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

[Franco Cozzo]

I thought this may be of interest - a tow test between the new 2L twin turbo engine and the old 3.2L I5.

An old Range Rover on the back and 450kg in the tub:

https://www.whichcar.com.au/reviews/...anger-tow-test

Looks like even with four less gears and a taller final drive ratio, there's no replacement for displacement with the old 3.2L I5 out performing the 2L TT.

[Trevor 57]

don't care what they say on paper, you cannot beat cubic capacity

Heavy vehicles have had this electronic fuel injection since the late 1980's, they too went smaller with engines when the performance improvements came in (on paper), they had 14 and 16 litre engines (most I6), even up to 19 litre (I6) in road trains, they started getting smaller, 12l, 10l, 8l etc, well guess what? the longevity just isn't there when you push them, car makers are now falling for the same mistake. Make them smaller, push the limits more and get more failures - they are bloody stupid in this short sighted thinking

People are already moving to USA made 'utes', Chev Silverado, Ford F150 & 250, Dodge Ram for towing

[LeadFoot81]

Defs food for thought, but if you're not planning on towing heavy af loads all the time the smaller engine is fine.

[Venomous1]

oh look a common sense test that we should of got when the 2.0 launched.

[The Yeti]

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that engender thought the paper figures of the 2L look better if it only had the 6speed auto it would have failed miserably

These reports and testes really have next to no relevance to the real world


I’m with Trev I remember not so long ago when they started screwing the hell out of bigger Diesel’s in the hope of getting the same power out of smaller engines with lower emissions

They simply didn’t do it, yeah the peak outputs were better but they struggled to service the long term and they bitched and moaned while they did it


When we looked at the fuel burns at the end of the year there wasn’t a tangible difference and in some cases the little engine used considerably more (how is that good for the environment) and maintenance costs were up as well as downtime

[simon varley]

mmmm, that's only the summary of a full report. anyone got that full report?

The 2.0 is more refined but needs more revs to do the same job – therefore it’s constantly shuffling up and down the gears. This is due to the extra gears, as well as a taller final gearing than the five-pot (3.31 v 3.73).

The 2.0 also struggled to gain momentum on the steep incline. It wasn’t great going down, either, with far less engine braking than the 3.2.

that's hardly a compelling reason not to tow with the 2.0 is it? they don't even say if they were in D or S

[Vesper Martini]

Its shifting gears because it got them.. not sure why its viewed as a negative. its an Auto FFS.

Is the steep incline from standstill? the 2.0 will have less response from idle, but it would take over after that. its quite possible there would be less engine braking - if you didn't use the gears

Ive seen the torque curves for both. the only way the 3.2 would overall outperform the 2.0 is if the torque curves weren't true

I think I just read a biased review - for what ever reason

[prydey]

Just for balance
https://www.carsales.com.au/editoria...parison-116189

Posted that in the 2019 ranger thread in the ranger forum a while back.

Seems to be at odds with the other review above.

[Brazen]

Would love to see a decent petrol in these utes like the Mustang 5.0. These modern diesels suck.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

Just for balance
https://www.carsales.com.au/editoria...parison-116189

Posted that in the 2019 ranger thread in the ranger forum a while back.

Seems to be at odds with the other review above.

Not really Rob because that comparison assumes that you would tow the caravan alone, when it came out I thought why not throw some weight in the tub as many travellers would, and see how they fare, looks like I wasn't alone in my thinking judging by this recent test and the results were turned around.

An additional 500kg has shown the 2.0l up.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Would love to see a decent petrol in these utes like the Mustang 5.0. These modern diesels suck.

Would be nice but never going to happen. I'd be happy for a V6 diesel. Interesting to see what the new Jeep Gladiator will be like with it's 600nm

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Not really Rob because that comparison assumes that you would tow the caravan alone, when it came out I thought why not throw some weight in the tub as many travellers would, and see how they fare, looks like I wasn't alone in my thinking judging by this recent test and the results were turned around.

An additional 500kg has shown the 2.0l up.

I posted the other article for balance, but should also point out, reviews are just the opinion of the person doing the review. If you search long and hard enough, you will find a review that matches your position, and then that will be the 'best' review, and all the others 'have no idea'. That's generally how it works.

Using logic though, the car doesn't care how many cylinders it has, or how much capacity. Its KW and Nm that count. The 2L is superior across the entire rev range, apart from right down low. That's not up for debate. That's the numbers. The graph overlay has been posted a few times now. Its in the 2019 Ranger thread.

