New Montero Sport 4x4, Fortuner 3.0 4x4 or Sta. Fe 4x4.

**Gen. Miting** · September 5th, 2008 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by mazdamazda

General... please click the link below for the full review & more pictures:

http://www.bigbigcar.com/ReviewArticle.aspx?id=31

Looks ok to me... but my wife hates it.

thanks for the link

omg! this is the rear?
[img]http://www.bigbigcar.com/uploads/gal...008kyron07.jpg
[/img]

well, parang bagay i-drive palabas ng buckingham palace

**alainroyce** · September 5th, 2008 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Gen. Miting

Sta Fe is really rumored to be a low on the FC side. masaya ka na kung maka-reach ka ng 8km/ltr city. but this value I believe is consistent for all current new generation diesel SUVs. the Fort, the Everest, the Captiva and I think even the New Montero cannot escape this. this is Manila city roads we are talking about, that's the problem.

regarding resale value, all big cars now will have low resale value even if you have a well taken care of fieldmaster pajero or even a selling a slightly used Fort. diesel has no advantage anymore and big cars are not really appealing these days.

+1 on this..

**zaza.altis** · September 5th, 2008 06:42 PM

if the fuel consumption would approximate the three suv what then would be the advantage of the smaller engine 2.2 with higher hp and torque against the others ? hindi din naman pala fuel efficient.i would be happy driving a 3.0L diesel engine if it consumes as much as a 2.2L para bang hey i have a honda city but it consumes the same as much as your camry...

with resale value as said before it depends on public perception. if konti lang bumili ng brand new don't expect a good price if ibebenta mo na sa second hand.law of supply and demand. as of now generally the re sale is low, almost half by the end of 3-5yrs of about all vehicles but lower for lesser known brands. mas prefer ko naman to be selling a second hand known brand like fortuner vs a brand like ssangyong, chevrolet etc...

just my opinion

**yapoy86** · September 5th, 2008 10:16 PM

I've seen a brand new montero in ortigas.. its superb... MACHO ang dating...Poging pogi... pero may pagka truckish ang dating unlike Sta.Fe medyo luxurious ang dating...

if you will just use the SUV in the metro.. better to have the one with comfort ride.. metro manila OFF-ROADS will give you headache and bodypains

For high FC simple explanation lang...we all know sta fe produces more power so basically it will consume more fuel...

leave the fort behind muna wala pa yung facelifted nila eh.. pero for me nakakasawa na ang fort...

the new montero is the best choice for me among the 3 SUV's.. yan kasi yung latest among the 3..pagbili mo bagong bago ang dating...a sure head turner kahit all stock pa lang... kung fort or sta fe parang ordinary na lang eh kahit puro accesories na..huli na sa uso..

don't know why we keep on thinking about resale value?? people are being practical nowadays... those who planned to buy 2nd hand opted for the brandnew due to "high resale" of 2nd hand cars... result 2nd hand cars in used cars market are now piling up..

OT: in some buy and sell sites for example.. a 2001 hi-ace grandia is priced at 650K.. if i'm the wise buyer and have the 650K in hand, i'll better put that on DP for a brandnew and save myself for future repairs of a7 year old car...

**FBSS** · September 5th, 2008 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by niky

Well... Ssangyong is unproven, locally, and yes, the MB100 was a total turd (we had two in the family...

)... but I can find very few people who are dissatisfied with their Ssangyong trucks... it's old-school MB engineering underneath all that, so it should be quite robust... but yes, you will have to be prepared to search a little more for spare parts.

Ahem. You've got a lot to learn about suspension design.

A McPherson suspension has absolutely nothing to do with how bouncy or smooth a car drives, and double wishbones do not a sportscar make.

The advantage of a double wishbone suspension over a McPherson strut suspension is that a double wishbone can execute camber and caster changes in hard cornering to assist cornering if it's designed to. But there are ways to provide cornering assist with McPhersons in the design of toe geometry. The Lancer Evolution has front McPhersons... the BMW M3 has front McPhersons... my Lynx RS has McPhersons at all four corners... and those aren't bad handling cars at all...

A McPherson system isn't primarily about saving money (otherwise, the Fort and Eve would have McPhersons... consider that these two trucks are based on old-school ladder frames and have lower-tech (read: cheaper to make) chassis than the Santa Fe, and have that ultimate in low-cost suspensions... a rear beam axle... a McPherson is all about saving space.

