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

[XTO]

For the sake of would be passengers in the third row which of which has more room?

[ferdine]

For the sake of would be passengers in the third row which of which has more room?

Between a Fort and SF, proven na mas maluwag ang SF. Subok na dahil kapatid ko may Fort and I have an SF. My brother has a burly build kaya nung nag byahe kaming Batangas sinubukan nyang umupo sa third row. Mas ayus raw compared sa Fort.
For the new Montero no idea.

[alainroyce]

I'm getting 12-14 KPL sa city driving sa Santa Fe ko. Depende kasi ang pag gamit sa sasakyan. I dont care about it dahil I buy things for keeps. At bibihira pa akong nakakakita ng SF for sale these days...kung meron man, kokonti unlike forts

Nice FC 12-14 on Sta.Fe.. I DON'T argue on your FC i think it's on the driver, but their's a few driver can achieve what you get on your SF. Regarding SF for sale, your very much right on this.. their's a few SF for sale compare to fort probably the ratio of fort to SF 1 is to 50... O.T. na to...

[niky]

The Santa Fe seems to have a wider seat, longer leg room and more headroom. The Fort's seat seems further off the floor, but you need to move the second row all the way forward to get any legroom at all (my knees hurt badly after one trip back there).

[ryan]

I sat on the 2nd row of a friend's Santa Fe and seats are very comfortable naman. Pansin ko lang is mas masikip legroom ng SF compared to Montero Sport and hindi sya pwede i slide forward or back.

[Gen. Miting]

i think it's not only a question of more legroom space. the Montero and The Fort are just like the Everest, based on pickup floor. so ano ba maging upo mo, parang upo ng FX ba na diretso straightforward or sedan-like upo na medyo naka-slouch buong body as is with crossovers like the Sta Fe or Captiva

[FBSS]

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.

[SIZE=2]G[SIZE=2]ood answe[/SIZE]r but not that good as what I’ve been expecting from a guru… I have only two questions but unfortunately you failed to directly answer them. Let me repeat them but this time with additional comments.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Regarding the FC. All the vehicles that I mentioned traveled the same routes. The way we are measuring the FC is putting a full tank and fill it again (full tank) to know how many liters are consumed during the travel. This is also an accurate method in measuring the FC.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]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?

Old Starex has Double Wishbone suspension (ride is better than the new one)
New Starex has the Macpherson one (you can really feel the bumps on the roads. Even small bumps)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Have you tried riding the new Grand Starex? If you haven’t then I will tell you my observations… In the new Starex, the ride is stiffer than the old one, and you can easily feel the small bumps on the road unlike the old one which is softer and not that bouncy than the new one. So can you explain again, this time forget about the WEB. Stop copying and pasting to avoid long replies again…

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?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]In you previous message, you mentioned that the Santa Fe has the best engine (small, yet powerful). Can a small yet powerful engine can be an advantage against the competition considering same Fuel Consumption? I think that if you tuned a small engine to provide more power you are just putting stress in it thus shortening its life.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]

[FBSS]

A eh makikisingit lang po.... Ako naman po ay isang happy owner ng Hyundai Sta. Fe 4X2...

Sa totoo lang po wala akong reklamo sa sasakyan ko "as of the moment" kase maganda ang performance nya. Except nga lang po sa kulang ang passenger airbag. Kaya lagi kong pinapag-seatbelt kapag may katabi akong pasahero.

Actually ang FC naman minsan din depende mismo sa ugali natin magmaneho. Kung gigil ka umapak sa gas or bigla bigla ka prepreno at aarangkada, definitely tataas ang FC mo kase the engine uses more power di po ba?

On the other hand, maganda rin naman ang performance ng cars ng Mitsubishi kase we had our series of Pajeros before kaya lang napansin namin na in less than two years, maitim na ang usok na binubuga ng tambutso... Ngayon po ba kamusta na ang diesel engine cars ng Mitsu?

Yun lang naman po ang aking opinyon... Salamat po.

also add 4x4 and rear sensors for a 1.5Montero against 1.528 Santa Fe 4x2

[FBSS]

I dont know why some people here are posting facts that comes from heresays, friends, friends of friends and relatives...Mag test drive ka muna ng SUV bago ka mag-comment I own a 07 CRV and 2.2crdi SF...Mas malakas pa sa gaso ang CRV and I'm getting 12-14 KPL sa city driving sa Santa Fe ko. Depende kasi ang pag gamit sa sasakyan. Kung mahilig kang mangarera at barumbado ka mag-drive like most of the drivers here in Metro Manila. Malamang malakas talaga lumaklak ng fuel ang kahit na anong sasakyan.
I cannot comment what would be the resale value of my SF. I dont care about it dahil I buy things for keeps. At bibihira pa akong nakakakita ng SF for sale these days...kung meron man, kokonti unlike forts

wow! 12 to 14 km/l in city driving? amazing! but can you tell me which city are you referring to? Is this city based from provinces where theres no traffic?

Cummulative sales from 2007 to 2008 states that Santa Fe only sold less than half of the Fortuner total sales. So it's normal that you will see less Santa Fe for sale (2nd hand)

[LadyRider]

wow! 12 to 14 km/l in city driving? amazing! but can you tell me which city are you referring to? Is this city based from provinces where theres no traffic?

Cummulative sales from 2007 to 2008 states that Santa Fe only sold less than half of the Fortuner total sales. So it's normal that you will see less Santa Fe for sale (2nd hand)

Honestly Sir FBSS, you wouldn't know the facts unless you own one isn't it? We know what we are saying because we own one. You can't judge a car just by test driving it once or twice. You have to own it to see its power and potential.

Of course almost all top manufacturers of cars will say that they have sold more than what they were expecting...Why? It's because of competition in the market.

It's just this... There are no perfect cars.. Only close to perfect ones! What may be the best for you, may not be the best for others. Di po ba?