That was very informative. The Gen 1 Everest had a party trick that not many people knew about - you could select Low range in Normal mode, so you could use low range on the bitumen/high traction surfaces. This was/is great for steep driveways & streets. It's also great for reversing with or without a trailer/caravan as it makes everything much more controllable. It still should have had a manual centre diff lock though - no excuse for that Ford!
@@L2SFBC great! I like them a lot but checking out your vids the previous gen had very poor TC upfront. Even the discovery or prado without any lockers performed much better
Great info Robert well done. I have ordered the next gen Wildtrak for its increased GCM for my Jayco 3.1 ATM Silverline, but now I’m undecided between the Platinum Everest or the Wildtrak.
We like the SUV as opposed to a UTE, we have an F Pace now but the towing capacity is no good. The increase in GCM to 6250 along with the V6 engine and the inside spec of the platinum made us consider the Everest. In your opinion which would you recommend? Our van is due for delivery in Nov, it’s the Silverline 24.75 so quite a large van
The only reason to buy the Ranger is payload and space. If you don't need either, Everest. Use my tow calculator here for an idea of weights -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator/
@@L2SFBC Thanks Robert - I am in exactly the same situation as Stuart. Back to the dealer to try and change order from Wildtrack to Everest. Great vid.
Well layed out video, but regarding weights...but should we really be throwing 3.5t vans on there medium sized suvs and lightweight Ute's? ..and yes, I realise that's their spec, but for safety?
Yeah spot on Ross. No way these vehicles should have 3.5T vans behind them. This fascination with 3.5T is stupid, and don't get me started on the peanuts behind the wheel who have no idea or prob training in how to tow trailers, not to mention how to load them correctly. It's a disaster waiting to happen. Move with the times , get folks to be endorsed on their licence for towing braked trailers.
Great to point information. Looks like great vehicle if FORD can deliver on promises. The fuel tank and other minor accessories if less than desirable can be changed with after market items but so far the spec’s hit in sweet spot for tourers and caravaners. Great work FORD. Just need axles capacities next. Fuel economy we really don’t worry about too much because they will be near every other V6 3L.
Agree, we can expect consumption to the close to the old 2.0, and the 3.0 a little more as weights/aero are the same. The 3kW 2.0 difference may be because of emissions and may or may mean a tiny fuel consumption reduction.
@@L2SFBC Hi Robert, seems 4X4 are getting heavier and better fuel economy or are they. If you can do some research into 1990 to 2010 dual cabs weight and fuel economy and engine size, have we progressed? Putting a new style engine in old vehicle would get better outcome ie fuel economy, tow capacity etc.
We have progressed - cars are more fuel-efficient now than ever, even allowing for increased size and mass. The size of engine does not determine tow capacity, it's more around chassis, cooling etc.
Hi Robert, the first thing that came to mind when you were talking wheel and brake diameters was that it is common for manufacturers to fit larger brakes to models with a more powerful engine.....curious to see what Ford do here, as it may mean min wheel diameter of 18in or even 19in for the V6 models....
Exactly, but am hopeful that 17s will fit all the way around, unlike others as you say. I just realised as I wrote this that the engines aren't the same and the 3.0 may have bigger brakes...we'll see!
@@craigice9635 many 4x4s benefit from 17s over 18s allowing for fitment of a higher profile tyre whist maintaining overall wheel diameter. Improved ride and the ability to deflate lower if needed are just two benefits. Currently 17in tyres are more readily available and price competitive too.
Amen to that. I had 2015 model that had an ad-blue fault that ford couldn't fix. So I ditched it for a Fortuner (at least Toyota fixed the DPF problem with the 1GD motor). I am really tempted by the V6, and the everest was so bloody nice to drive, but I am hesitant to trust another ford. Also, offroad the Toyota is unbeatable. Frankly, the days are numbered for diesels with all of the emissions controls being loaded onto them.
@@garrygraham7901 I've got a 2021 sport and the adblue level set up is a nightmare. You never really know how much adblue is in the tank. I'm definitely getting the new gen sport 3l v6 just because of that reason
@@mattbarrett8092 my problems started when I refilled the ad-blue and the ecu wouldn't reset it. It took ford 4 days to fix it. Then it started failing on the road, going into limp mode mode, requiring me to restart to reset it. After a second attempt by ford to fix it, I had it fail 6 times in 200 kms on the Hume Highway towing the van on a trip to Tassie. Then the terrain management system started failing, locking the diff lock on until it decided to reset it after a few attempts to restart. It was beautiful to drive, but broke my heart.
@@garrygraham7901same here mate the adblue never really registers properly when reffiled. I haven't had any issues yet but I know a few other owners that have had to spend money. I'm on the list to get the new everest so 🤞 Hopefully this new gen range is better, I think its promising. There's no arguing with running a Toyota though so reliable 👍
@@mattbarrett8092 yeah mate, I am really tempted by the next gen V6, probably the Ranger for the payload advantage (I do a bit of towing), but I would be really nervous about committing. I got my Fortuner with something of a heavy heart after the Everest (the Ford was beautiful to drive when it was working) but I have grown to love the Toyota, especially offroad, where it is an absolute weapon. Even though there was an early design issue with the DPF, Toyota were great and replaced it with the new one with, I think, a 10 year warranty. Otherwise it is faultless and solid. I am thinking the Ford won't have the same issues with their DPF. Good luck with the new one, Matt. I totally admire your faith...it really looks like a winner at this stage. I am so torn between the specifications offered by the Ford, and the pain of the heartbreak from my Everest. I might wait a while and see how they perform in the real world. At least the V6 has a long history, so hopefully it is sorted as a reliable package. Who knows, maybe I'll risk it...
