New Ranger teaser vidz

[Smoke Pursuit]

Will be interesting to see if they have to take X amount of bi turbos in the mix. A bit like when the 2.0 came out and everyone wanted it but there were still 3.2's that they had to take.....


Could be some cheap 2.0's that no one wants haha.

[Giant Cranium]

Originally Posted by Top_Ghia

Have you driven the 2.0? Everyone slags them until they spend some time in one.

can you honestly say you would take the 2.0 over the 3.0?

id go a spec of model down if i couldn't afford the v6 in what i want.

Ie. v6 xlt instead of a 2.0 wildtrack

Originally Posted by Top_Ghia

Have you driven the 2.0? Everyone slags them until they spend some time in one.

What is it people are complaining about? do they think it's underpowered?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by leesa

What is it people are complaining about? do they think it's underpowered?

The cylinder count.

It's a mindset thing.

If it got released as a 3L 6cyl with the same specs no one would've cared. Too many people stuck in the past.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Giant Cranium

can you honestly say you would take the 2.0 over the 3.0?

id go a spec of model down if i couldn't afford the v6 in what i want.

Ie. v6 xlt instead of a 2.0 wildtrack

You aren't comparing apples though.

Many people chose the 2L over the 3.2L....

No one ever said the 2L was better than a bigger, more powerful engine.

[nibble]

Originally Posted by Top_Ghia

Have you driven the 2.0? Everyone slags them until they spend some time in one.

Yes I have driven it and it was pretty good for a four cylinder (gearbox shifting aside). The V6 should perform better in my opinion. I've driven Jeep V6 TD. Amarok TD and both were better than the Ford 4 banger (my opinion).



Who here would option the 2.0 (price differences aside) ?

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by GasoLane

Along with the Austin 1800 from the 70's

and the Falcon ...

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

You aren't comparing apples though.

Many people chose the 2L over the 3.2L....

No one ever said the 2L was better than a bigger, more powerful engine.

No, they said the 2.0l bi turbo was ample but its enjoyable watching the backflips by those who suggested it now theres a bigger displacement engine that people are falling over themselves to drop a deposit on.

Meanwhile those who said 'No replacement for displacement' and we're heckled for it are quietly whispering to themselves 'I told you so' as the order books fill with 3.0l orders

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

The cylinder count.

It's a mindset thing.

If it got released as a 3L 6cyl with the same specs no one would've cared. Too many people stuck in the past.

Rubbish, has nothing to do with cylinders, its about cubic capacity and its ability to produce horsepower without wringing its neck.

Mitsubishi had a 3.2TD 4cyl and it was considered a great engine for its time and intended use albeit agricultural by todays measure.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Giant Cranium

can you honestly say you would take the 2.0 over the 3.0?

id go a spec of model down if i couldn't afford the v6 in what i want.

Ie. v6 xlt instead of a 2.0 wildtrack

Those people probably exist, reminds me of my old E38 7 series, the old bloke who brought it brand new spent $180,000 on the car but got the smallest capacity engine in the range, 3.5L V8 instead of the 4.4L V8 or the 5.4L V12.

Imagine being Chris Hemsworth but post op trans.

I'm with you there, give me the povvo spec ute and put plastic deck chairs in there for seats, remove the steering wheel and I'll drive it with a pair of vice grips around the steering shaft but I want the 3L V6 engine in it.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Rubbish, has nothing to do with cylinders, its about cubic capacity and its ability to produce horsepower without wringing its neck.

Mitsubishi had a 3.2TD 4cyl and it was considered a great engine for its time and intended use albeit agricultural by todays measure.

Why do you assume it's getting its neck wrung to make the power?? Judging it by yesterday's standards possibly.

A larger engine wasn't available so yes, the 2L was adequate. No one said they would buy it over a bigger more powerful engine if it was available.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

Hey DFB, did you catch this glimpse in the cabin of that Wildtrack:

image

You still with us, mate?

I hope the personal responsible for that crime against detailing are looking for new jobs!

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

A larger engine wasn't available so yes, the 2L was adequate.

Lol, the absence of a larger engine doesn't make a smaller one adequate, it just means you had little choice.
The consolation was the 10sp that made it bearable.

Now punters have choice and guess what, they want the bigger engine and will probably get the box too, go figure.

