Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons - Page 12




Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Results 221 to 239 of 239
  1. #221
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    maropeng
    Age
    52
    Posts
    159
    Thanked: 7

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenen View Post
    Nope, goed vir altwee. Merc gebruik al klaar baie engins van nissan/renault. Renault/Nissan/Mercedes is klaar in selfde bed vir mutual benefit...
    I hope Mercedes-benz use the same 3.0l v6 twin turbo diesel as in the ML 350 CDI / GLE 350 CDI. It will worst case be on par with the VW -V6 and at best overshadow whatever any other manufacturer has for now. (190 kw / 620 Nm), but then if you want a racing car, buy a platkar.
    2013 Ranger Wildtrak 4x4 auto

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    alberton
    Age
    33
    Posts
    126
    Thanked: 31

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Guys....really......as entertaining as banter is this is just too much. If you dont have something good to say or at least constructive then dont. I think this type of behaviour puts people off big time.

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MUGmug For This Useful Post:


  4. #223
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Age
    40
    Posts
    708
    Thanked: 40

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Good! The one way Amarok bashing Boer bashing is too much anyway. Put the low lives off! Let us have a powerful comfortable capable bakkie if/when we can afford it.
    Last edited by Boston; 16 Hours Ago at 01:35 PM.
    120kw Amarok Bi-Tdi 4Motion
    183kw s6 Falcon

  5. #224
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kempton Park
    Age
    50
    Posts
    13,145
    Thanked: 268

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Jip. Does not help to get personal. Enjoy what you can afford.
    Turnkey Construction Projects, Commercial, industrial, Domestic
    Importers: Diving gear, Compressed air cylinders for diving and airgun industry, 4x4 equipment.
    Manufacturers: Pofadder Kinetic ropes, Recovery kits, Synthetic winch ropes
    Vehicles: Modifications and installations, Special application vehicles
    Driver training: 4x4, Defensive
    herman@angeloffroad.co.za
    +27824453301

  6. #225
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Glenvista
    Age
    28
    Posts
    94
    Thanked: 29

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    effens onnodig om mense so persoonlik aan te vat omdat hulle nie van jou gunsteling bakkie hou nie
    A journey is a person in itself; no two are alike. And all plans, safeguards, policing, and coercion are fruitless. We find that after years of struggle that we do not take a trip; a trip takes us.
    John Steinbeck

  7. #226
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    alberton
    Age
    33
    Posts
    126
    Thanked: 31

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Its like ive said before....from a pshycological point of view. Whats the difference between giving advice or having an opinion between a car and a what house you should buy or area you should stay in. Based on personal experience...affordabilty..our needs and also what we find attractive we give opinions and advice. We dont really boast or look down on others based on what house we live in or where we stay...why do it with cars. Think I just answered my own question. People do boast about their houses so its probably natural to do it with cars then too...

  8. #227
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    East London
    Age
    32
    Posts
    13,972
    Thanked: 529

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Toyota nad Ford don't have promo days like that because they can't outperform the competition

  9. #228
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Bloemfontein
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,398
    Thanked: 159

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston View Post
    wat maak julle hier in die Volkswagen afdeling van die forum? -*
    Dieselfde kan seker dan gevra word wat soek jy op hierdie RSA forum?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston View Post
    geen wonder dat daai land in sy moer is nie.
    2011 Fortuner 3.0 D-4D 4x4
    2008 Lexus IS250
    Jaco



  10. #229
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    George
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,270
    Thanked: 152

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by JacoE View Post
    Why? Because the timing and more importantly the price was right!
    Isn't that what marketing is all about?

    Quote Originally Posted by eyc View Post
    ...Now , if VW would just ... include airbags in the back , I`ll be ready to take out by checkbook for an otherwise great bakkie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beurvoort View Post
    ...the airbag issue in the back is overplayed. Still one of the safest vehicles and DC bakkies on the road.
    I think it is a fair comment by eyc. Why on earth did they not just include those rear airbags?
    Tyrannosaurus R5 and a second hand British Tata
    Quote Originally Posted by 2beFree View Post
    Jan your signature says it all

  11. #230
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Midrand Estates
    Age
    49
    Posts
    192
    Thanked: 32

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    That is called marketing and takes hard work but has payed off handsomely for Ford.
    How can you be old and wise
    if you were never young and wild

    2016 Ford Ranger 3.2 XLT 4X4 Auto
    2015 Ford Ranger 3.2 XLT Auto
    2015 Mini Countryman
    2016 Conqueror Companion 2B

  12. #231
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    East London
    Age
    32
    Posts
    13,972
    Thanked: 529

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by JanB View Post

    Why on earth did they not just include those rear airbags?
    It's a superior engine, chassis, gearbox and differentials with quality materials and extraordinary assembly in terms of materials and coatings etc. Those things are expensive.

    They have to save money somewhere or it may turn over a million for the vehicle.

  13. #232
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northern KZN
    Age
    50
    Posts
    72
    Thanked: 7

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by JanB View Post
    Isn't that what marketing is all about?