What about load space? And what about fuel tank capacity? The Gen1 Everest had a very narrow rear cargo space. That was a deal breaker for me. Also important in fuel tank size and range on a tank.
Can you explain why you changed the way you calculated the payload in the slide with the LC300? Both the LC300 and Everest have a similar payload when you look at the GVM v Kerbweight as we know. But I find it an interesting way to start with GCM less ATM less Kerb and show that on the screen in comparisons, but then change the calculation method of the LC300 but show it the same on the screen.
I didn't change the calculation, in a way. In order to determine payload you need to do at least 3 calculations - GCM, GVM and rear axle - the payload could be limited by any of the three depending on which you hit first. Ideally, a car's GCM = GVM + max braked tow, but often not...as is the case with the Everest. Toyota do much better with the LC300, but that car has a small payload unlike the Ranger. And, the TBM gets counted twice; once as part of GCM, and again as part of GVM in seperate calculations. It's all very confusing. This is why I made a calculator -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator/
@@L2SFBC yes I understand it, thank you. I was meaning when you put it on a PowerPoint slide like that and don't explain it fully, others don't really understand. Even in a recent forum, people were trying to explain the GCM was irrelevant for a LR Discovery for example as other factors came into play first like payload mainly, but they still don't get it, saying... "Everest GCM 6250 Minus 3500 trailer Leaves 2750 Minus tare weight 2409 Leaves payload 341 LR Discovery GCM 6550 Minus 3500 trailer leaves 3050 less tare weight of discovery of 2230 leaves payload 820kg ” Now I know that is not the way to do above, but when you also start with GCM and work backwards like you did, people forget about GVM/Payload and rear axle as you said. Well done though, it's hard to explain!
It's tough - if I explained it fully it'd turn people off and be just a mass of numbers. So I opted to just present the final numbers this time. There is no way to quickly and simply explain this fully to the average driver who has little grasp of physics or maths. Even worse as those with a little knowlege as in the LR5 example above...one is GCM limited, the other is GVM limited. In the intro to that part I did say there are 3 calculations and I'm doing two only showing the result not the working. I don't have axle data for the Everest.
I'm tossing up between a Trend and Ambiente - from what I can find, they're much the same minus a few minor details (like the grille and electric seats), am I correct? I'm thinking I just opt for the Ambiente and put some nicer wheels on later. Thoughts?
Correct me if I'm wrong but when calculating the payload from GCM you have taken the total van weight (ATM) from the GCM and then taken the TBM as well which is not correct. The ATM already includes the TBM as ATM=TBM+GTM. If calculating the payload from GVM, then you deduct the TBM, however, the ATM or GTM are irrelevant. Bit confusing how you have done it. Really need to do both calcs to determine which one is worse.
There's the complication right there. The payload may be limited by the GCM or the GVM, or even rear axle load. So, one formula cannot work - you need to do two and see which is the limiter. The ATM does include the TBM, but for the purposes of calculating payload, you must also consider the effect of TBM on GVM so you double-count. For the purposes of GCM, you count it once only. So - the calculations depend on what you're wanting to measure, and there are sometimes 3 different ones to do to see which is the lower limit. Or just use this -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator
@@L2SFBC Agreed and you website calculator is excellent. Was just a bit concerned that the video only referred to GCM even though I know you are well across all of the towing calcs.
It's a balance I constantly struggle with. Do I explain in detail every calculation and how I did it...which will go over the head of most and end up making the video an hour, or do I just show the results. I went for the latter this time.
@@L2SFBC Thanks Robert, I read your response to a similar question from a viewer and was going to withdraw the question, but since comments help the algorithm, I decided against deleting my comment.
The video was excellent and helps with the decision on my next tow vehicle. My only problem is understanding the payload because I don't know what you mean by kerb weight. What does kerb weight include above Tare weight? Any help would be appreciated.
# All payloads are calculated by deducting the vehicle’s Maximum Kerb Weight from its Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM). Kerb Weight includes the vehicle with a full tank of fuel, without occupants, luggage or cargo and with factory fitted optional equipment included. Vehicle weights are approximate and subject to individual variances. That's Ford's definition, which is not consistent across the industry.
@@L2SFBC Thanks very for the feedback, I now know what Ford means by Kerb weight. I wish there was consistency across the industry to ensure we keep our tow vehicles legal.
Am i reading this wrong or is it evident that the Ranger ute is a better tow vehicle choice than the LC300? Apart from the lower GCM it has a much higher leftover payload than the LC300. Iv done some calculations and i believe i can stay below the GCM of 6400kg. Also the new V6 in the ranger gives me confidence it has the grunt to do the job as it closer to the LC300 torque and power figures. I think its also exempt from Lux car tax as the payload is higher than the 68kg x 5 passages. Another thing if your a tradesperson is you can claim the ute as a work vehicle which you cant do as a suv or wagon. So if you towing a 3100kg caravan, why would you go for the LC300?
Depends on 'better'. On the numbers alone, yes in some ways by virtue of the Ranger's greater payload. However, the LC300 is heavier, AWD, more powerful etc...that is better than the Ranger. So, it depends. Which would I go for? Impossible to say without knowing more about your situation.
@@L2SFBC Iv ordered a 19 foot caravan that will apparently weigh up to 3100kg fully loaded. I plan on loading the car with a boat on the roof 3.7m and the family (4 total) I wish to travel various parts of Australia including sand destinations like Fraser island. I will also use this vehicle for various 4wding without the caravan, getting to hunting locations etc. I preferred a ute for tax purposes but prefer to have the better vehicle for the job should this not be a ute Whats your opinion? Can you do a video on best towing off-road SUV/wagon, and best Ute Also one on GVM upgrades and warranty issues that might arise from such a modification Thanks
The only reason to buy the Ranger is payload and space. If you don't need either, Everest. Use my tow calculator here for an idea of weights -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator/ Given your plans, I would suggest the Everest will lack payload so you're better off with the Ranger. I have done two videos on GVM upgrades - what they are and effect on towing, search this channel for 'gvm'.