Give it up Rob, those of us that were ridiculed for suggesting 2.0l was too small haven't forgotten it and wont be convinced that we misinterpreted what people like yourself said about it.

You hang off every word that propaganda machine Boss says, he said the 2.0l was the bee's knee's, you fell for it, now he quickly changed his narrative to suggest the 2.0 was sufficient because its all they had and again you're on board.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Lol, the absence of a larger engine doesn't make a smaller one adequate, it just means you had little choice.
The consolation was the 10sp that made it bearable.

Now punters have choice and guess what, they want the bigger engine and will probably get the box too, go figure.

Give it up Rob, those of us that were ridiculed for suggesting 2.0l was too small haven't forgotten it and wont be convinced that we misinterpreted what people like yourself said about it.

Even though power and torque graphs suggest otherwise, some people just can't accept that the 2L wasn't a lesser unit than the 3.2. The 10sp wasn't making any difference to its power and torque.

The sales figures of the two options available agreed that the 2L was the best option at the time.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

You hang off every word that propaganda machine Boss says, he said the 2.0l was the bee's knee's, you fell for it, now he quickly changed his narrative to suggest the 2.0 was sufficient because its all they had and again you're on board.

Ok then..

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by prydey

Even though power and torque graphs suggest otherwise, some people just can't accept that the 2L wasn't a lesser unit than the 3.2. The 10sp wasn't making any difference to its power and torque.

The sales figures of the two options available agreed that the 2L was the best option at the time.

Some trolls would say there wasn’t an option,

There was.

A 3.2 litre or a 2 litre, but let’s not let facts get in the way of a troll attempt

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

Even though power and torque graphs suggest otherwise, some people just can't accept that the 2L wasn't a lesser unit than the 3.2. The 10sp wasn't making any difference to its power and torque.

The sales figures of the two options available agreed that the 2L was the best option at the time.

See thats where you've misinterpreted what people said, no one said the 2.0l wasnt more powerful or didnt produced more torque, what they said was a 2.0l is too small for what it was being asked to do, the fact that people are falling over themselves to order a bigger engine underlines this.
In fact id go as far as to say people bought the 2.0l for the 10sp not the 10kw and 60nm.

Ford could crank that 2.0l up to 180kw and people would still be ordering the 3.0l.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

Some trolls would say there wasn’t an option,

There was.

A 3.2 litre or a 2 litre, but let’s not let facts get in the way of a troll attempt

Not really, they hamstrung the 3.2l by not giving it the 10sp they've put behind plenty of other engines.
Why?

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Not really, they hamstrung the 3.2l by not giving it the 10sp they've put behind plenty of other engines.
Why?

Because the 3.2L tdi got dropped in the US as an option which ran the six speed auto on their Transit van and left Ranger as the only vehicle using it, so why spend many mills calibrating the 10 speed for it knowing you were going to drop it altogether in a couple more years here and 179 other markets...plus the 2.0L/A10 was introduced into the larger RWD Transit vans increasing it's application.

Every Transit & Transit Custom eventually switched to the 2.0l Ecoblue, with mid-size Transit Custom staying with the 6 speed auto buts it's a FWD only van...

Eventually Transit Custom (new one coming twinned with the VW Transporter) could go to an 8 speed like the Focus/Escape as these are FWD biased platforms if it doesn't go to the 10 speed. VW have AWD Transporters so interesting to see if this is continued with a Custom based version and if Ford offer an AWD Custom as well.

...yes I'm a bit of a van nut... and I think in some early photos of the new Custom mules spotted on a freight train they might have had a coil sprung rear....yes I'm a van nut...

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

See thats where you've misinterpreted what people said, no one said the 2.0l wasnt more powerful or didnt produced more torque, what they said was a 2.0l is too small for what it was being asked to do, the fact that people are falling over themselves to order a bigger engine underlines this.
In fact id go as far as to say people bought the 2.0l for the 10sp not the 10kw and 60nm.

Ford could crank that 2.0l up to 180kw and people would still be ordering the 3.0l.

Do you think the gearbox or diff know how many cylinders are in the powerplant? Power is power. Torque is torque.

[jpd80]

The war is over, Ford has relented and given Aussie buyers a smooth V6, people reserving without knowing price….

and if you really want to jack up sales, just rename the NG Everest Territory and watch them line up….

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

Do you think the gearbox or diff know how many cylinders are in the powerplant? Power is power. Torque is torque.

