Printable View
I did 380,000 miles in 2 years in the USA in an international eagle with a series 60 Detroit, split horsepower 430 / 470 HP, thought that was a pretty good engine until I spent 6 months driving a 500 HP C16 cat in a bonneted Volvo, again in the USA, that truck was team operation, 2 drivers and did 6600 miles coast to coast every week. It was like driving a nice car, and speed limited at 75 miles per hour.
Hi @Tahr,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Apologies for slow response...been distracted.
Best consumption ( lowest) we got from 3.2L BT50 4WD manual trans was ~ 8.7l/100 km. Pretty much all driving unloaded, no towing, and 80% on sealed roads with balance of metal roads. Same driver doing the same thing currently getting ~ 10 litres/100 km in a 3.2 Auto 4WD Ranger.
Yep, that agrees with my experience manual vs auto. Not sure why the auto is 1.5L/100Km thirstier, most are closer than that everything else being equal. Also, your 8.7L figure is what I'm getting out of mine, all driving types average. The best economy I got out of mine was before the aftermarket shocks and front struts were installed and after the high load rear springs went in which lifted the arse and dumped the nose. Theory was it turned the thing into a wedge, got the air out from under it and reduced the drag by a fair whack. That got me into high 6's/low 7's per 100km but the thing was a widowmaker a crash looking for a place to occur so not recommended.
Attachment 217191
ohh..... and of course, ANAL RANGER!
Owned a new model Ford Ranger, ended up costing thousands each year in electrical issues among others. Drove awesome for the first year or two, very smooth and much like a car. Then it started playing up till it became a tsunami of constant repairs and very expensive issues. All despite maintaining a constant service record.
Was glad to see the back of it and will never buy a Ford of any persuasion again.
At that time a mechanics near by largely run their business on fixing brand new/newer model Rangers, 3-4 a week with lots of $$$ needing to be spent. Similar to a mate who owned a workshop, brand new Rangers coming through with major electrical/mechanical issues within the first 1-2 years. I'd expect it's still the same.
A lack of sufficient castor on front suspension made the steering a bit ’vague’?Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
It was recommended that if a I really had to have a Ranger, then look around for a low milage PX1 or BT50 and live without all the extra wiz bang stuff and get the lower spec versions. Reason being as they have a lot less electronic stuff to go wrong. Thoughts?
I always thought the BT50's were ugly too, but I've kind of got used to them over the years.
Yep in a nutshell. F**king dangerous, on the long open East Coast gravel roads the front end would just wash off to one side with no steering input to start the wash off and it wouldn't respond to steering inputs unless you were in 4wd and had your foot fully up it to pull the front back into line. Quite unnerving to be honest, it felt like you were crawling everywhere at 30-40k's just for safety... Chopped the inner edge of the front boots in about 5,000Km... Ended up fitting a 10mm spacer ring under the foam struts lower spring mount with gave the factory springs enough of a preload adjustment to lift the front end about 20mm which got us back into the range where the aligner could adjust the angles back into specification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnwolf
Still the same ECU and control modules, loom and basic management stuff. The fluff likely isn't going to be a major show stopper and even if it dies you can live without it. The electrical gremlins are not a Ford only thing, VW have been worse, Iveco's are bloody nightmares and Mercs aren't flash. I know of one Skoda that would shut down mid road driving at road speed, no warning and you'd have to roll off to the side. Computers are bastards... Had fun with a couple of Mitsi's too, so it's the modern way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Got-ya
My son has had a 3.2 and now has a 2 litre , he says he wouldnt go back to the new 3litre. I have a 3.2 and when it comes time to replace it in a years time i will buy a 3 litre, not the 2 litre as all the reviews I have read say if you are towing buy the 3 litre. We tow a 6.1m boat with it. We buy new vehicles to get the warranty and usually sell them within 3yrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxx
That's about it - the 2.2L seems fine until towing larger trailers. It's fine with garden style light trailers, anything at the top end of the weight range or with a big windage like horse floats and boats - I'd stick with the V6 or the inline 5 cylinder.
I tow our caravan with my ancient ranger 3.2 wouldn't want to try using a 2L singer sewing machine and mine is the base model and still has pretty much the same spec as the XLT just no front fogs and no dual climate control it has everything else.
I ended up with a 2019 ranger raptor with obviously the 2L engine. Doing 75% on road and the rest gravel and up the river beds etc... My brother got a Wildtrack. Raptor is not as good with heavy trailers due to the soft suspension but I hardly ever tow.compares very closely to my Prado vx in on road comfort, where as my brothers Wildtrack you notice all the bumps and potholes.
I'm currently doing 8.3L per 100km had it since 82,000km and done over 100.000km now with no issues.