XLT is a Ranger trim not Everest - the Everest tends to be GCM-limited more than than LC300, yes, as the LC300's max tow + GVM is close to its GVM, whereas the Everest is not so close. Sorry got it wrong way around.
2WD or RWD mode comes in handy for highway non towing cruising for fuel economy in dry/hot conditions so that is good for Ford to offer that as apposed to AWD on DEMAND (which is sadly reactive and not proactive as in constant AWD). For my needs I no longer tow however I do appreciate all the facts you have mentioned about towing, good to know and use this as a resource for others who will tow with the new gen Everest. I agree about the new "TMS" software driven for off road work, they basically are traction/fuel cut out modes which in reality are useless, that said 4A (so basically AWD On-Demand (again reactive not constant) via multi-clutch should be fine for those roads where you need 4WD but are still on mixed surfsces like asphalt/concrete/gravel/washboard dirt/gravel ... That said the good news and this has been confirmed by Ford Australia that 4H is a proper 4x4 High Range which means a locked centre diff which splits torque 50/50 and 4x4 Low also means locked centre diff and off course there is the RDL which can be used with traction control active on front axle, that said it appears alao with the Ranger Raptor getting an official FDL that it will be much easier to fit FDL into Everest since it's a straight swap of parts unlike with current Everest . For me the sweet spot is Ambiente with 4x4, don't need 7 seat option, don't need all the fancy high-end stiff, just need 4A (AWD and one would hope that the system does not revert back to 2WD everytime you restart as that would be a major PITA) I'm fine with the smaller 2L sequential turbo diesel and I would simply lock out 9 and 10th gear using the manual mode option in sports mode (which you can do with current version of Everest with this engine/transmission), at 110km/h 8th (which is actually 1st overide) the engine is revving at a measily 1,800rpm.which is right at peak 500Nm torque band. That said I am not in the market for one right now ... Very happy with my 2016 Everest Ambiente AWD/4X4 love the lazy 3.2L 5cyl and 6-apeed with sequential select shift, even with 320,000+km it still is very good. Also for those who want to know about emissions control the new gen Everest actually is Euro 5 (unlike current gen with his Euro 6) so does that mean SCR (ad blue) has been removed ??? Ford have made no mention about this and I find that very strange that it would go backwards from 6 to 5 since this vehicle is going to be sold in Europe which is now at minimum 6D specs for emissions control. Any idea aboun6 that Robbert?
Don't know re AdBlue. Adaptive Terrain systems are useful but not essential. Land Rover's Terrain Response is the first, and still the best. I would expect any fuel consumption improvement to be very very tiny in 2WD as the driveshafts etc are still rotating. With modern autos I'd just leave the 'box to do its own thing.
I very much use the sequential sports shift when on highways and especially going up and down hills, I have found that leaving the transmission to do its own thing in drive causes me to use the brakes more downhill and up/down shifting up hills get annoying considering the engine has 470Nm torque over a much wider rev range, anyway everyone has there own preference. With regards to the 2WD option if its like the F150/250/350 version that the front axle had a decouple clutch (which is what the Territory Turbo Diesel had) which means it's pure RWD and won't activate the front differential so there will be a difference in fuel economy the only downside is the vehicle still carries the extra weight of the running gear however again the upside is probably worth it in the long run. The Euro 6 to 5 thing is a mystery, it was the same with the current Escape which is also Euro 5 while precious gen with the 2L turbo petrol was Euro 6 (I know as.I have a ZG Escape and it's Euro 6) so have Ford droped SCR from the next gen Everest? Anyone at Ford want to confirm? I just spoke with a regional dealer and the waiting time is not worth it lol, very happy with the 1st gen Everest Ambiente, the last major drive I did with it fully loaded with supplies for the farm saw 9.5L /100km and on the return drive (basically empty just me) 8L / 100km and yes I did use the sequential shift mode the lazy 3.2L has more then enough torque to pull 6th gear from as low as 70km so once you get up to speed you can simply leave it in 6th and then use cruise control to control speed and then use upshift to 5th or 4th for engine breaking if needing to hold speed downhill.
@@L2SFBC - have some "unofficial" info from someone who is a 3rd party to VW for the Amarok. The all new Amarok will be Euro 6 so it will have SCR (re: adblue - or in VW speak - Bluemotion) on all turbo diesel engines and on the potential for AU market the turbo petrol /PHEV will have GPF (otherwise known as a PPF - Petrol Particulate Filter). Here is the thing though, the Amarok will be made in the South Africa facility while Ranger/Everest will come from Thailand facility, one thing we do know is the Ranger will retain Euro 5 emissions control but no one (other then Ford) knows about the Everest, or if they do know they are probably not allowed to say right now.
UPDATE: As of 13th May 2022 it's been finally confirmed hat the next gen Everest will be EURO 5 emissions compliance (which is actually a downgrade for the current gen Everest with is EURO 6) however it will continue with SCR (ad blue), now for unconfirmed info, the ad blue tank size has been upped from 18 litres to 21 litres, this is due to the addition of the V6 engine also the extra 400kg owing allowance . The reason why Everest continues with SCR is due to other international markets where Everest must be Euro 6 (diesel 2.0L sequential turbo / 3.0L turbo V6) and 6d (diesel 2.0Lturbo) even though as Euro 5 emissions compliance it's not needed. Also confirmed is the vehicle compliance which retains "MC" compliance, as many would remember the original "UA" Everest was "MA" compliance which caused owners all sorts of issues if they modified things like tyres and suspensions.
