:
In terms of looks, mas magandang tignan ang Colorado over the Mazda BT-50, in my opinion only.


Good luck sa choices mo chief! Cheers!

[al_medos]

ENGINE:
Makina and low-rpm pulling force lamang ang Mazda BT-50 3.2 and/or Ford Ranger 3.2 Duratorq TDCi (470 Nm that starts at a low 1500 rpm, where 95% of that is already available by 1200 rpm) over the Chevrolet Colorado 2.8 VCDi (470 Nm at a higher 2000 rpm).

Therefore less-stressed ang mga 5-straight cylinder 3.2's - indicative sequential pressure combustion on the 3.2 occuring at 750 times per minute versus 1000 times per minute on the 2.8 to produce the same amount of pulling-force.

CHASSIS:
In terms of chassis, you have to verify sir; while the Colorado had always adopted the concept behind the Isuzu D-max 3.0 iTEQ VGS Turbo's 8-cross member chassis, it however has different main frame metal thickness from the end-to-end. The Mazda (and/or the Ranger) might have less cross members than the Colorado but the longitudinal main ladder frame thickness might be thicker than the Colorado or D-max.

LOOKS:
In terms of looks, mas magandang tignan ang Colorado over the Mazda BT-50, in my opinion only.


Good luck sa choices mo chief! Cheers!

thank you sir, mahaba pa ang oras ko sa pagdesisyon pagpili kasi mga next year pa daw darating ang unit dito sa amin. ang plano baka kung sinong unang lalabas na lang ang kukunin ko kung halos magkapantay lang sila sa review, kasi ang hirap mag antay :-(

[godwhacker]

ENGINE:
Makina and low-rpm pulling force lamang ang Mazda BT-50 3.2 and/or Ford Ranger 3.2 Duratorq TDCi (470 Nm that starts at a low 1500 rpm, where 95% of that is already available by 1200 rpm) over the Chevrolet Colorado 2.8 VCDi (470 Nm at a higher 2000 rpm).

i would prefer the colorado's 470Nm *2000RPM since the torque limit is more gradual and this will preserve the life of the flywheel, torque converter, clutch in the long term. Ford's approach is the same like the Alfas where higher initial torque limits are programmed in the ECU at low RPMs. this is acceptable but the downside is shorter life on the drive train parts i already mentioned. 470Nm* 1500RPM on a 3.2L 5 cylinder engine lalo nat kapag may manual version, ewan ko lang kong tatagal ang flywheel sa mga mabibigat ang paa.

[d_mac]

i would prefer the colorado's 470Nm *2000RPM since the torque limit is more gradual and this will preserve the life of the flywheel, torque converter, clutch in the long term. Ford's approach is the same like the Alfas where higher initial torque limits are programmed in the ECU at low RPMs. this is acceptable but the downside is shorter life on the drive train parts i already mentioned. 470Nm* 1500RPM on a 3.2L 5 cylinder engine lalo nat kapag may manual version, ewan ko lang kong tatagal ang flywheel sa mga mabibigat ang paa.

Yes chief you're correct in a sense, but let's not forget that Metallurgy plays an important role on the quality and longevity of parts and components of the whole vehicle. And car manufacturers specify, design and produce (or have some companies do it for them) the components upstream and downstream of the engine based on the forseeable applied force from the powerplant and the overall dynamic load that it will be subjected to by how much factors of safety against failure that they can think of....

A low-stressed engine by virtue of its responsive low-end rpm pull would always result to less-strain on the engine and all driving components overall. It is not only Ford Motors that adopts this approach ----
---- Toyota Motors in its proven range of Landcruisers does this too, where even for as low 1200 rpm their peak pulling-force is already there, and they last a lifetime. The Hilux range are also designed to give out peak pulling-force within that sub-2000 rpm. Also, Isuzu Motors does this too ever since in its D-max range and trucks where within the sub-2000 rpm rev-range they are already at their peak fulling force, and they too last a lifetime. Nissan Motors is also doing this now on its all-new Navara 3.0-litre V6 ST-X (Renault-Nissan built engine) where a hefty peak pulling-force of 550 Nm is already available by 1750 rpm (90% of that grunt available by 1500 rpm).

Moreover, due to the lower rpms on the Ford/Toyota/Isuzu/Nissan examples above, the diesel 4-stroke cycle's lesser sequential pressure combustion results to less-stress and less-strain onto the cylinder walls and onto the pistons.

Therefore less-stressed ang mga 5-straight cylinder 3.2's - indicative sequential pressure combustion on the 3.2 occuring at 750 times per minute versus 1000 times per minute on the 2.8 to produce the same amount of pulling-force.

[raphnext21]

.. based on papers....and specs....on my opinion the performance on the road depends how you will use it.. the two engines are good because diesel are for hauling and towing but for the quality or durability i well prefer the colorado

[al_medos]

kelan kaya darating ang mazda bt dito davao????

[beni23]

Yes chief you're correct in a sense, but let's not forget that Metallurgy plays an important role on the quality and longevity of parts and components of the whole vehicle. And car manufacturers specify, design and produce (or have some companies do it for them) the components upstream and downstream of the engine based on the forseeable applied force from the powerplant and the overall dynamic load that it will be subjected to by how much factors of safety against failure that they can think of....

A low-stressed engine by virtue of its responsive low-end rpm pull would always result to less-strain on the engine and all driving components overall. It is not only Ford Motors that adopts this approach ----
---- Toyota Motors in its proven range of Landcruisers does this too, where even for as low 1200 rpm their peak pulling-force is already there, and they last a lifetime. The Hilux range are also designed to give out peak pulling-force within that sub-2000 rpm. Also, Isuzu Motors does this too ever since in its D-max range and trucks where within the sub-2000 rpm rev-range they are already at their peak fulling force, and they too last a lifetime. Nissan Motors is also doing this now on its all-new Navara 3.0-litre V6 ST-X (Renault-Nissan built engine) where a hefty peak pulling-force of 550 Nm is already available by 1750 rpm (90% of that grunt available by 1500 rpm).

Moreover, due to the lower rpms on the Ford/Toyota/Isuzu/Nissan examples above, the diesel 4-stroke cycle's lesser sequential pressure combustion results to less-stress and less-strain onto the cylinder walls and onto the pistons.

May nagbasa ba niyan? Seriously? Just get the colorado. Pangit itsura nung bt-50 eh. Or better yet, get the 3.2 litre Ranger. Maybe it'll arrive 2nd quarter next year.

[d_mac]

May nagbasa ba niyan? Seriously? Just get the colorado. Pangit itsura nung bt-50 eh.
Or better yet, get the 3.2 litre Ranger. Maybe it'll arrive 2nd quarter next year.

Ikaw, binasa mo nga chief....

Buti naman hindi mo na pinipilit Strada mo idol

Or better yet, get the 3.2 litre Ranger. Maybe it'll arrive 2nd quarter next year.

It can be had now.... May mga kumakalat na Ranger 3.2 TDCi na sa Metro Manila ;)

Cheers!