The Fort and Eve have front double wishbones because they're trucks. They don't need the space-saving design of a McPherson strut, they need a heavy duty suspension for off-roading. Yes, the 6th gen Civic rode better than this one, but that's not because this one isn't double wishbone... it's because it's got ungodly stiff springs. The Dodge Caliber has McPhersons, and it's the smoothest riding car we've ever tested.

Granted, the Santa Fe needs stiffer shocks... but it's nowhere near as bad as the super-soft Sorento. None of these SUVs ride perfectly... the Fortuner needs much softer springs and stiffer shocks, and probably more aggressive anti-roll bars so they can stop preventing body roll by making it ungodly stiff... the Everest rides like a boat on bedsprings (bouncy bouncy bouncy... SUPER stiff... bouncy bouncy bouncy...)... and if the Montero is like the Strada, it'll achieve a soft ride by being... you guessed it... a bit bouncy on uneven roads.

Of course... yes... the CR-V is a great SUV... in general, gasoline-only SUVs like the CR-V and RAV4 are more refined than any of these diesels... which is one reason why we got a CR-V 2.4 4x4 instead of the Santa Fe we were planning to get... the other reason being the insane discount Honda gave us... seems gasoline SUVs aren't that popular due to poor fuel economy. Ours gets about 7.5 km/l on the highway (where the SF can do 15+++)... but do we mind? Nah...

Wanted the CR-V 2.0, so we could get economy similar to the Santa Fe... but the fabric seats on the base CR-V are hard enough to break your back over rough roads. Oh well...

Has your uncle owned an SUV before?

City driving makes for bad fuel economy. Even the Ford Focus TDCI, which can get 20 km/l on the highway, can get as low as 8 km/l in traffic.You can get 5 km/l or so in a Fortuner or an Everest in city driving. I've done it. Hell, a Veracruz is more fuel efficient than a Fortuner 3.0, and the Veracruz makes nearly twice the power with the same sized diesel (though I hate the ride... it's much softer and bouncier than the Santa Fe's, though not as bad as the old Starex or Sorento.)

Hell... even the Honda City,which can get an amazing 20-30 km/l in eco-runs, can get as low as 8 km/l in city traffic... or less.

If your uncle owned a Crosswind or an Isuzu before, well, maybe his disappointment is understandable... Isuzus get pretty decent economy compared to other diesels.

You're entitled to your opinion, but please get your facts straight.

Ahehem ehem! So do we really need to be too analytical about this simple topic? What I’ve shared is not just simple facts but base on experiences not just me, my family, relatives but close friends as well. How about you? Are you basing your facts in what’s written on papers? I hope not because definitely there’s big difference. i.e. Some car manufacturers are saying that they do have the most comfortable ride in the market but during the test drive you’ll feel and know it otherwise which is more annoying thinking they are making a fool you... It is my opinion and my evaluation that Macpherson suspension is stiffer than double wishbone. This is base on the vehicles that we have in our possession or have been driven before.

(Additional info on Fort & Eve) Double wishbone suspension, and to a lesser extent Macpherson-struts, keep the wheel at a near perfect angle to the road as it moves up and down over bumps - which is good for on-road handling. They do have some disadvantages off-road: they may not be as robust as a live axle, the lower wishbone hangs low and reduces ground clearance, and the differential (attached to the chassis) dips under braking which reduces ground clearance at a critical time.

With regards to FC, man Santa Fe is really not that fuel efficient considering smaller engine displacement. We are comparing from the 2.5 Fortuner or even the 2.5 Everest same route and almost same traffic condition. The Fuel consumption of Santa Fe is somewhat similar to 3.0 Fortuner based in our evaluation. See FC below.

Santa Fe (2.2): 7km/l average in City driving
Fortuner (2.5): 8.5km/l average in City driving
Everest (2.5): 8km/l average in City driving

It seems that the Santa Fe has the same fuel consumption as the 3.0 Fortuner because we are getting between 6 to 7km/l out of it.

I agree that Isuzu has better FC against the competition since my friends Dmax (3.0) is getting 8 to 9km/l (city driving) but don’t know the exact routes.

My summary:
With the three subjected vehicles, I would rank them as follows
1)Montero Sport – comfortable ride for 7 passengers and capable of using it in off road just in case you need it, looks good in interior and exterior designs and competitive pricing for a 4WD. Although not yet sure if it’s fuel efficient.

