Thread: Ford ranger 2 litre bi turbo

Originally Posted by Maca49

My son has one, it’s a Wildtrack, he looking a doing a deal with me on my boat. Still unsure of 2 litres, this Ute has just been his family vehicle, he’s bout a new Toyota Landcruiser Prado, now that’s what you need��

BRADS is a farmer Maca.
He doesn't need a fancy shopping cart with a tow bar.
He needs a 70 series. Something that will earn its keep.

The 70 series of today isn't the same as what we used to run in mining. It's not even close to the same vehicle. About the only thing that hasn't changed is the bolt holding the seat belt anchor down on each side's front seat belt - oh, wait pretensioning belts so that's changed too...

One thing that has changed is the bloody price - $160000 for a ute? That's three other brand utes. Just think that one through for a while, you'd have to want a 70 series pretty bloody bad to stump up that much coin considering they are not the same vehicle that made the reputation.

Never less than 3T on the daily and regularly pulls a service trailer of 2.6T, had the PX3 3.2L before it for about 160 thousand ks since new. Original one never gave any dramas, worst part was the seat lost it's support over the years.

Observations of PX2/3 vs PX 4: slightly more bottom end grunt but the auto 6 speed was still a bit laggy in the torque converter. The 2L biturbo with the 10speed is only marginally worse on the standing takeoff with a heavy trailer, but in every other way I'm happy with it. Sips slightly less fuel when not pulling the trailer than the 3.2 did, not that I'm paying.

Company provided vehicle, so not my maintenance costs or overheads. Lots of forestry and off road use... None of my field utes have had a gentle life. Would I buy a trade spec ranger for myself? Yes, but not a high km second hand one!

Originally Posted by Jt89

Never less than 3T on the daily and regularly pulls a service trailer of 2.6T, had the PX3 3.2L before it for about 160 thousand ks since new. Original one never gave any dramas, worst part was the seat lost it's support over the years.

Observations of PX2/3 vs PX 4: slightly more bottom end grunt but the auto 6 speed was still a bit laggy in the torque converter. The 2L biturbo with the 10speed is only marginally worse on the standing takeoff with a heavy trailer, but in every other way I'm happy with it. Sips slightly less fuel when not pulling the trailer than the 3.2 did, not that I'm paying.

Company provided vehicle, so not my maintenance costs or overheads. Lots of forestry and off road use... None of my field utes have had a gentle life. Would I buy a trade spec ranger for myself? Yes, but not a high km second hand one!

Thats the acid test. Real work.
Better than some Palmy painter going on about cubic inches.

Nice. Do all of your guys use the Rangers or do you have a variety of brands on the go? I only see Rangers locally, but I'm also not really looking.

Originally Posted by Jt89

Never less than 3T on the daily and regularly pulls a service trailer of 2.6T, had the PX3 3.2L before it for about 160 thousand ks since new. Original one never gave any dramas, worst part was the seat lost it's support over the years.

Observations of PX2/3 vs PX 4: slightly more bottom end grunt but the auto 6 speed was still a bit laggy in the torque converter. The 2L biturbo with the 10speed is only marginally worse on the standing takeoff with a heavy trailer, but in every other way I'm happy with it. Sips slightly less fuel when not pulling the trailer than the 3.2 did, not that I'm paying.

Company provided vehicle, so not my maintenance costs or overheads. Lots of forestry and off road use... None of my field utes have had a gentle life. Would I buy a trade spec ranger for myself? Yes, but not a high km second hand one!

Nice !
Yeah I was talking to mate that works for brandt carries half a ton of tools on the back and tows a 3.5 ton digger done 500k in the bi turbo, that basically made the decision for me.
The real world reports are what really matters rather than the horror stories.
Actual engine failures on this model compared to numbers sold came back to 0.03% puts the stores you hear in perspective.

Originally Posted by No.3

Nice. Do all of your guys use the Rangers or do you have a variety of brands on the go? I only see Rangers locally, but I'm also not really looking.

Whole company pretty much runs rangers, there was a time when demand was so high we couldn't get them and went with D-max instead... Only vehicle to create a near miss centre incident with the so called "driver assist" safety features. One bloke even handed the keys back to a manager and refused to drive it

Originally Posted by Jt89

Whole company pretty much runs rangers, there was a time when demand was so high we couldn't get them and went with D-max instead... Only vehicle to create a near miss centre incident with the so called "driver assist" safety features. One bloke even handed the keys back to a manager and refused to drive it

Yeah I've heard that from others as well. I know a clown that went on holiday, came back to find his work truck totaled. WTF? The relief was driving along, for some stupid reason known only to the gods of collision avoidance it decided to slam the brakes on while driving down a perfectly straight bit of road with no one in front of him or coming the other way. The guy in the medium goods truck behind him didn't stand a chance, straight up the arse and fully banana'd the chassis on the ute. It was interesting, as under the law you hit the car in front you're at fault but a modern ute with all the brake assist vs an older medium truck loaded for deliveries - as noted the guy in the truck had no chance and he wasn't following closely either. Wifes mitsi outlander does the same short of actually hitting the picks, BRAKE BRAKE BRAKE BEEP BEEP FLASH FLASH - but there's nothing there???

