Ranger tow test - 2.0TT vs Ye Olde 3.2L I5

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Can that really be said about the 3.2 though? If it doesn't have a holed piston, blown intercooler or hoses, EGR failure, rear main seal leak, turbo failure or engine tick, then the transmission will probably lunch itself.

Mine is about to run out of warranty and I am very concerned that I will have costly repairs if I keep it. I am seriously considering upgrading to the 2.0 simply to get rid of the 3.2 drivetrain with the benefit of the 5 year warranty.

You been reading some forum horror stories and I know you have had a couple problems yourself since I read your posts but these are far few compared to many thousands of happy ranger owners who don't have any problems

I'm still driving my 2012 XLT 3.2 automatic model, great vehicle in my opinion.


PS: Oh by the way what brand vehicle is trouble free?


Cheers.

[Brazen]

If you specifically wanted something trouble free you wouldn’t be buying a diesel, that’s for sure!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Brazen

If you specifically wanted something trouble free you wouldn’t be buying a diesel, that’s for sure!

pre common rail owners may argue differently...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I was talking to an ex Ford employee last week and he said the 2.0l was made available in the Rangers below Raptor to spread the costs associated with bringing it to market.

He said they had to use the 2.0l in Raptor due to weight/balance issues as the 3.2l made the Raptor too nose heavy for what they claimed it could do.

Thoughts?

A lot of that is true but change that view around and compared to the 3.2 I-5, the 2.0 has better torque/power,
is lighter and improves handling and turn in on corners but the big one is that many countries now have
tougher emission regs and capacity tax limits which the 2.0 was made to meet. I believe that's
happening now in Europe and Asia where the 3.2 I-5 will be phased out.

The 2.0 Panther is a great little engine but I can see how at maximum gross combined vehicle weight,
it would be stretched to the limit on up hill launches and engine braking coming down hills.
The main difference with the 3.2 appears to be rear end gearing (3.31:1 Vs 3.73:1), the taller
gearing clearly to improve economy works against the smaller engine when fully loaded.


In every other area, the 2.0 Panther scores well over the 3.2 I-5 Puma and IMO, for the next
generation Ranger, Ford will need something larger than the 2.0 Panther but less than 3.0 Litres,
be that the 3.0 V6 Powerstroke (186 Kw/590 nm) or an enlargement of the 2.0.

Ford needs to be careful here with overselling the 2.0's virtues because people will check
those claims and if they don't match, well it's a hit to credibility that needs to be addressed.

LINK to Torque curve comparison 2.0 Biturbo Vs 3.2 I5

Many people here were calling for the 2.3 EB as an option on the Ranger but as shown in recent tests,
simply adding FX-4 suspension and tyres results in the highway fuel economy dropping to 11 litres/100 km
and if that's the best you can expect, I could see the 2.3 EB dying on the showroom floor in our market.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by Officemanager

You been reading some forum horror stories and I know you have had a couple problems yourself since I read your posts but these are far few compared to many thousands of happy ranger owners who don't have any problems

I'm still driving my 2012 XLT 3.2 automatic model, great vehicle in my opinion.


PS: Oh by the way what brand vehicle is trouble free?


Cheers.

I never said other brands are trouble free. I was making the point that the 3.2 won't last forever simply because of the larger capacity, as per the post I quoted. At this stage there is no evidence to suggest that the 2.0 will be any less reliable than the 3.2 simply because of the smaller capacity.

[jpd80]

I'm becoming suspicious of owning any of the diesel utes as they age up over 7, 8 or 9 years,
you're playing with fire if anything goes bang (lots of dollars) and those chances keep increasing

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by prydey

pre common rail owners may argue differently...

Beg to differ Brazen is on the money!

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'm becoming suspicious of owning any of the diesel utes as they age up over 7, 8 or 9 years,
you're playing with fire if anything goes bang (lots of dollars) and those chances keep increasing

Like any engine some will go for ever where others can go bang, this depends on how you treat your vehicle and what maintenance given, this applies to both diesel and petrol engines.

[jpd80]

I used to believe that too...

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by prydey

pre common rail owners may argue differently...

i thought my ln105 /106?? 2.8 dieweesel hilux was dead at 360k

i went over a jump, the zorst fell off and it took off like a rocket (lol)

i got home and done the star picket muffler trick and sold it around 380k

i did nothing other than consumables in 150k of ownership

it was very slow

csh

[prydey]

My old man has a '92 2.8 diesel hilux. It won't die.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by prydey

My old man has a '92 2.8 diesel hilux. It won't die.

basic service and maintenance

#neverdie

[Franco Cozzo]

The problem with diesel engines these days is some old lady goes to a VW dealership and the salesman sells her the VW Golf diesel because it won wheels car of the year at some point.

Except she only drives 2km each way to Bingo every now and again.

Then the DPF craps out and she takes it back for warranty and they're like - sorry its a consumable filter, we do not warrant this item, that will be $8000 thanks.

Wrong vehicle for customer purpose.

I own a diesel Focus, if these small turbo petrol hatchbacks were available when I bought my diesel Focus, I wouldn't own a diesel Focus.

Admittedly mines modified and tuned and no DPF, I do 700km a week just hauling my fat *** to and from work, but the old boy has a Fiesta ST with the mountune pack, it does .5L/100km more fuel than my Focus but has 59KW more power with the same amount of torque.