Great report Robert. When displaying its peers pity you didn't put the MUX with its claimed 3.5t towing. It would be fair but would expose the 'real payloads'. Also that unlike the LC300 the new MUX, like the gen 2 Everest sporns from a 3.5t tow rated 4x4 ute. The 2.0l Everest Sport 4x4 is probably only a few $k over the MUX LS-T. Excellent Ford is putting the new transfer case system similar (as you mention) to Mitsubishi's Super Select II. Which highlights again why the MUX is a very inferior proposition as a family/tow car lacking AWD (4H in Mitsi speak). This Ford in theory is the only car I could step up to from my Pajero Sport and not go backwards with (except warranty). Well done Ford. Gen 2 is a big improvement unlike the gen 2 MUX which is a complete disappointment with its part time 4x4, overstated real world towing ability limited by poor GVM and GCM. If only you could let the viewers know what a mistake rushing into an MUX is right now if hoping to tow even 3.1t.
@@L2SFBC I want your channel to really succeed. There are so many directions for it to grow into. If you show pictures of aeroplanes and continue to discuss EV's I'll probably take it up a notch and blow your income out of the water (percentage wise).
Ford is very smart. They totally cater for the grey nomads and their caravans. At half the price of a LC300, they are going to be at the top on the sales charts. Why doesn’t other manufacturers not listen to their customer base? Toyota has a lot of work to do with their next Prado if they hope to have some market share, and yes, ai am a Prado owner.
I can't drift my RWD Ford Ranger high rider even with the traction control switched off... To be fair it's a very good system and is quick to correct even when the driver is being silly. Anyone know how to fully switch off the TC?
Hi, great video. I’ve narrowed down my choice of tow vehicle down to two options to tow our 3.0T ATM Jayco 1. 2016 landrover Disco 4 HSE 3.0L v6. 2. Next gen ford Everest sport V6 with 696kg payload. I really like the discovery’s auto leveling air suspension so no extra money is needed to modify the rear suspension for the rear load and when unloaded the suspension is back to a soft ride. However there is something in the LR manual saying with TBM loads of greater than 150kg, gvm must reduce by the amount of weight above 150? Has anyone got any further info on this discovery tbm restriction? Also would the discovery 4 win as overall better tow vehicle for a 3ton van? Cheers
Would need to see the owner's manual itself to comment - have heard of this with LR before. Would D4 be better on the numbers...possibly yes have to look at your specific situation. Use my calculator to start -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator/
I wouldn’t look at a Discovery unless you plan on taking large quantity of spare parts and your a L&R mechanic. There nice looking but will let you down at drop of hat, Land Rover Support is non-existent and large cost. This should all play into your final choice as we can’t keep changing vehicles.
I nearly pulled the trigger on the current generation, but the cheapest of the cheap plastics were a turn off, I wanted a V6 in lieu of yhe 2.0tt, the interior was too close to my BA Falcon, the 10sp auto was finicky at low speed, it seemed a touch too narrow at the rear. Now that all of my short comings have been addressed and she Thicc at the rear it's seems to good to be true! Now it all comes down to price, otherwise I'll keep drooling!
I will be looking for a single vehicle in the not too distant future, to replace my Patrol and GTI. It will be a Wagon bodied tow vehicle so the Everest is in the category that suits me. I was hoping the Everest would get the VW V6 engine, but sadly this didn't happen. For my taste the interior is an absolutely classless ugly abomination with that giant screen. And I'm sure Ford will have added another dozen chimes so that when you open the door the symphony will begin until minutes after the car is started, your door is closed, and your seat belt is latched..... Then it will probably chime to tell you your handbrake is still on..... So there will be no Everest in my future.
This guy is Legend ... so easy to understand 😌 thanks mate !!!!!
Happy to help please share!
That was very informative. The Gen 1 Everest had a party trick that not many people knew about - you could select Low range in Normal mode, so you could use low range on the bitumen/high traction surfaces. This was/is great for steep driveways & streets. It's also great for reversing with or without a trailer/caravan as it makes everything much more controllable. It still should have had a manual centre diff lock though - no excuse for that Ford!
Yes just like Defenders 😁
Always informative vids thank you mate! You gotta get rid of that jingle though 🙏🏻
Hey Robert great content. Could you do a hill of truth video with the new gen everest to see if TC has been improved?
It has been and if I get a chance, yes!
@@L2SFBC great! I like them a lot but checking out your vids the previous gen had very poor TC upfront. Even the discovery or prado without any lockers performed much better
Great info Robert well done. I have ordered the next gen Wildtrak for its increased GCM for my Jayco 3.1 ATM Silverline, but now I’m undecided between the Platinum Everest or the Wildtrak.
What made you consider the Everest?
We like the SUV as opposed to a UTE, we have an F Pace now but the towing capacity is no good.
The increase in GCM to 6250 along with the V6 engine and the inside spec of the platinum made us consider the Everest. In your opinion which would you recommend? Our van is due for delivery in Nov, it’s the Silverline 24.75 so quite a large van
The only reason to buy the Ranger is payload and space. If you don't need either, Everest. Use my tow calculator here for an idea of weights -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator/
Thanks Robert really useful, thank you so much
@@L2SFBC Thanks Robert - I am in exactly the same situation as Stuart. Back to the dealer to try and change order from Wildtrack to Everest. Great vid.
Well layed out video, but regarding weights...but should we really be throwing 3.5t vans on there medium sized suvs and lightweight Ute's? ..and yes, I realise that's their spec, but for safety?
