Well I've just read their article. There a few points that could be debated but all in all it appears to be a reasonable effort. Yes, both the Chero and the Grand were well respected by the testers.
It is interesting that one tester in particular was extremely severe on the Grand in the final point score segments - so severe that some of his scores are totally out of whack compared to his co-testers. So be it - he has to call it as he sees it.
One issue that intrigues me with all these tests is the complete dismissal of the market that buys 4x4's for towability. Surely they don't ignore this market on the basis of low numbers of people in this category. Drive down to the local boat ramp if any body needs proof. Visit a caravan park in any country town for more proof that the the towing market is huge. Look at how many 4x4's have tow packs optioned.
Any one following my posts in here is aware that I bought with towability my No. 1 priority. That's why Prado was bottom of my list. The road test would indicate to me that Prado would be 5th in towability, only beating Kia. This is based on power to weight ratios and the available torque and where the torque comes in. For that matter I believe the new DID pajero would have been right up there and I would have considered buying one of them before the Prado. Biggest issue with the pajero is that from 3/4 rear view it looks likes it's hit a brick wall and crumpled the front guards
These are not intended to be inflamatory comments - just personal opinion - nothing to do with pride or attempts at justification or any bs like that.
Why the article marked Grand down for value for money has me stuffed - I thought it was tremendous value. Perhaps they're worried it will suffer in resale values - to that I would say I bought it to drive it - not to sell it.
I certainly cant get my head around paying the same money for a glx prado as you do for a glx 100 series Cruiser
Some of you other Grand owners may be interested in posting your reasons for your jeep purchase