Ssangyong Rexton

Submitted: Thursday, Feb 09, 2006 at 22:25
ThreadID: 30621 Views:9957 Replies:4 FollowUps:7
This Thread has been Archived
Has anyone bought a Rexton lately? I drove a 1 today and was bloody impressed! I don't have a lot of off road experience but this was a nice car. The fit and finish is really good. Drove over some dirt road with the stereo off and no rattles or unwanted noises. The diesel engine is incredibly quiet. At 100kph only a little road noise. No engine noise at all. Seats were comfy and the auto is smooth. I had been looking at the Pathfinder. The Pathy is a bit bigger but also a lot noisier under acceleration and in the cruise. Anyone got any thoughts on the Rexton or the Pathy for that matter?
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Gerhardp1 - Thursday, Feb 09, 2006 at 23:09

Thursday, Feb 09, 2006 at 23:09
The Rexton is likely to have a worse resale value than the Pathfinder, but it has proven mechanicals whereas the Pathfinder is all new(ish). No-one knows how the 2.5 diesel will perform in the medium term but to my mind it's following the same philosophy as the Patrol - that is, large car very small engine. Result is overstressed engine compared to the opposite philosophy of small vehicle large engine which historically has resulted in everlasting drivetrains ( but lousy fuel economy)

I can't handle the styling of either one but you should buy what impresses you not what others think you should have.

A friend is a Mercedes Vito salesman and he gives the Rexton a big mechanical rap.
AnswerID: 154202

Follow Up By: StephenF10 - Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:32

Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:32
Just because an engine is small doesn't mean it's overstressed. There are any number of 2.5-3.0 litre engines out there putting out 300-400+nm of torque and doing it reliably. Engines should be designed to handle their expected output no matter what size they are.

FollowupID: 408183

Follow Up By: Gerhardp1 - Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:42

Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:42
The more power/torque per cc the more stressed the engine is. A big engine in a big car will have an easier time than a small engine in the same car.

I believe it's to do with the driveline shock transmitted to the engine from the weight of the vehicle among other things.

Why is it that when manufacturers increase the performance of a vehicle they will mostly increase the diameter of the brakes. To use your argument, they could make them smaller - I would choose the bigger ones every time.
FollowupID: 408185

Follow Up By: Scoey - Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:48

Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:48
Gotta say I don't agree Gerhard. Toyota's reputation for being almost bulletproof (and i'm talking about the old school Tojo's here) was built from making a strong truck and then underpowering it.

You make a tough drivetrain and put a powerful motor up front and some turkey will find a way to destroy the drivetrain and probably the motor as well. You make a solid drive train and then put a slightly underpowered motor up front and you'll have a truck that'll do just about everything that's required of it for ever and a day.

Just my opinion but! ;-)

FollowupID: 408188

Follow Up By: Gerhardp1 - Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:48

Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:48
The new school Toyotas eg 100 series have gone bigger in the body and smaller in the diffs, causing reported failures of the front diffs. This would support my view.

A low revving large underpowered diesel in a heavy car is not the same as a high revving small underpowered diesel in the same vehicle because the reciprocating mass of the engines is significantly different.
FollowupID: 408204

Follow Up By: Scoey - Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:02

Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:02
Yep the 100 Series are just bad design full stop but what you're saying doesn't support your theory. Your original point was that a small motor would get overstressed and that a bigger motor would be better.

I guess what I'm saying is that just because you put a small motor in a big car, doesn't mean you will "overstress it".

"A low revving large underpowered diesel in a heavy car is not the same as a high revving small underpowered diesel in the same vehicle..."

As for this point, I assume you're saying that the size of the motor governs the amount it revs and hence the implied stress on the motor? Whether it's underpowered or not??

Once again I say that my point is or was that an underpowered motor with a good drivetrain will last forever (generally) regardless of it's size. I made the assumption that you were equating size with power and maybe I was wrong??

FollowupID: 408206

Reply By: chump_boy - Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:44

Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:44
We drove a Rexton and a Terracan a couple of weekends ago.

We were quite impressed with both, but liked the Rexton a lot more. Much comfier, roomier, and quite quick off the mark. Underbody protection is good, with steel plates everywhere.

When it comes time to trade up, I think the Terracan will get a good look in. Not as comfortable as the Rexton, but still quite nice, and there are some aftermarket accessories. We got a spec for 2" suspension lift, 2" Body Lift, Winch mountable bull bar, rear wheel carrier, long range tank, diff lock, and a couple of other little bits and pieces. The dealer rekoned he could get 235/85 wheels on, but I dunno....

Still, we still got a good deal of change from $46000, and that was before the negotiations really started..

Two problems we found with the Rexton were the lack of aftermarket gear (ie.. nothing), and the dealers themselves. The Parramatta dealer refused to take us for a test drive unless we had made a booking! So we looked at the car for 15 minutes or so, and watched him sit on his bum the whole time, then we tried to get a test drive again. Basically told us to bugger off! So we did, to the dealer 10 minutes down the road at Strathfield....... This guy was a bit better, but not real helpful.

Lol - they are Ssanyongs, fer christ sake, not bloody porsches!


AnswerID: 154257

Reply By: ADM - Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 13:05

Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 13:05
I have a good friend who bought a Rexton last year and is very impressed with its power, economy, size and comfort. Averages around 8l/100 around town and better on the highway.

His only criticism is the suspension, the front tends to nose dive easily under moderate to heavy breaking. He has been trying to source new springs and shocks but has yet to find anything. This is the only problem as mentioned already is the lack of after market gear.


AnswerID: 154287

Reply By: scottcamp - Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 20:23

Friday, Feb 10, 2006 at 20:23
Have a look at this.
AnswerID: 154373

Follow Up By: scottcamp - Saturday, Feb 11, 2006 at 00:05

Saturday, Feb 11, 2006 at 00:05
Forgot to add, look at the owners review as what car is a mainstream motor mag and does not understand 4x4's and continualy compares them to cars! Look at the owners reviews as they are much more accurate.
FollowupID: 408386

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Saturday, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:26

Saturday, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:26
From link above -- "As with most 4x4s, the Rexton’s big tyres and bluff shape generate a little more road and wind noise than a conventional saloon, but it’s not too intrusive. The 2.9 diesel isn’t too hard on the ears, but the 2.7 is harsh and noisy. On manual versions the heavy, imprecise gearshift and long-travel pedals hinder smooth driving, however"

Obviously doesn’t have kids - road noise is irrelevant:)
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

FollowupID: 408388

Sponsored Links