No we should not! Tow 2/3 max for safety.
Yeah spot on Ross. No way these vehicles should have 3.5T vans behind them. This fascination with 3.5T is stupid, and don't get me started on the peanuts behind the wheel who have no idea or prob training in how to tow trailers, not to mention how to load them correctly. It's a disaster waiting to happen. Move with the times , get folks to be endorsed on their licence for towing braked trailers.
Great to point information. Looks like great vehicle if FORD can deliver on promises.
The fuel tank and other minor accessories if less than desirable can be changed with after market items but so far the spec’s hit in sweet spot for tourers and caravaners.
Great work FORD. Just need axles capacities next. Fuel economy we really don’t worry about too much because they will be near every other V6 3L.
Agree, we can expect consumption to the close to the old 2.0, and the 3.0 a little more as weights/aero are the same. The 3kW 2.0 difference may be because of emissions and may or may mean a tiny fuel consumption reduction.
@@L2SFBC Hi Robert, seems 4X4 are getting heavier and better fuel economy or are they. If you can do some research into 1990 to 2010 dual cabs weight and fuel economy and engine size, have we progressed?
Putting a new style engine in old vehicle would get better outcome ie fuel economy, tow capacity etc.
We have progressed - cars are more fuel-efficient now than ever, even allowing for increased size and mass. The size of engine does not determine tow capacity, it's more around chassis, cooling etc.
Keep the Everest video’s coming - we have one on order in the family.
Good to hear and I do plan to do more
Very nicely done video
Thanks please share 👍
Hi Robert, the first thing that came to mind when you were talking wheel and brake diameters was that it is common for manufacturers to fit larger brakes to models with a more powerful engine.....curious to see what Ford do here, as it may mean min wheel diameter of 18in or even 19in for the V6 models....
Exactly, but am hopeful that 17s will fit all the way around, unlike others as you say. I just realised as I wrote this that the engines aren't the same and the 3.0 may have bigger brakes...we'll see!
V6 models can be optioned with 18's from Ford, not sure if 17's fit V6.
@@craigice9635 many 4x4s benefit from 17s over 18s allowing for fitment of a higher profile tyre whist maintaining overall wheel diameter. Improved ride and the ability to deflate lower if needed are just two benefits. Currently 17in tyres are more readily available and price competitive too.
Definitely and 17s also easier to change in the field!
Great content, one question, pricing for the Nextgen Everests?
Coming...
I've been told by ford the 3.0l v6 won't be running adblue thank God for that
Amen to that.
I had 2015 model that had an ad-blue fault that ford couldn't fix. So I ditched it for a Fortuner (at least Toyota fixed the DPF problem with the 1GD motor). I am really tempted by the V6, and the everest was so bloody nice to drive, but I am hesitant to trust another ford. Also, offroad the Toyota is unbeatable. Frankly, the days are numbered for diesels with all of the emissions controls being loaded onto them.
@@garrygraham7901 I've got a 2021 sport and the adblue level set up is a nightmare. You never really know how much adblue is in the tank. I'm definitely getting the new gen sport 3l v6 just because of that reason
@@mattbarrett8092 my problems started when I refilled the ad-blue and the ecu wouldn't reset it. It took ford 4 days to fix it. Then it started failing on the road, going into limp mode mode, requiring me to restart to reset it. After a second attempt by ford to fix it, I had it fail 6 times in 200 kms on the Hume Highway towing the van on a trip to Tassie. Then the terrain management system started failing, locking the diff lock on until it decided to reset it after a few attempts to restart. It was beautiful to drive, but broke my heart.
@@garrygraham7901same here mate the adblue never really registers properly when reffiled. I haven't had any issues yet but I know a few other owners that have had to spend money. I'm on the list to get the new everest so 🤞 Hopefully this new gen range is better, I think its promising. There's no arguing with running a Toyota though so reliable 👍
@@mattbarrett8092 yeah mate, I am really tempted by the next gen V6, probably the Ranger for the payload advantage (I do a bit of towing), but I would be really nervous about committing. I got my Fortuner with something of a heavy heart after the Everest (the Ford was beautiful to drive when it was working) but I have grown to love the Toyota, especially offroad, where it is an absolute weapon. Even though there was an early design issue with the DPF, Toyota were great and replaced it with the new one with, I think, a 10 year warranty. Otherwise it is faultless and solid. I am thinking the Ford won't have the same issues with their DPF.
Good luck with the new one, Matt. I totally admire your faith...it really looks like a winner at this stage. I am so torn between the specifications offered by the Ford, and the pain of the heartbreak from my Everest. I might wait a while and see how they perform in the real world. At least the V6 has a long history, so hopefully it is sorted as a reliable package. Who knows, maybe I'll risk it...
What about load space? And what about fuel tank capacity? The Gen1 Everest had a very narrow rear cargo space. That was a deal breaker for me. Also important in fuel tank size and range on a tank.
The fuel tank capacity and consumption figures haven't been released as of yet.
Wait or find out youself
Can you explain why you changed the way you calculated the payload in the slide with the LC300? Both the LC300 and Everest have a similar payload when you look at the GVM v Kerbweight as we know. But I find it an interesting way to start with GCM less ATM less Kerb and show that on the screen in comparisons, but then change the calculation method of the LC300 but show it the same on the screen.