Diesel blows goats.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Officemanager

It has already been quoted in a towing test the 2.0 Bi Turbo engine braking is very lacking which would be a concern for some owners.

Perhaps for those used to old cars that needed to engine brake. I really don't think its much of an issue these days

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

The problem with diesel engines these days is some old lady goes to a VW dealership and the salesman sells her the VW Golf diesel because it won wheels car of the year at some point.

Except she only drives 2km each way to Bingo every now and again.

Then the DPF craps out and she takes it back for warranty and they're like - sorry its a consumable filter, we do not warrant this item, that will be $8000 thanks.

Wrong vehicle for customer purpose.

Not exactly the fault of the car though is it?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Perhaps for those used to old cars that needed to engine brake. I really don't think its much of an issue these days

Do some heavy towing in the hills and see how you fair with just using brakes all the time

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Officemanager

Do some heavy towing in the hills and see how you fair with just using brakes all the time

If you want engine braking, use manual mode. I don't really understand that criticism in the article. That would be to do with the programming of the gearbox not anything to do with the engine.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by prydey

If you want engine braking, use manual mode. I don't really understand that criticism in the article. That would be to do with the programming of the gearbox not anything to do with the engine.

Just wondering this as well. Does the 10 Speed Ranger have a towing mode in one of it's menus like the F-150 has?

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Officemanager

Beg to differ Brazen is on the money!

Nissan TD42 and Toyota 1HD are pretty much unbreakable, so pre common rail are by far superior, I would own one in a heartbeat, in fact I owned a Ford Maverick (GQ Patrol) for near on 20 years with a TD42 which I aftermarket turbo'd and it was an awesome car - far superior to today's ****.

Looked after you could get 1,000,000 k's out of a TD42, there are plenty of examples out there that have reached that. And I can tell you you wouldn't have to replace the transmission at 45k

[Brazen]

I’m talking the new diesels. Really garbage. Diesels should be left for heavy duty applications where they can be made heavy and strong enough to take on compression ignition. Even the bigger diesels trucks we have are getting big problems. Some of the diesel utes at work, you breathe on them the wrong way there is a 16 grand repair bill.

And they are getting worse on fuel. The emissions equipment, sensitivity to fuel, reliance on boost to get the performance that buyers want. They have effectively become ticking time bombs while getting similar fuel economy to something if it was available in petrol.

A naturally aspirated petrol V8 around 50k would sell its socks off in Australia. And for the carmakers would be cheaper to build than the weedy 4 cylinder diesels.

[Trevor 57]

There has been a marked increase in sales of the Nissan Patrol (petrol V8 5.6l) in recent times as people move away from these unreliable diesels. Nissan have dropped the price of the Patrols' and done a heap of work to improve fuel economy. My son has just bought an brand new one a fortnight ago, towing a loaded trailer at 110km/h it is returning about 14l/100k's

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Officemanager

Do some heavy towing in the hills and see how you fair with just using brakes all the time

I have trucking experience. I know a fair bit about brakes

[Falcon SXR8]

Looks like a classic case of whats on paper not translating to the real world, not the first time. In my opinion you would have to be nuts to buy any modern diesel if you are wanting to keep it past the warranty period

[Trevor 57]

I remember talking to a Mitsubishi truck salesman years and years ago, he stated "it has peak toque as stated on the sales brochure not as stated on the road" LOL

I too am an ex-B-Double driver and spent 13 years in the heavy vehicle driver training game. I was doing that gig when the Detroit Series 60 first hit the ground.

[Vesper Martini]

The 2.0 has a greater torque spread & considerably higher peak torque, those that understand diesels & gears, will know the 10 speed will also keep it in the sweet spot more than the 3.2 having less gogs

So it should out perform the 3.2 comfortably, that or the quoted figures are wrong.

[Trevor 57]

I will say it again, you can't beat cubes

[marty351]

My old xe 351 with stage 2 cam, ported heads 2vcc, 600 holley and stock exhaust/induction would pull up the steepest hills around Melbourne, in 3rd gear @1400rpm and still accelerate. On lpg! Rule #1:cubes=power/torque.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I will say it again, you can't beat cubes

I don't think its that simple in this age of forced induction, variable cams/valve timing, computer controlled torque mapping, gearbox's etc.

sure, if you are in the transport industry and want 2 million km's before a rebuild, then a big solid donk will probably be preferred, but as far as the modern cars go, they will last long enough. Ford have unlimited km warranty so they obviously have reasonable faith in the product.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

The 2.0 has a greater torque spread & considerably higher peak torque, those that understand diesels & gears, will know the 10 speed will also keep it in the sweet spot more than the 3.2 having less gogs

So it should out perform the 3.2 comfortably, that or the quoted figures are wrong.

the consistent thing with all Ranger threads, is that for some reason people put more credence in negative feedback than positive. maybe its just the way the human mind works, or maybe people's thinking doesn't advance at the same rate as technology.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Nissan TD42 and Toyota 1HD are pretty much unbreakable, so pre common rail are by far superior, I would own one in a heartbeat, in fact I owned a Ford Maverick (GQ Patrol) for near on 20 years with a TD42 which I aftermarket turbo'd and it was an awesome car - far superior to today's ****.

Looked after you could get 1,000,000 k's out of a TD42, there are plenty of examples out there that have reached that. And I can tell you you wouldn't have to replace the transmission at 45k

Awww common Trev your last comment is sour grapes, still have my original tranny.