ALTHOUGH the concept of a rugged SUV based on a tried-and-tested bakkie platform is not a new one – remember the Nissan Sani and Isuzu Frontier? – this segment has for the past few years been the domain of only one vehicle, the Toyota Fortuner. Judged by this vehicle’s massive sales success one would have thought that other manufacturers would have scrambled to bring their own vehicles to the market, but it was only late last year that Ford and Mitsubishi finally joined the party. The Mitsubishi, offered as a single model in high-specification form, is relatively expensive, so it is likely that the Blue Oval’s Everest poses a more serious threat to the Toyota’s dominance. Tested here are two head-tohead rivals, both powered by 3,0-litre turbodiesel engines shifting through five-speed manual gearboxes with lowrange transfer boxes, and both offering seven seats.
DESIGN & PACKAGING
Ford Everest 15/20
Toyota Fortuner 15/20
The Everest replaces the Australian-sourced Territory in South Africa, a solid, capable vehicle that always impressed the CAR team. However, it is clear that South Africans like their SUVs to look more macho, and for that reason alone the butch Everest is far more likely to make an impression than the bland, station-wagon-esque Aussie.
Everest is based on the chassis of the Ranger pick-up and built in Thailand. It is a big vehicle, measuring over five metres in length, mostly as a result of it having its spare wheel (a full-size alloy) attached to the tailgate. But the newcomer is slightly narrower than the Fortuner, and not as high, either. Riding on 16-inch alloy wheels, the Everest was judged to be a handsome vehicle, if not as modern-looking as the Fortuner.
Inside it features the Ranger’s modern facia, finished in black plastic and with a prominent silver hangdown section that is so shiny that it can momentarily blind the driver when it reflects direct sunlight. Ford has selected a very light cream leather trim for the Everest, which looks beautiful when new, but during our test term a longish trip to the Klondyke cherry farm with three toddlers on board showed how impractical it is. A good aftermarket seat cover set will be essential.
Compared with the Fortuner, the Everest comes across as slightly more old-fashioned in its interior design. There’s an umbrella-type handbrake next to the steering-column, as an example, and the air-conditioning system is a conventional rotary knob design, compared with the Fortuner’s more upmarket push-button system.
But besides having more outright utility space than the Fortuner (1 680 vs 1 360 dm3) in full load-carrying mode, the Everest has another trait that could influence purchasing decisions – it is a full seven seater, for adults. Sure, there are no head restraints fitted to the rearmost bench, but two adults of average height can easily sit there with enough leg-, shoulder- and even headroom. Even entry is relatively easy. A further plus is that the rear bench can be removed simply, something which requires tools and perspiration on the Fortuner.
The Fortuner remains a handsome vehicle, arguably the more modern-looking with its sweeping C-pillar design and muscular curves. Further emphasising its bulk are 17-inch alloy wheels. Unlike the Everest, the Fortuner’s spare wheel is hidden underneath the body, meaning the vehicle is actually more likely to fit into your garage than the Ford.
Revisions early last year took the Fortuner’s interior a few steps forward in terms of modernity and practicality. The old ventilation system was replaced with the aforementioned push-button climate control system and the upholstery changed from a light ivory colour similar to the Everest’s, to a more practical and darker sand beige. It still has horrid fake plastic accents sprinkled throughout the cabin but generally the Fortuner has the more upmarket and modern interior design.
A distinguishing feature of the Fortuner – and one that is often criticised – is the fitment of two flip-up seats in the rear load area. Because these seats do not fold into the floor when not in use and are mounted to the sides of the cabin instead, they impinge on the shape of the load area, meaning the transportation of large items – for example, appliances – could be problematic. They are also awkward to remove. Overall, although the Fortuner’s boot (544 dm3) just about matches the Everest’s (568 dm3), the Ford’s is shaped better to accept large items. Also remember you can easily remove the Everest’s rear bench and increase luggage space even more.
COMFORT & FEATURES
Ford Everest 13/20
Toyota Fortuner 14/20
Our testers judged the Ford to have the more comfortable seats, with better padding around the upper body. But it is the Toyota that is likely to offer a wider variety of drivers the more comfortable seating position because it offers height adjustment on the seat (electric), which the Ford doesn’t. Two other factors also work against the Ford – the cabin’s floor is quite high, resulting in a knees-in-the air seating position, and the steering wheel is only adjustable for height.