I didn't change the calculation, in a way. In order to determine payload you need to do at least 3 calculations - GCM, GVM and rear axle - the payload could be limited by any of the three depending on which you hit first. Ideally, a car's GCM = GVM + max braked tow, but often not...as is the case with the Everest. Toyota do much better with the LC300, but that car has a small payload unlike the Ranger. And, the TBM gets counted twice; once as part of GCM, and again as part of GVM in seperate calculations. It's all very confusing. This is why I made a calculator -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator/
@@L2SFBC yes I understand it, thank you. I was meaning when you put it on a PowerPoint slide like that and don't explain it fully, others don't really understand.
Even in a recent forum, people were trying to explain the GCM was irrelevant for a LR Discovery for example as other factors came into play first like payload mainly, but they still don't get it, saying...
"Everest GCM 6250
Minus 3500 trailer
Leaves 2750
Minus tare weight 2409
Leaves payload 341
LR Discovery GCM 6550
Minus 3500 trailer
leaves 3050
less tare weight of discovery of 2230 leaves payload 820kg ”
Now I know that is not the way to do above, but when you also start with GCM and work backwards like you did, people forget about GVM/Payload and rear axle as you said.
Well done though, it's hard to explain!
It's tough - if I explained it fully it'd turn people off and be just a mass of numbers. So I opted to just present the final numbers this time. There is no way to quickly and simply explain this fully to the average driver who has little grasp of physics or maths. Even worse as those with a little knowlege as in the LR5 example above...one is GCM limited, the other is GVM limited. In the intro to that part I did say there are 3 calculations and I'm doing two only showing the result not the working. I don't have axle data for the Everest.
I'm tossing up between a Trend and Ambiente - from what I can find, they're much the same minus a few minor details (like the grille and electric seats), am I correct? I'm thinking I just opt for the Ambiente and put some nicer wheels on later. Thoughts?
If in doubt, lower spec.
Thanks for this
My pleasure!
Correct me if I'm wrong but when calculating the payload from GCM you have taken the total van weight (ATM) from the GCM and then taken the TBM as well which is not correct. The ATM already includes the TBM as ATM=TBM+GTM. If calculating the payload from GVM, then you deduct the TBM, however, the ATM or GTM are irrelevant. Bit confusing how you have done it. Really need to do both calcs to determine which one is worse.
There's the complication right there. The payload may be limited by the GCM or the GVM, or even rear axle load. So, one formula cannot work - you need to do two and see which is the limiter. The ATM does include the TBM, but for the purposes of calculating payload, you must also consider the effect of TBM on GVM so you double-count. For the purposes of GCM, you count it once only. So - the calculations depend on what you're wanting to measure, and there are sometimes 3 different ones to do to see which is the lower limit. Or just use this -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator
@@L2SFBC Agreed and you website calculator is excellent. Was just a bit concerned that the video only referred to GCM even though I know you are well across all of the towing calcs.
It's a balance I constantly struggle with. Do I explain in detail every calculation and how I did it...which will go over the head of most and end up making the video an hour, or do I just show the results. I went for the latter this time.
@@L2SFBC Thanks Robert. You have some of the best explanations of all the channels around. Keep it up as I enjoy watching 👍
Thanks Robert. I wonder what the fuel economy figures are for the 2l vs 3l engines?
we don't yet know!
@@L2SFBC Thanks Robert, I read your response to a similar question from a viewer and was going to withdraw the question, but since comments help the algorithm, I decided against deleting my comment.
thanks Benny and you're right, more comments = good!
The video was excellent and helps with the decision on my next tow vehicle. My only problem is understanding the payload because I don't know what you mean by kerb weight. What does kerb weight include above Tare weight? Any help would be appreciated.
# All payloads are calculated by deducting the vehicle’s Maximum Kerb Weight from its Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM). Kerb Weight includes the vehicle with a full tank of fuel, without occupants, luggage or cargo and with factory fitted optional equipment included. Vehicle weights are approximate and subject to individual variances.
That's Ford's definition, which is not consistent across the industry.
@@L2SFBC Thanks very for the feedback, I now know what Ford means by Kerb weight. I wish there was consistency across the industry to ensure we keep our tow vehicles legal.
ahahahhaha consistency...what is that?????
Engineering Explained has an overview of the 4WD system, assuming it's inherited from the F150
New subscriber here. Is it a good buy if i go with trend model?
Yes and thank you
Am i reading this wrong or is it evident that the Ranger ute is a better tow vehicle choice than the LC300?
Apart from the lower GCM it has a much higher leftover payload than the LC300.
Iv done some calculations and i believe i can stay below the GCM of 6400kg.
Also the new V6 in the ranger gives me confidence it has the grunt to do the job as it closer to the LC300 torque and power figures.
I think its also exempt from Lux car tax as the payload is higher than the 68kg x 5 passages.
Another thing if your a tradesperson is you can claim the ute as a work vehicle which you cant do as a suv or wagon.
So if you towing a 3100kg caravan, why would you go for the LC300?
Depends on 'better'. On the numbers alone, yes in some ways by virtue of the Ranger's greater payload. However, the LC300 is heavier, AWD, more powerful etc...that is better than the Ranger. So, it depends. Which would I go for? Impossible to say without knowing more about your situation.
@@L2SFBC
Iv ordered a 19 foot caravan that will apparently weigh up to 3100kg fully loaded.
I plan on loading the car with a boat on the roof 3.7m and the family (4 total)
I wish to travel various parts of Australia including sand destinations like Fraser island.
I will also use this vehicle for various 4wding without the caravan, getting to hunting locations etc.
I preferred a ute for tax purposes but prefer to have the better vehicle for the job should this not be a ute
Whats your opinion?
Can you do a video on best towing off-road SUV/wagon, and best Ute
Also one on GVM upgrades and warranty issues that might arise from such a modification
Thanks
The only reason to buy the Ranger is payload and space. If you don't need either, Everest. Use my tow calculator here for an idea of weights -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator/ Given your plans, I would suggest the Everest will lack payload so you're better off with the Ranger. I have done two videos on GVM upgrades - what they are and effect on towing, search this channel for 'gvm'.