2)Fortuner – Capable of off road just in case you need it. Looks a little bit better among the three in interior and exterior design especially the facelifted one. Aircon vents of the new facelifted model have improved. Although we still need to wait and confirm if the ride has improved already which is a big factor. This is also why I ranked it 2nd to Montero.

3)Santa Fe – Comfortable ride but not a King of road-biased entry SUV as other would say. Opppsss sorry. Not a King because: It’s quite bouncy compared to other crossover SUV in the market. Comfortable ride for 5 passengers with 2 other (sitting in 3rd row) cramped already which is not pleasant for long trips. Exterior design is getting dull already against the competition and with some corny bits in the interior design. With the price of 1.5M for a crossover SUV, I would definitely look into other brands which is cheaper (about 200T to 300T less) and has more comfortable ride.

Suggestion:
For comfortable on road vehicle, I suggest that you buy the new Honda Accord. The ride is very comfy and handling is exceptional. You will just add 100T +. (Sorry if out of the topic)

Nicky, since you’re a guru of this simple topic, may I ask you a question? I hope I’ll get a good answer from you.

1) So why is the Grand Starex (Current model) is bouncier compared than the old one considering that they have same platform but are different in suspension?

The old Starex has Double Wishbone suspension while
The New Starex has the Macpherson one

2) So what’s the logic behind putting a small engine that is powerful but yet its not fuel efficient? Is it true that we are putting more stress in the engine and in the end can shorten its life?

**niky** · September 6th, 2008 01:46 AM

Again: It's never in the suspension type... it's always in the matching of springs and shocks, as well as the suspension stroke.

Explain to me this... why does the new Toyota Corolla ride perfectly while the old one was as stiff as a rock? Exact same suspension design... The old Starex had a terrible suspension... it gave me sea-sickness every time we took a trip of more than 30 minutes in it. The Fort and Eve both have double wishbones in front... the Fort drives like a pile of rocks and the Eve can't decide whether it's a pile of rocks or an old bed mattress. The Strada rides almost perfectly (but is soft... have yet to confirm whether it's too soft for long distance driving).

I'll repeat: the absolute most comfortable car we've tested in the past three years (out of the dozens of new cars we've driven) is the Dodge Caliber... four-wheel McPherson strut.

Repeat after me: ride comfort is a direct result of the perfect matching of spring rates and damper rates to vehicle weight and unsprung weight.

When you say bounciness... what kind of bounciness are you talking about? In suspension design, we have two factors.. what we call the primary ride and the secondary ride...

The primary ride is how a vehicle reacts to long wavelength oscillations. In other words, if the road gets wavy, a vehicle whose primary ride is too soft will make you car sick. This is where certain vehicles that feel too stiff, initially, excel... at controlling body motions over hilly roads. This includes the Focus, the Navara, most Mazdas and BMWs.

The secondary ride is how a vehicle reacts to short wavelength oscillations. In other words, if the road is bumpy, a vehicle whose secondary ride is too soft will have the wheels bouncing uncontrollably, while a vehicle whose secondary ride is too harsh will have the wheels dribbling uncomfortably. Vehicles with poor secondary ride are often that way because the shock tuning is too soft for the weight of the wheels or the springs are too hard for the damper tuning. The secondary ride will also expose poor chassis stiffness... which we experienced with the Toyota Fortuner and the Hyundai VeraCruz (just nowhere near as rock-solid as the Mazda CX9, which, overall, has the better suspension despite the VeraCruz seeming to be more comfortable up front).

The primary ride of the Santa Fe is good. The secondary ride could use some improvement. But secondary ride is very poor on many mid-sized SUVs, including the Fortuner, and, after a few days testing it, our new CR-V. Big wheels often degrade the ride, and the Santa Fe has very big (17") rims... I'm looking at what we can change on the CR-V to soften the secondary ride... it's well-controlled due to good shocks, and nowhere near as bad as the old CR-V... but the tires and wheels are either too heavy or rock hard... c'est la vie... with new cars having bigger wheel fitments, you can't avoid secondary ride degradation.

Tire pressures also play an important part in suspension comfort... we've found that deviating from manufacturer recommended tire pressures will change the ride. Sometimes, a car will be bouncier if the pressures are softer. This was true of the VeraCruz and CX9, so you might want to check your SF's tire pressures.

The second rule: Wheels and tires play a large part in suspension design. If a suspension is not designed properly for the wheels placed on the vehicle, poor ride results. This is why the BMW 1-series rides terribly... these cars were not designed properly for the run-flats that they use... but later cars designed around the run-flats ride much better over most surfaces, but the secondary ride is still bad because run-flats just plain suck.

