Mazda BT50 ute

Had a read of that one Richard, thanks for the link. Reads a bit like a car magazine tester. Everything they drive is great.
I have heard they are extremely rough to ride in empty. The author sort of worked that bit in without actually saying they were rough riding.

I thank the other inputs also, data from owners is the best input.

Angler

One thing I must say Angler, is the Mazda Ute must be one of the better looking ute around..
The Hilux anf Triton look like Crap to me... LOL

Cheers

Richard

OPSM have a xmas deal going on glasses, I think maybe you need to buy some Richard ;)

Richard, you're right. That reviewer Joe Kenwight writes the most informative incisive analyses of any vehicles he looks at. I did try and make the point in an earlier post that this sort of reading should be the first port of call for anyone considering buying a vehicle because as you can see on this forum, for every person who says the fuel economy is woeful, there's someone else who thinks it's good. (or gearbox) Contrast his appraisal with the dipstick stuff 'he said/she said' in the motor page of the SMH.

Stu-k,, it's all a taste thing and seem you have none.. ;)

Guess I am not as old as you Rich ;) The 1980 carried over body shape looks very dated and small, sorta like a gemini with big wheels lol

Hi HJ
Bt 50 has same gearing as Ranger, and mine reads 10% fast on speedo(Checked it with a GPS and also timed strip ) so is actually doing 2300 rpm @100khp. Fuel usage therfore marginally worse than you might think, but still very good. I do think that this is going to be an expensive truck to service because of its hitech componentry (very high pressure CRD) and fuel needs to be very clean and pref 10ppm stuff.
Both of them are ugly looking things

My 6.5 litre V8 Chev in a 75 Series Cruiser got that fuel economy and I'm a lead foot.

No kidding.

Would 13.5 klms to the litre be 7.41 klms per 100 klms because my hilux turbo uses about double that about 8 klms to the litre or 12.5 klms per 100 klms.

cheers graeme.