Good content 👍 cheers
Thanks 👍
I think you meant to say the xlt 4x4 Everest was GCM limited not GVM limited when comparing to LC300.
XLT is a Ranger trim not Everest - the Everest tends to be GCM-limited more than than LC300, yes, as the LC300's max tow + GVM is close to its GVM, whereas the Everest is not so close. Sorry got it wrong way around.
2WD or RWD mode comes in handy for highway non towing cruising for fuel economy in dry/hot conditions so that is good for Ford to offer that as apposed to AWD on DEMAND (which is sadly reactive and not proactive as in constant AWD).
For my needs I no longer tow however I do appreciate all the facts you have mentioned about towing, good to know and use this as a resource for others who will tow with the new gen Everest.
I agree about the new "TMS" software driven for off road work, they basically are traction/fuel cut out modes which in reality are useless, that said 4A (so basically AWD On-Demand (again reactive not constant) via multi-clutch should be fine for those roads where you need 4WD but are still on mixed surfsces like asphalt/concrete/gravel/washboard dirt/gravel ... That said the good news and this has been confirmed by Ford Australia that 4H is a proper 4x4 High Range which means a locked centre diff which splits torque 50/50 and 4x4 Low also means locked centre diff and off course there is the RDL which can be used with traction control active on front axle, that said it appears alao with the Ranger Raptor getting an official FDL that it will be much easier to fit FDL into Everest since it's a straight swap of parts unlike with current Everest .
For me the sweet spot is Ambiente with 4x4, don't need 7 seat option, don't need all the fancy high-end stiff, just need 4A (AWD and one would hope that the system does not revert back to 2WD everytime you restart as that would be a major PITA) I'm fine with the smaller 2L sequential turbo diesel and I would simply lock out 9 and 10th gear using the manual mode option in sports mode (which you can do with current version of Everest with this engine/transmission), at 110km/h 8th (which is actually 1st overide) the engine is revving at a measily 1,800rpm.which is right at peak 500Nm torque band.
That said I am not in the market for one right now ... Very happy with my 2016 Everest Ambiente AWD/4X4 love the lazy 3.2L 5cyl and 6-apeed with sequential select shift, even with 320,000+km it still is very good.
Also for those who want to know about emissions control the new gen Everest actually is Euro 5 (unlike current gen with his Euro 6) so does that mean SCR (ad blue) has been removed ??? Ford have made no mention about this and I find that very strange that it would go backwards from 6 to 5 since this vehicle is going to be sold in Europe which is now at minimum 6D specs for emissions control.
Any idea aboun6 that Robbert?
Don't know re AdBlue. Adaptive Terrain systems are useful but not essential. Land Rover's Terrain Response is the first, and still the best. I would expect any fuel consumption improvement to be very very tiny in 2WD as the driveshafts etc are still rotating. With modern autos I'd just leave the 'box to do its own thing.
I very much use the sequential sports shift when on highways and especially going up and down hills, I have found that leaving the transmission to do its own thing in drive causes me to use the brakes more downhill and up/down shifting up hills get annoying considering the engine has 470Nm torque over a much wider rev range, anyway everyone has there own preference.
With regards to the 2WD option if its like the F150/250/350 version that the front axle had a decouple clutch (which is what the Territory Turbo Diesel had) which means it's pure RWD and won't activate the front differential so there will be a difference in fuel economy the only downside is the vehicle still carries the extra weight of the running gear however again the upside is probably worth it in the long run.
The Euro 6 to 5 thing is a mystery, it was the same with the current Escape which is also Euro 5 while precious gen with the 2L turbo petrol was Euro 6 (I know as.I have a ZG Escape and it's Euro 6) so have Ford droped SCR from the next gen Everest? Anyone at Ford want to confirm?
I just spoke with a regional dealer and the waiting time is not worth it lol, very happy with the 1st gen Everest Ambiente, the last major drive I did with it fully loaded with supplies for the farm saw 9.5L /100km and on the return drive (basically empty just me) 8L / 100km and yes I did use the sequential shift mode the lazy 3.2L has more then enough torque to pull 6th gear from as low as 70km so once you get up to speed you can simply leave it in 6th and then use cruise control to control speed and then use upshift to 5th or 4th for engine breaking if needing to hold speed downhill.
@@L2SFBC - have some "unofficial" info from someone who is a 3rd party to VW for the Amarok.
The all new Amarok will be Euro 6 so it will have SCR (re: adblue - or in VW speak - Bluemotion) on all turbo diesel engines and on the potential for AU market the turbo petrol /PHEV will have GPF (otherwise known as a PPF - Petrol Particulate Filter).
Here is the thing though, the Amarok will be made in the South Africa facility while Ranger/Everest will come from Thailand facility, one thing we do know is the Ranger will retain Euro 5 emissions control but no one (other then Ford) knows about the Everest, or if they do know they are probably not allowed to say right now.
UPDATE: As of 13th May 2022 it's been finally confirmed hat the next gen Everest will be EURO 5 emissions compliance (which is actually a downgrade for the current gen Everest with is EURO 6) however it will continue with SCR (ad blue), now for unconfirmed info, the ad blue tank size has been upped from 18 litres to 21 litres, this is due to the addition of the V6 engine also the extra 400kg owing allowance .
The reason why Everest continues with SCR is due to other international markets where Everest must be Euro 6 (diesel 2.0L sequential turbo / 3.0L turbo V6) and 6d (diesel 2.0Lturbo) even though as Euro 5 emissions compliance it's not needed.