You have to define between bounciness of the suspension (poor primary ride) and the hardness of the tires (poor secondary ride)... which is what you seem to be describing if you're comparing the old Starex favorably with anything.

That all said... the only mid-ranged SUV I've ridden so far that seems to ride perfectly is the RAV4. Unfortunately, it's gasoline and overpriced... so my Santa Fe recommendation stays. The only other mid-sized diesel crossovers are the Captiva (also rides a bit stiffly) and the Sorento... which is, again...waaaay too soft... with too much heave under acceleration, dive under braking and roll in corners. The Tucson rides decently, though a bit stiffly (like the Captiva), but the looks are dated and it's too small to be a serious consideration.

And for cars with three rows... the third row of the Kyron and Sorento are pathetic... the Eve's is a flat bench tacked to the floor, and the Fort's third row has very little legroom (though knee position is a little better than in the Santa Fe's and the AC is wonderful). I wouldn't rate any of these, but on our test of the Santa Fe, we got three big guys in the third row with no problem (almost impossible on the Fort... I've tried... I lived with one for a week, and at the end of the week, I absolutely hated riding in the back seat... the Fort is a car that is only comfortable from the front seat.)

------

As for fuel economy... well... if that's your personal experience, that's your personal experience... but is it on the same route? If it is, you might want to compare fuel economy on the exact same route (no deviations) over a number of days... calculated from the pump versus days rather than from the pump versus the odometer. We usually calibrate the odometer to a GPS meter for more accurate fuel consumption figures... and it actually does make a difference... I remember Tessa Salazar's column wherein she had three vans in convoy on the same route... the Starex had the worst fuel economy, the Hiace in the middle, the Urvan the best... but guess what? The Urvan's odometer read many more kilometers than the other two! When you calculated the amount of fuel based on her calculations, they all used the same amount of fuel for the same trip... they just had wildly different odometer readings...

Not that I don't believe the Starex wasn't too fuel efficient... our old GRX is a guzzler... but when we took a Crosswind out on the same trip, (they're both AT, both fully loaded), we got the same economy...

Again, making more power can decrease fuel economy, and having a smaller powerplant can hurt economy if you're making less torque down low and revving the engine harder to make up for the lower torque rating... but if you drive the engine properly, you can get excellent fuel economy from it.

The only way to settle it, once and for all, is to top the tanks, convoy the cars for 100 kilometers, and top them again, and measure actual fuel usage side-by-side. I'm thinking of doing that with the Santa Fe and the CR-V, just to see, but we'll have to wait till the CR-V's plates get in.

**niky** · September 6th, 2008 01:47 AM

Again: It's never in the suspension type... it's always in the matching of springs and shocks, as well as the suspension stroke.

Explain to me this... why does the new Toyota Corolla ride perfectly while the old one was as stiff as a rock? Exact same suspension design... The old Starex had a terrible suspension... it gave me sea-sickness every time we took a trip of more than 30 minutes in it. The Fort and Eve both have double wishbones in front... the Fort drives like a pile of rocks and the Eve can't decide whether it's a pile of rocks or an old bed mattress. The Strada rides almost perfectly (but is soft... have yet to confirm whether it's too soft for long distance driving).

I'll repeat: the absolute most comfortable car we've tested in the past three years (out of the dozens of new cars we've driven) is the Dodge Caliber... four-wheel McPherson strut.

Repeat after me: ride comfort is a direct result of the perfect matching of spring rates and damper rates to vehicle weight and unsprung weight.

When you say bounciness... what kind of bounciness are you talking about? In suspension design, we have two factors.. what we call the primary ride and the secondary ride...

The primary ride is how a vehicle reacts to long wavelength oscillations. In other words, if the road gets wavy, a vehicle whose primary ride is too soft will make you car sick. This is where certain vehicles that feel too stiff, initially, excel... at controlling body motions over hilly roads. This includes the Focus, the Navara, most Mazdas and BMWs.

The secondary ride is how a vehicle reacts to short wavelength oscillations. In other words, if the road is bumpy, a vehicle whose secondary ride is too soft will have the wheels bouncing uncontrollably, while a vehicle whose secondary ride is too harsh will have the wheels dribbling uncomfortably. Vehicles with poor secondary ride are often that way because the shock tuning is too soft for the weight of the wheels or the springs are too hard for the damper tuning. The secondary ride will also expose poor chassis stiffness... which we experienced with the Toyota Fortuner and the Hyundai VeraCruz (just nowhere near as rock-solid as the Mazda CX9, which, overall, has the better suspension despite the VeraCruz seeming to be more comfortable up front).