No, i dont.

The auto is what extracts that power and torque in a usable fashion, without those extra gears the 2.0l would be working even harder and use more fuel.

Its no different to comparing a Barra and BTR, 5sp or ZF, the 4.0l works harder and uses more fuel with less gears.

You say the more powerful 2.0l was the better option over the 3.2l but if the 3.2l had been afforded a 10sp how do you know it wouldn't have transformed the way the 3.2l behaved?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The war is over, Ford has relented and given Aussie buyers a smooth V6, people reserving without knowing price….

Yes and no, in one sense the war has just reached an even playing field where the option of a bigger capacity engine with the better auto is obliterating the little engine that could.

Will be bargains to be had on run out PX3 now, at least people still bought the old 3.2 after the 2.0l arrived, no one wants a 2.0l now, trade ins pricing will create some angst.

[CyberWasp]

Would I be out on a limb saying that even though there is supposedly a V6 Petrol Ecoboost Motor coming also, that if given the choice, more people would be placing a deposit on a V8 Option?
Yes I am flogging a dead horse....

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, i dont.

The auto is what extracts that power and torque in a usable fashion, without those extra gears the 2.0l would be working even harder and use more fuel.

Its no different to comparing a Barra and BTR, 5sp or ZF, the 4.0l works harder and uses more fuel with less gears.

You say the more powerful 2.0l was the better option over the 3.2l but if the 3.2l had been afforded a 10sp how do you know it wouldn't have transformed the way the 3.2l behaved?

Yes, changing the gearbox and ratios does affect how the engine works but that's different to saying it's getting its neck wrung to make the power.

The 3.2 and 2.0 had very similar power and torque curves so the engine itself isn't revving any more or less than the other to make the same power with the same gearing.

Ironically people interpreted the 10sp operation (more gears, more gear changes) as proof the engine was working harder.

If the 3.2 had the 10sp it would have the same characteristics.

[Top_Ghia]

Originally Posted by nibble

Yes I have driven it and it was pretty good for a four cylinder (gearbox shifting aside). The V6 should perform better in my opinion. I've driven Jeep V6 TD. Amarok TD and both were better than the Ford 4 banger (my opinion).



Who here would option the 2.0 (price differences aside) ?

That Jeep diesel is a cracker engine.
The VW didn’t grab my attention.

I would consider the 2.0 if it is considerably cheaper. It drives really well and delivers good economy. It also tows surprisingly well.
It’s still worth considering. But the V6 is going to crush it in sales.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Yes and no, in one sense the war has just reached an even playing field where the option of a bigger capacity engine with the better auto is obliterating the little engine that could.

Will be bargains to be had on run out PX3 now, at least people still bought the old 3.2 after the 2.0l arrived, no one wants a 2.0l now, trade ins pricing will create some angst.

I meant Ford’s narrative that buyers dwell on cylinder count and more capacity than needed,
all of that now forcing a change of heart at Ford, recognising that buyers love smoothness of a six cylinder.

A slightly different view of the twin scroll 2.0, it still has a place in the line up but I suspect that
the new single scroll 2.0 will be silently dropped due to few takers, TS 2.0 becoming pseudo base engine.

If Ford manages the changeover properly, discounted run out Rangers will be few, maybe loaded XLT special.
The 2.0 will be fine, it’s fuel efficient and an honest performer, people actually like them Bent.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

If Ford manages the changeover properly, discounted run out Rangers will be few, maybe loaded XLT special.
The 2.0 will be fine, it’s fuel efficient and an honest performer, people actually like them Bent.

They could always give a few away as replacements under warranty to clear the lots.

Liked, in the absence of anything better you would like it but the article suggests that may not be the case moving forward.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

They could always give a few away as replacements under warranty to clear the lots.

Liked, in the absence of anything better you would like it but the article suggests that may not be the case moving forward.

Please stop arguing simply for the sake of it.

Perhaps have a read here.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...?term=Trolling

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Yes and no, in one sense the war has just reached an even playing field where the option of a bigger capacity engine with the better auto is obliterating the little engine that could.

Will be bargains to be had on run out PX3 now, at least people still bought the old 3.2 after the 2.0l arrived, no one wants a 2.0l now, trade ins pricing will create some angst.

Ford have said they wont be discounting PX3 and have set production up to limit any left over stock.