Originally Posted by BRADS

Nice !
Yeah I was talking to mate that works for brandt carries half a ton of tools on the back and tows a 3.5 ton digger done 500k in the bi turbo, that basically made the decision for me.
The real world reports are what really matters rather than the horror stories.
Actual engine failures on this model compared to numbers sold came back to 0.03% puts the stores you hear in perspective.

A lot of it (as far as the wet belt) seems to relate to servicing and oil specs along with DPF regen and ash build up. A linking feature in belt failures overseas seems to be getting the things serviced at places other than Ford, which might indicate that there is something in the oil that Ford uses that's quite important.

Just to clarify the confusion in this thread for some RE wet belts, that applies to 2.0 single and twin turbo engines ONLY

The 2.2 twin turbo diesel does not run a wet belt and has stayed with the conventional timing chain like it’s 3.2 counterpart

The V6 returned to a dry belt arrangement.

2.2 4cyl and 3.2 5cyl are timing chain

3.0 V6 is dry belt.

2.0 4cyl single/Bi-turbo are wet belt.

Originally Posted by Billymavs

Just to clarify the confusion in this thread for some RE wet belts, that applies to 2.0 single and twin turbo engines ONLY

The 2.2 twin turbo diesel does not run a wet belt and has stayed with the conventional timing chain like it’s 3.2 counterpart

The V6 returned to a dry belt arrangement.

2.2 4cyl and 3.2 5cyl are timing chain

3.0 V6 is dry belt.

2.0 4cyl single/Bi-turbo are wet belt.

And just to confirm for us, the wet belt engine is on the 2L diesel in the new shape 'next gen' ranger isn't it? The older PX3 did not feature the wet belt engine? Sorry, @Billymavs

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

BRADS is a farmer Maca.
He doesn't need a fancy shopping cart with a tow bar.
He needs a 70 series. Something that will earn its keep.

His Mrs is a farmer, brads is a blow in

Originally Posted by Sakoswarosorted

His Mrs is a farmer, brads is just a blow hard

There ya go, fixed it for ya hahahaha



Thought that's quite funny for a dumb arsed painter aye lol

Originally Posted by Philipo

There ya go, fixed it for ya hahahaha



Thought that's quite funny for a dumb arsed painter aye lol

Just because you've retired from hunting and shooting big Philly you don't need to be negative

Originally Posted by No.3

And just to confirm for us, the wet belt engine is on the 2L diesel in the new shape 'next gen' ranger isn't it? The older PX3 did not feature the wet belt engine? Sorry, @Billymavs

My comment is relevant from the introduction of the PX series in 2011 upto current offerings on the same platform as of 2025/26

The older PX3 2.0 was indeed wet belt, the 2.2, and 3.2 are timing chain.

Thanks to the Guinea pigs in the UK We got a heads up around the time of the PX2 being released as the UK market tends to lean towards smaller engines across the board, and that’s where we first started getting wind of how diabolically shit the 2.0 was in the ranger and transit.

Strange, considering the 2.2 so far has shown to be as tough as a brick and remarkably reliable for a tiny engine with a massive amount of boost shoved into it, and ultimately they aren’t majorly different in design, other than the wet belt system.

I’m amazed people buy wet belt vehicles, I cannot think of one that doesn’t have the same issues at some stage associated with the design flaws pertaining especially towards oil starvation due to ingress in the pick up, and intensified gumming and fouling of the engine and valvetrain due to more particulates and contaminants present as the belt disintegrates into the oil during operation over time.

One or two missed intervals, and you’ve just created the world’s most expensive game of “when not if” .

All the dead PX2/3 rangers I’ve delt with or come across are always the same two things, oil starvation resulting in a cooked donk, and potentially transmission, or the transmission has kaked up due to being overloaded uphill and been egregiously over heated.

Then when we get to the great “new” V6, electrical and general build quality make a trabant look appealing, along with shoddy engine assembly and QC.

I hold out hope the new “Super ranger” is good, a man can dream !