The primary ride of the Santa Fe is good. The secondary ride could use some improvement. But secondary ride is very poor on many mid-sized SUVs, including the Fortuner, and, after a few days testing it, our new CR-V. Big wheels often degrade the ride, and the Santa Fe has very big (17") rims... I'm looking at what we can change on the CR-V to soften the secondary ride... it's well-controlled due to good shocks, and nowhere near as bad as the old CR-V... but the tires and wheels are either too heavy or rock hard... c'est la vie... with new cars having bigger wheel fitments, you can't avoid secondary ride degradation.

Tire pressures also play an important part in suspension comfort... we've found that deviating from manufacturer recommended tire pressures will change the ride. Sometimes, a car will be bouncier if the pressures are softer. This was true of the VeraCruz and CX9, so you might want to check your SF's tire pressures.

The second rule: Wheels and tires play a large part in suspension design. If a suspension is not designed properly for the wheels placed on the vehicle, poor ride results. This is why the BMW 1-series rides terribly... these cars were not designed properly for the run-flats that they use... but later cars designed around the run-flats ride much better over most surfaces, but the secondary ride is still bad because run-flats just plain suck.

You have to define between bounciness of the suspension (poor primary ride) and the hardness of the tires (poor secondary ride)... which is what you seem to be describing if you're comparing the old Starex favorably with anything.

That all said... the only mid-ranged SUV I've ridden so far that seems to ride perfectly is the RAV4. Unfortunately, it's gasoline and overpriced... so my Santa Fe recommendation stays. The only other mid-sized diesel crossovers are the Captiva (also rides a bit stiffly) and the Sorento... which is, again...waaaay too soft... with too much heave under acceleration, dive under braking and roll in corners. The Tucson rides decently, though a bit stiffly (like the Captiva), but the looks are dated and it's too small to be a serious consideration.

And for cars with three rows... the third row of the Kyron and Sorento are pathetic... the Eve's is a flat bench tacked to the floor, and the Fort's third row has very little legroom (though knee position is a little better than in the Santa Fe's and the AC is wonderful). I wouldn't rate any of these, but on our test of the Santa Fe, we got three big guys in the third row with no problem (almost impossible on the Fort... I've tried... I lived with one for a week, and at the end of the week, I absolutely hated riding in the back seat... the Fort is a car that is only comfortable from the front seat.)

------

As for fuel economy... well... if that's your personal experience, that's your personal experience... but is it on the same route? If it is, you might want to compare fuel economy on the exact same route (no deviations) over a number of days... calculated from the pump versus days rather than from the pump versus the odometer. We usually calibrate the odometer to a GPS meter for more accurate fuel consumption figures... and it actually does make a difference... I remember Tessa Salazar's column wherein she had three vans in convoy on the same route... the Starex had the worst fuel economy, the Hiace in the middle, the Urvan the best... but guess what? The Urvan's odometer read many more kilometers than the other two! When you calculated the amount of fuel based on her calculations, they all used the same amount of fuel for the same trip... they just had wildly different odometer readings...

Not that I don't believe the Starex wasn't too fuel efficient... our old GRX is a guzzler... but when we took a Crosswind out on the same trip, (they're both AT, both fully loaded), we got the same economy...

Again, making more power can decrease fuel economy, and having a smaller powerplant can hurt economy if you're making less torque down low and revving the engine harder to make up for the lower torque rating... but if you drive the engine properly, you can get excellent fuel economy from it.

The only way to settle it, once and for all, is to top the tanks, convoy the cars for 100 kilometers, and top them again, and measure actual fuel usage side-by-side. I'm thinking of doing that with the Santa Fe and the CR-V, just to see, but we'll have to wait till the CR-V's plates get in.

