ssang yong rodius max tow ball weight
- Thread starter Jo-AnneFairway5402010
- Start date
Surely this a wind-up.
I can`t believe anyone has actually bought one of these. We drove past a garage with one for sale and the dog hid its head under a blanket!
I can`t believe anyone has actually bought one of these. We drove past a garage with one for sale and the dog hid its head under a blanket!
oh my god you mean there is one on the road that is not a demonstrater, ugly ugly ugly. and apparently acording to the motoring press not very good either. I think lutz is right as this is the only weight i can find also, but it should hold 140 kgs its made out of steel girders and recycled soviet war ships, lol.
hi, no, no one has bought it was just only an option. i know what you mean they are well ugly but they 85% is about 1800 and then with the towball weight at 140 should have no probs in towing me, lol.
i know one thing though they,ve got good engines in them. 2.9 ltr mercedes common rail diesels.very snooty shower on here.
The thing looks like a shed, and i can`t remember seeing any report on it which raises any positive points at all.
The only way you would get me in one would be blindfolded.
Yes the engines are Merc derived but old technology.
very old mercedes engines with very dated technology, the trains i drive are 20 years old and they have common rail diesels fitted, the engine fitted to the rodius sounds and feels similar but no power.
icemaker,i know what engines are fitted to trains,and their not common rail in the sence we mean nowadays ,what they are is a system called pressure time(pt).common rail was invented roughly 15 years ago by a little firm called fiat.to my knoledge sangyong have gen one c/rail which apart from reduced fuel pressure is similar to todays,and a million miles away from EDC rotarys.
I saw one once and thought it was a secret test vehicle with it's camoflage still on. The driver was most upset when I asked him what the real thing was under the hidious mask.
Whoops. What a clanger to drop on some poor sod who has just parted with thousands for the 4X4 smacked with the ugly stick.
Even a Diahatsu F50 had better looks.
Steve.
Whoops. What a clanger to drop on some poor sod who has just parted with thousands for the 4X4 smacked with the ugly stick.
Even a Diahatsu F50 had better looks.
Steve.
Seth
Re -"very snooty shower on here".
No, its called having a sense of style.
Why anyone would want to buy a vehicle with the visual charm of a broken sofa is beyond me.
If I wanted a car with a Mercedes engine ( and I don't ), I would buy a real Mercedes.
At least people woudn't laugh as I drive down the road
Re -"very snooty shower on here".
No, its called having a sense of style.
Why anyone would want to buy a vehicle with the visual charm of a broken sofa is beyond me.
If I wanted a car with a Mercedes engine ( and I don't ), I would buy a real Mercedes.
At least people woudn't laugh as I drive down the road
Damian
Moderator
- Mar 14, 2005
- 7,510
- 936
- 30,935
Advertisement
Need to know
Specifications
Special Offers
Replacement Date: 2010
We like:
1) The price
2) Interior space
3) Equipment.
We don't like:
1) Bizarre looks
2) Brand image
3) Performance.
Best and worst:
2.7 turbodiesel (only one model)
Breakdown
Styling
2 stars
Already branded 'the world's ugliest car', the wacky styling will split opinion wherever you drive it. While the profile is best described as 'unique' the rear end looks like it was added as an afterthought.
Handling
2 stars
Fine in a straight line but corners reveal a super-soft suspension that makes for excessive body roll. Best used for long distance motorway runs and not A-road trips - unless you supply passenger sick bags.
Comfort
3 stars
Big, comfy seats could do with a little more support around the edges. The suspension soaks up the bumps bur the Rodius roll is ever-present. It's quite heavy to park in tight spaces too.
Quality + reliability
2 stars
This is driving on a tight budget. Loads of standard equipment but you can't escape the lack of quality coming from the trim.
Performance
2 stars
Don't go thinking you will be driving the Rodius with enthusiasm. Despite the beefy 2.7 turbodiesel, any performance is sapped by a standard automatic gearbox.
Roominess
4 stars
Designed to carry 11 Koreans (really), so it happily swallows seven Europeans. Both head and legroom are excellent, with cubbyholes dotted around the cabin.
Running costs
3 stars
The 2.7 engine needs to be worked hard to serve up any decent performance, which means economy suffers as a result. The engine emissions give it a high tax band rating.
Value for money
3 stars
You might think the Rodius represents great value but before you go rushing for a cheque book, check out what it might be worth in two years time. Scary depreciation even if you get lots for your money.
Stereo / Sat nav
3 stars
Average at best. Too many fiddly buttons and a bit of a stretch to reach them too.
Back to summary
programme sponsor:
Sponsored by MoneySupermarket
Says it all really.
Need to know
Specifications
Special Offers
Replacement Date: 2010
We like:
1) The price
2) Interior space
3) Equipment.
We don't like:
1) Bizarre looks
2) Brand image
3) Performance.
Best and worst:
2.7 turbodiesel (only one model)
Breakdown
Styling
2 stars
Already branded 'the world's ugliest car', the wacky styling will split opinion wherever you drive it. While the profile is best described as 'unique' the rear end looks like it was added as an afterthought.
Handling
2 stars
Fine in a straight line but corners reveal a super-soft suspension that makes for excessive body roll. Best used for long distance motorway runs and not A-road trips - unless you supply passenger sick bags.
Comfort
3 stars
Big, comfy seats could do with a little more support around the edges. The suspension soaks up the bumps bur the Rodius roll is ever-present. It's quite heavy to park in tight spaces too.
Quality + reliability
2 stars
This is driving on a tight budget. Loads of standard equipment but you can't escape the lack of quality coming from the trim.
Performance
2 stars
Don't go thinking you will be driving the Rodius with enthusiasm. Despite the beefy 2.7 turbodiesel, any performance is sapped by a standard automatic gearbox.
Roominess
4 stars
Designed to carry 11 Koreans (really), so it happily swallows seven Europeans. Both head and legroom are excellent, with cubbyholes dotted around the cabin.
Running costs
3 stars
The 2.7 engine needs to be worked hard to serve up any decent performance, which means economy suffers as a result. The engine emissions give it a high tax band rating.
Value for money
3 stars
You might think the Rodius represents great value but before you go rushing for a cheque book, check out what it might be worth in two years time. Scary depreciation even if you get lots for your money.
Stereo / Sat nav
3 stars
Average at best. Too many fiddly buttons and a bit of a stretch to reach them too.
Back to summary
programme sponsor:
Sponsored by MoneySupermarket
Says it all really.
Seth the engines are Cummins common rail diesels as used on most dmu type trains for the last twenty years. no matter what you try to call them are are common rail and use a common rail to feed fuel to the injectors as does a modern common rail engine. Unfortunately for anyone looking to buy the rodius they will not be getting a modern engine whichever way you look at it. the car is c**p, end of story.
icemaker.i agree with what you say,the not my cup of tea either.but to some people they do a job.now if you read what i said properly,your cummins engines are not common rail in todays sence.for a start the injectors are not ecu controlled,but opened by means of camshaft.yes they feed of a fuel rail ,but thats were it ends.as ive said before they are PT its written all over them.but at the end of the day its a bit of the subject.
just to let you all know they took you advice and didnt buy the rodius. they bought a seat alhambra, 06 reg, 2.0 tdi thingie with 140 bhp and 85kg nose weight.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
Surprised at lack of comment on caravan industry economic issues.
- Started by otherclive
- Replies: 201
-
Facebook
Twitter