Both these issues also apply to a lesser degree to the Fortuner, but because the Toyota has a height-adjustable seat, at least you can play around a bit more with the settings to find a suitable position.
The Everest is around R30 000 cheaper than the Fortuner so its lower features count is to be expected. Standard items include an air-conditioning system with separate controls for those seated in the second row, a CD/MP3 sound system with an auxiliary input jack, electric folding side mirrors, four airbags, electric windows allround and central locking.
The Toyota adds climate control (with rear outlets), cruise control, two extra airbags, remote audio controls on the steering wheel, a more comprehensive trip computer and the electrically adjustable driver’s seat (height included) to the mix.
Moving to the centre row the Toyota offers a slide function, allowing the occupants to tailor exactly how much legroom they want to give those seated behind them. The Ford doesn’t have this feature, but perhaps it doesn’t need it, because with a maximum centre row kneeroom figure of 800 mm, it is bigger than the Fortuner’s range of 630-700 mm in any event, while still offering more rear kneeroom (725 mm) than the Fortuner (620-720 mm). As described before, the Everest also offers easier access to more practical rear seats.
When all seven seats are occupied, however, the Everest has virtually no luggage space (120 dm3), compared with the more reasonable 208 dm3 in the Fortuner.
By virtue of their design and construction, these vehicles are never going to offer the on-road comfort and refinement of more modern soft-roaders. The Toyota has the firmer ride of the two, but it is a controlled firmness, resulting in a more secure feeling on the road than the softer, floaty and bouncy Everest.
RIDE, HANDLING & BRAKING
Ford Everest 11/20
Toyota Fortuner 14/20
As mentioned under the Comfort & Features section, the Everest feels less secure on the road. This hardly comes as a surprise, because the Ford uses leaf-springs at the rear, just like a bakkie, and as a result rides very much like one. The Toyota has coils at the rear, which goes a long way towards explaining its better composure. Neither vehicle is what you’d call a dynamic star, their high centres of gravity and robust underpinnings necessitate a more relaxed approach from the driver. As a cruiser on smooth roads, the somewhat softer Everest is good to drive, but throw in broken/choppy surfaces and it all goes pear-shaped. The electrically-assisted steering doesn’t help matters, being slow, vague and displaying lots of play around the straightahead position.
The Fortuner is a tauter-feeling vehicle from behind the steering wheel (hydraulically assisted), more precise and more confidence inspiring. This may come as a surprise to some, especially following reports in the media on Fortuners toppling over at low speeds. We’ve previously run a Fortuner for 12 months and have tested numerous examples, never experiencing any problems except for skittishness when driven on over-inflated tyres.
We took both vehicles to the Dirt&Dust off-road track near Fisantekraal in Cape Town for testing on sand, rough gravel and ruts and to evaluate wheel articulation. The Ford has the higher ground clearance (255 mm) compared with the Toyota’s 220 mm. The Ford’s approach and departure angles are also marginally better but, because it has a longer wheelbase, those running boards are likely to come in for some bashing over sharp crests. In fact, the running boards are a major drawback when the going gets rough – also in the Toyota’s case.
The Ford runs in rear-wheel drive mode during normal driving, and four-wheel drive (low- and high-range) is selected via a separate lever for the transfer case. An electronic limited-slip differential is fitted but there are no differential locks, which seems to be a rather serious omission for those who want to do some really rough off-roading.
The Toyota is a full-time fourwheel drive machine with a centre Torsen limited-slip differential with lock, as well as a rear-differential lock. As a result it can go as far as its ground clearance and those silly running boards allow you to go.
On rough gravel both vehicles have their faults – the Everest can be a handful in rear-wheel drive mode, easily spinning its wheels, and the steering is vague. Also remember, there’s no stability control system to act as a safety net. The Fortuner at least offers this safety feature, possibly added to the mix in response to the media reports about some examples rolling during emergency swerving manoeuvres.