**Gen. Miting** · September 6th, 2008 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by zaza.altis

if the fuel consumption would approximate the three suv what then would be the advantage of the smaller engine 2.2 with higher hp and torque against the others ? hindi din naman pala fuel efficient.i would be happy driving a 3.0L diesel engine if it consumes as much as a 2.2L para bang hey i have a honda city but it consumes the same as much as your camry...

with resale value as said before it depends on public perception. if konti lang bumili ng brand new don't expect a good price if ibebenta mo na sa second hand.law of supply and demand. as of now generally the re sale is low, almost half by the end of 3-5yrs of about all vehicles but lower for lesser known brands. mas prefer ko naman to be selling a second hand known brand like fortuner vs a brand like ssangyong, chevrolet etc...

just my opinion

yes, a 4x4 3.2L montero vs. a 4x2 2.2L sta fe with same FC, san ka pa

but how sure are you na ganyan ang FC. this is a very brand new car. even Russians aren't posting their Monty's FC's yet on the net.

when the Fort was being introduced it claimed, 12km/liter. 3 years and choking problems later, the Toyota engineers decided to adjust the engine from choking woes, and now it's 7-8km/liter. viola no more choking.

The Sta Fe also claimed 12km/liters. and so 2 years after, owners here are averaging at 7-8km/liter.

as a general rule of thumb, when car manufacturer issues an FC value, subtract 4. getz claimed 18km/liter, it turned out 14km/liter . the 1st gen jazz claimed 20km/liter, 16km/liter was the highest so far posted here mixed city.

so if the 3.2L Montero claims 10km/liter, are we going to expect 6km/liter. possibly, kasi 3.2L yan. ano ba current fc ng current pajero ngaun since it shares the same engine.

==============

yes, it's also true that known brands have a higher sticker price than lesser known brands. but the problem is, known brands have so many 2nd hands out there also since many have bought it during its prime. so the sticker price maybe just a ceiling price, negotiable pa din.

**Gen. Miting** · September 6th, 2008 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by FBSS

3)Santa Fe – Comfortable ride but not a King of road-biased entry SUV as other would say. Opppsss sorry. Not a King because: It’s quite bouncy compared to other crossover SUV in the market. Comfortable ride for 5 passengers with 2 other (sitting in 3rd row) cramped already which is not pleasant for long trips. Exterior design is getting dull already against the competition and with some corny bits in the interior design. With the price of 1.5M for a crossover SUV, I would definitely look into other brands which is cheaper (about 200T to 300T less) and has more comfortable ride.

when you say other crossovers, which are you referring to? from what i can recall there are only two new generation crossovers in the market today, the CRV and the Captiva.

initial captiva crdi reviews here in tsikot about ride quality is only satisfactory. the CRV however has very good reviews on the ride quality.
but you can't really compare it to the Santa Fe bec. the CRV is gasoline. Gasoline cars are really softer to ride than diesel ones, even if the latter has crdi engine.

all others are truck-based like the Fort, Everest, Alterra, and new Montero.

====

regarding, 3rd row seats. most passengers/kids must know by now that if your dad puts in you in the 3rd row, you are not a favorite child.

i cant think of any locally available suv/auv today that promises the best ride in the 3rd row.

===

regarding, interior. oh man, you must look at the montero dash again. it's early 21st century design. yan ang reklamo ko sa Montero thread, it still feels like the old 2nd gen strada (I owned one) all over again. 3 dials plus a removable stereo on the bottomost. ang hirap kaya noon nasa ilalim ang stereo. ni wala pang stereo controls sa steering wheel ito siguro. so dated ... sana man lang investing at 1.4M, treat the driver or the passengers right. 100% of the time naman nasa loob ka

**Gerbo** · September 6th, 2008 09:09 AM

measure actual fuel usage side-by-side

Agree on this. Mahirap talaga mag-compare ng FC because there is a lot of factors that goes with it. The consensus, though, is manufacturer's figures are grossly overblown.

Aside form the vehicle weight, engine displacement, size of tires, and other factors mentioned...FC can also be affected on how the engine was tuned and the gearing done.

Case in point, the 3.0 L Alterra Iteq seems to be more capable than it currently is. Obviously, it is tuned to be more economical. That is why yong iba nababagalan. Pero it can be upgraded, as other have already done, at bumilis pero at the expense of fuel consumption.

As for the suspension and ride quality....people who are accustomed to sedan rides are one very much sensitive to this aspect.

Whatever you do, SUVs with truck-based platforms generally give a harsher ride. The suspension are that way.. kaya nga sport-utility. And the by-product is a less comfortable ride.

The crossover vehicles (sedan-based platforms) are there for a much more on-road stability.

The problem is when people does not know the distinction between crossovers and true SUVs. I cannot blame them though as these vehicles are all lump under the rubric SUV in the Philippine market.