Also confirmed is the vehicle compliance which retains "MC" compliance, as many would remember the original "UA" Everest was "MA" compliance which caused owners all sorts of issues if they modified things like tyres and suspensions.
Great report Robert. When displaying its peers pity you didn't put the MUX with its claimed 3.5t towing. It would be fair but would expose the 'real payloads'.
Also that unlike the LC300 the new MUX, like the gen 2 Everest sporns from a 3.5t tow rated 4x4 ute.
The 2.0l Everest Sport 4x4 is probably only a few $k over the MUX LS-T.
Excellent Ford is putting the new transfer case system similar (as you mention) to Mitsubishi's Super Select II. Which highlights again why the MUX is a very inferior proposition as a family/tow car lacking AWD (4H in Mitsi speak).
This Ford in theory is the only car I could step up to from my Pajero Sport and not go backwards with (except warranty).
Well done Ford. Gen 2 is a big improvement unlike the gen 2 MUX which is a complete disappointment with its part time 4x4, overstated real world towing ability limited by poor GVM and GCM.
If only you could let the viewers know what a mistake rushing into an MUX is right now if hoping to tow even 3.1t.
I will do another 3500kg towing vehicle specs comparo and include new MU-X in it as you make good points, thanks.
@@L2SFBC thanks Robert. The more information available will help people make choices with facts, not just manufacturer market spin.
Thanks
My second ever cash thanks, and the highest to date! That'll increase the earnings from this video by a significant percentage so much appreciated!
@@L2SFBC I want your channel to really succeed. There are so many directions for it to grow into. If you show pictures of aeroplanes and continue to discuss EV's I'll probably take it up a notch and blow your income out of the water (percentage wise).
You know I love EVs and things that fly :-) I appreciate your support!
Dimensions? Can’t find published anywhere. Downloadable PDF please?
ford.com.au
@@L2SFBC Not for the 2023 model. Only current series. Have heard that they’ll be close in size to current model but would still like to check.
Ford is very smart. They totally cater for the grey nomads and their caravans. At half the price of a LC300, they are going to be at the top on the sales charts. Why doesn’t other manufacturers not listen to their customer base? Toyota has a lot of work to do with their next Prado if they hope to have some market share, and yes, ai am a Prado owner.
Agreed the 3500kg tow will really hurt Prado and compete with LC300. Which is why Ford bang on about it....
I can't drift my RWD Ford Ranger high rider even with the traction control switched off... To be fair it's a very good system and is quick to correct even when the driver is being silly. Anyone know how to fully switch off the TC?
Lock the rear diff - that'll disable ESC, and make it easier to break the rear end loose.
@@L2SFBC Doesn't work. Still engages traction control.
Then press the ESC button down for 5 seconds.
ua-cam.com/video/YTAvGt0mRtc/v-deo.html
Seats in front?
Yes, two.
Wow ford really went at the LC300 with a better GCM and payload. You can do a lot with the $50k you’ll save
Hi, great video.
I’ve narrowed down my choice of tow vehicle down to two options to tow our 3.0T ATM Jayco
1. 2016 landrover Disco 4 HSE 3.0L v6.
2. Next gen ford Everest sport V6 with 696kg payload.
I really like the discovery’s auto leveling air suspension so no extra money is needed to modify the rear suspension for the rear load and when unloaded the suspension is back to a soft ride. However there is something in the LR manual saying with TBM loads of greater than 150kg, gvm must reduce by the amount of weight above 150?
Has anyone got any further info on this discovery tbm restriction? Also would the discovery 4 win as overall better tow vehicle for a 3ton van? Cheers
Would need to see the owner's manual itself to comment - have heard of this with LR before. Would D4 be better on the numbers...possibly yes have to look at your specific situation. Use my calculator to start -> l2sfbc.com/towing-weights-calculator/
I wouldn’t look at a Discovery unless you plan on taking large quantity of spare parts and your a L&R mechanic. There nice looking but will let you down at drop of hat, Land Rover Support is non-existent and large cost. This should all play into your final choice as we can’t keep changing vehicles.
Can you test this car traction control system?
I see you have FFALCON TV : )
I do, would like a Samsung so hit that Super Thanks button please :-)
👍🏼
Why do you call it Gen 2? Isn’t this supposed to be the 3rd Generation? The first one was a boxy Everest
This is the second major Everest generation - first one was PX2 Ranger based.
I prefer the previous Gen, don't like big screens.
Drool... so much want!
What's attractive about the car to you?
I nearly pulled the trigger on the current generation, but the cheapest of the cheap plastics were a turn off, I wanted a V6 in lieu of yhe 2.0tt, the interior was too close to my BA Falcon, the 10sp auto was finicky at low speed, it seemed a touch too narrow at the rear. Now that all of my short comings have been addressed and she Thicc at the rear it's seems to good to be true! Now it all comes down to price, otherwise I'll keep drooling!
@@kahuna1247 I agree on the interior of the current Fords. It really looks drab and out of place the last few years.
Do people drift everests lol🤣
yes we do :-)
ua-cam.com/video/YTAvGt0mRtc/v-deo.html
I will be looking for a single vehicle in the not too distant future, to replace my Patrol and GTI. It will be a Wagon bodied tow vehicle so the Everest is in the category that suits me. I was hoping the Everest would get the VW V6 engine, but sadly this didn't happen. For my taste the interior is an absolutely classless ugly abomination with that giant screen. And I'm sure Ford will have added another dozen chimes so that when you open the door the symphony will begin until minutes after the car is started, your door is closed, and your seat belt is latched..... Then it will probably chime to tell you your handbrake is still on..... So there will be no Everest in my future.