This brings us to the matter of safety. In terms of braking the Everest was disappointing, to say the least. Its average stopping time in our 10-stop 100 km/h to zero emergency braking test worked out at 3,82 seconds, one of the worst in recent memory. It became clear halfway through this test that the Everest’s brakes do not like too much heat. That said, the brake pedal was noticeably softer than the Fortuner’s, even during normal driving.
The Toyota, on the other hand, suffered no braking maladies, stopping cleanly in an average time of 3,15 seconds. The Toyota’s brakes are also easier to modulate and far more consistent. The Fortuner is the only one to offer an electronic stability programme, which, combined with its better braking performance, makes it the safer choice.
PERFORMANCE
Ford Everest 16/20
Toyota Fortuner 15/20
Both vehicles are powered by well-known and trusted engines. The Everest’s unit is the 3,0-litre turbodiesel engine from the Ranger and Mazda BT-50. It produces 115 kW at 3 200 r/min and 380 N.m of torque at a nice and low 1 800 r/min. The engine is mated with a five-speed manual gearbox.
Toyota counters with its own 3,0-litre D-4D turbodiesel, producing a stronger 120 kW at 3 400 r/min, but less torque (343 N.m) from 1 400 to 3 200 r/min. It also shifts through a five-speed ’box.
Out on our test strip the Toyota performed best, clocking a best 0-100 km/h time of 12,23 seconds, compared with the Ford’s 13,47 seconds. More importantly, however, the Ford proved more flexible, as our overtaking acceleration times show. In fourth gear, the Everest needs 4,48 seconds to build up speed from 80-100 km/h compared with the Toyota’s 5,54, and from 100 to 120 km/h the gap grows (5,4 seconds for the Ford and 6,64 for the Toyota). In top gear the Ford really starts to flex its muscles, outpunching the Toyota from 120 to 140 km/h easily (9,21 seconds compared with 12,59).
Top speeds are of academic interest here, the Ford reaching 166 km/h compared with the Toyota’s 170.
On the road both vehicles use their torque outputs to good effect, lugging around in third almost all day and accelerating strongly when needed. The Ford’s engine was judged to be the more refined, with the Toyota becoming slightly rougher at higher engine speeds.
Fulfilling lifestyle roles as these vehicles do, many buyers will be using them for towing purposes. As such it is worth noting that the Toyota’s tow rating is 750 kg for an unbraked trailer and 1 500 kg for a trailer with an overrun brake. The Everest’s tow rating is an impressive 1 200 kg for an unbraked trailer.
FUEL ECONOMY
Ford Everest 13/20
Toyota Fortuner 14/20
The figures speak for themselves. The Toyota is marginally more frugal than the Ford (10,32 litres/100 km compared with the Ford’s 10,5 litres/100 km). The Toyota also has a bigger tank (80 litres compared with 71 for the Ford). As a result, expect tank ranges of just under 800 km for the Fortuner, and just under 700 km for the Ford.
VALUE FOR MONEY
Ford Everest 14/20
Toyota Fortuner 16/20
Upon closer inspection the price difference of just under R30 000 looks very favourable for the Toyota. It offers more features – electrically adjustable driver’s seat, remote audio controls, more airbags, cruise control, climate control and VDC, not to mention a more capable offroad drivetrain. It is also backed by a five years/90 000 km service plan and is very highly rated by owners. Service intervals are scheduled every 10 000 km or twelve months.
In the Ford’s favour are not only the R30 000 saving, but also more space, a potentially more practical interior, because the rear seats can be removed easily, and a longer warranty. 10 000 km service intervals also apply.
Given the Everest’s comparative lack of features and more basic four-wheel drivetrain, we still feel the Fortuner is worth the extra outlay, especially as you also have to consider the Toyota’s proven good resale value.
VERDICT
Ford Everest 14/20
Toyota Fortuner 16/20
With its attractive price, good engine, spacious cabin and rugged looks, the Ford Everest is likely to make a far bigger impact on the local market than the Territory ever did. It simply fits our market better and as a result is expected to sell well.
But it’s not better than the Toyota Fortuner, which even with a higher purchase price still offers better value for money in our opinion. Compared with the Everest’s failings – poor ride refinement, appalling brakes, lack of rear diff-lock, lack of seat height adjustment – the Fortuner simply comes across as the more “sorted” vehicle. It comes out tops. Again.