If the driver interprets a gearbox changing gears more as 'struggling' then I guess that's what he'll write in his review, but again, logic dictates that a car with 10 cogs instead of 6, and a taller final drive, will change more gears. The programming is also such that it utilises the gearbox in a way to keep the engine in the sweet spot. If this means revving higher than a traditional car the reviewer is used to, it will be interpreted as 'revving' ie, 'working hard'.

Of course, these are just my opinions. I haven't driven either and certainly haven't towed with either.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Its shifting gears because it got them.. not sure why its viewed as a negative. its an Auto FFS.

Is the steep incline from standstill? the 2.0 will have less response from idle, but it would take over after that. its quite possible there would be less engine braking - if you didn't use the gears

Ive seen the torque curves for both. the only way the 3.2 would overall outperform the 2.0 is if the torque curves weren't true

I think I just read a biased review - for what ever reason

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.

[chevypower]

Easy way to overcome this dilemma. Obviously Ford needs to produce a 3.0 I-6 bi-turbo diesel, hooked to the 10 speed.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Easy way to overcome this dilemma. Obviously Ford needs to produce a 3.0 I-6 bi-turbo diesel, hooked to the 10 speed.

Aren’t the F150s running the 3.0 v6 diesel from Land Rover? Why not just use that...
Having that and a perhaps the ecoboost v6 out of the F150 would make the ranger worth buying.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by smoo

Aren’t the F150s running the 3.0 v6 diesel from Land Rover? Why not just use that...
Having that and a perhaps the ecoboost v6 out of the F150 would make the ranger worth buying.

Yeah I just like the simplicity of the inline motor, might cost less to manufacture having fewer parts. But yeah they could use the 3.0 V6.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Yeah I just like the simplicity of the inline motor, might cost less to manufacture having fewer parts. But yeah they could use the 3.0 V6.

Well now that V6 diesels are no longer required in FWD vehicles, perhaps adding one or two cylinders to the Panther is an easier option in the future.

[csv8]

I said that originally would the 2l be able to tow 3.5tonne.? apparently not. What happens with warranty if towing 3.5tonne and engine blows up??? as Franco Cozzo said " there's no replacement for cubic inches"

[prydey]

Originally Posted by csv8

I said that originally would the 2l be able to tow 3.5tonne.? apparently not. What happens with warranty if towing 3.5tonne and engine blows up??? as Franco Cozzo said " there's no replacement for cubic inches"

neither ranger could tow 3.5t legally with 450kg in the tub.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by prydey

Just for balance
https://www.carsales.com.au/editoria...parison-116189

Posted that in the 2019 ranger thread in the ranger forum a while back.

Seems to be at odds with the other review above.

True reviews will eventually come from owners who will actually do some towing with loaded up rigs and vans.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Easy way to overcome this dilemma. Obviously Ford needs to produce a 3.0 I-6 bi-turbo diesel, hooked to the 10 speed.

Or maybe one thats petrol and 4L

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Or maybe one thats petrol and 4L

Stick a turbo on it as well.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Or maybe one thats petrol and 4L

300 kw / 1,000 Nm wouldn’t be bad in a Ranger.

[Sam1112]

I'd rather the big engine that just glides along working at its own pace and will probably last forever, than the little engine working its ring off constantly to produce the same amount of power.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Sam1112

I'd rather the big engine that just glides along working at its own pace and will probably last forever, than the little engine working its ring off constantly to produce the same amount of power.

of course, but in the case of ranger, you have no proof that one is just 'gliding along' and the other is 'working its ring off'. That is just pure conjecture and speculation.

[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?

[boss351290]

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?

That 2.0 litre turbo comes in lots of new ford vehicles. I believe ford is also selling it to land rover/range rover

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by boss351290

That 2.0 litre turbo comes in lots of new ford vehicles. I believe ford is also selling it to land rover/range rover

And?

I didn't say it was specific to Ranger or developed for Ranger, I said I was told it was chosen for Raptor due to reduced weight over the front end and filtered through lower spec Rangers to offset its costs to compliance it for Ranger use.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by boss351290

That 2.0 litre turbo comes in lots of new ford vehicles. I believe ford is also selling it to land rover/range rover

No. JLR are using Ingenium which they build themselves.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by Sam1112

I'd rather the big engine that just glides along working at its own pace and will probably last forever, than the little engine working its ring off constantly to produce the same amount of power.

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.