    I think it is a fair comment by eyc. Why on earth did they not just include those rear airbags?
    JanB I honestly don`t know why VW did not add the curtain airbags in the rear, may be the cost did not justify the perceived or improved safety to a certain degree but who knows. I suspect they have good reason. Personally I have never owned a vehicle with rear airbags, and it has not made me feel more unsafe or the other passengers in my vehicle. What I am trying to say is, the absence of rear airbags would certainly not prevent me from buying the V6 if I could afford it.

    Groetnis

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Beurvoort For This Useful Post:


  15. #233
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    alberton
    Age
    33
    Posts
    126
    Thanked: 31

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    I agree JanB. That in todays world you cant skimp on safety and I too cant understand vw's thinking when it comes to those rear airbags but then it didnt stop me from buying my amarok a couple of months ago. Amarok handles better and is permanent 4 wheel drive. So i think its a case of prevention is better than cure. Rather avoid the accident than deal with it and have airbags. Still just add the bloody rear airbags vw. It cant be that expensive or difficult...you guys are after all....ze germans!

  16. #234
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gordon's Bay
    Age
    47
    Posts
    27,843
    Thanked: 2507

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by JanB View Post
    Isn't that what marketing is all about?





    I think it is a fair comment by eyc. Why on earth did they not just include those rear airbags?
    Quote Originally Posted by MariusFourie View Post
    It's a superior engine, chassis, gearbox and differentials with quality materials and extraordinary assembly in terms of materials and coatings etc. Those things are expensive.

    They have to save money somewhere or it may turn over a million for the vehicle.


    I think that it's not really viable to simply shove in a couple of airbags.

    The force generated by an airbag is significant - and can certainly do more harm than good should it come loose or should it's mounting twist and it deploys incorrectly etc.

    It's a hell of a lot of design work to get the installation correct, and certainly very hard to retrofit. the reworking of the frame would be significant - it's something you need to design in as an integral part of the design, not add later.

    The Amarok basic shell is a few years old now and certainly not designed to accept rear airbags. presumably, now it's a thing, the next generation will have them.

    "the village scoundrel" - Uys
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. Douglas Adams
    those who can, do; those who can't, teach George Bernard Shaw
    A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business. Henry Ford
    it is better to be irresponsible and right than to be responsible and wrong Winston Churchill

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Apocalypse For This Useful Post:


  18. #235
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    George
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,270
    Thanked: 152

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    I think not including those airbags is a marketing fail. Consumers expect it from a modern vehicle, especially a premium product. The V6 Amarok is VW's player in the bakkie-based and off-road SUV market. It is not intended to compete with plaasbakkies. The consumers in that market do consider the safety of the vehicle at 120 km/h on a highway an important factor.
    If VW reckons that those rear airbags will not contribute significantly to the safety of the vehicle, they must say so. They cannot just keep quiet about it and hope no one notices.
    Tyrannosaurus R5 and a second hand British Tata
    Quote Originally Posted by 2beFree View Post
    Jan your signature says it all

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to JanB For This Useful Post:


  20. #236
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vanderbijlpark
    Age
    48
    Posts
    3,737
    Thanked: 221

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by chartmaster View Post
    I hope Mercedes-benz use the same 3.0l v6 twin turbo diesel as in the ML 350 CDI / GLE 350 CDI. It will worst case be on par with the VW -V6 and at best overshadow whatever any other manufacturer has for now. (190 kw / 620 Nm), but then if you want a racing car, buy a platkar.
    Dont let figures be the be all and end all. We had a Treg and now a GLE. The Treg is decidedly quicker than the GLE. It also makes it power over a wider rpm range.
    2014 Milk Bottle D/Cab Auto 4x4
    Too wide, Too low, Too expensive, Too cheating, No reverse


  21. #237
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Swakopmund
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,225
    Thanked: 50

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    I think that it's not really viable to simply shove in a couple of airbags.

    The force generated by an airbag is significant - and can certainly do more harm than good should it come loose or should it's mounting twist and it deploys incorrectly etc.

    It's a hell of a lot of design work to get the installation correct, and certainly very hard to retrofit. the reworking of the frame would be significant - it's something you need to design in as an integral part of the design, not add later.

    The Amarok basic shell is a few years old now and certainly not designed to accept rear airbags. presumably, now it's a thing, the next generation will have them.

    Isn't it an optional extra though?


    Quite normal for other VWs like the Jetta
    1999 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.0 V6 SWB

    2012 VW Jetta 1.4 TSI

  22. #238
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Age
    40
    Posts
    708
    Thanked: 40

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Quote Originally Posted by JacoE View Post
    Dieselfde kan seker dan gevra word wat soek jy op hierdie RSA forum?
    Hou jy en jou mede Toujouta liefhebber vriende op om die Amarok en die wat dit kies te bash en te terroriseer hier in die Volkswagen seksie (doen dit soveel as jy wil in die Toyota -en ander afdelings- maar nie hier waar ek kom om oor my keuse van voertuig te lees en gesels nie) en ek sal met liefde van die toneel af verdwyn
    120kw Amarok Bi-Tdi 4Motion
    183kw s6 Falcon

  23. #239
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Centurion
    Age
    42
    Posts
    290
    Thanked: 43

    Default Re: Amarok V6 vs Ranger 3.2 towing 1.5 tons

    Terroriseer? Metrosexuals? Now there's 2 terms you don't often see together.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •