DavidSAnderson wrote:The new front end doesn't at all fit with the rest of the new sheet-metal that looks like an after-thought.
It's pretty clear, from the timeline, that Mitsubishi misread the whole random body lines fashion fad introduced by the Koreans as a lasting change in looks. Hyundai and Kia have largely dropped that look now and this new Triton does so too, although some remain, I suspect due to budgetary contraints. Nevertheless what sells is "macho". Ford have always understood this and it is a major factor in their Ranger's success, and the BT50's lack of success. Personally, I think that the "dynamic shield" look is pretty good and incorporating it into the Triton not only updates the Triton but extends the family look.
but the 3.2 behind an 8-speed auto would be a beast that would have Ranger Drivers (and us BT50 people) soiling themselves at red lights if any Tritons were around.
Perhaps. 8 speed transmissions are big, which is, in part, why the Amarok doesn't have low range, relying on high (numerical) ratios in the first couple of gears. At the other end, in most 8 speeders, everything from 4th on is an overdrive. Great for economy but overdriven gears don't take kindly to massive weights hanging off the back so become a bit useless if towing. A 6 speed gearbox, retaining a proper transfer case is more likely to give 4 "heavy duty" gear ratios, making it actually better for towing. 1st gear can be made a higher ratio, further improving off road performance and, in conjunction with the better low range ratio in the MQ, would be a giant killer.
While the Ford 3.2 is a nice smooth engine, my Pajero, with its lowly 5 speed auto, eats them for breakfast. Yet, on paper, they have very similar specifications. Gearing is everything and overcomes the ancient technology in the 4M41. Now, a bigger capacity version of the engine in the MQ would have me drooling in anticipation...
peter9231 wrote:Are you for real??
Its to stop you accidentally driving up the footpath and in to a café.
Not when you take off from the traffic lights.
I am. I quoted that section from the article in full and it does not
say that implementation of this feature is subject to detection of nearby objects. If this is the case and the feature works as you say then I'll agree that it is a good feature and that it was poorly explained in the article.