Thread: Who Knows About Ford Rangers ?

Dunno about Mazda as the only smiler I drove regularly averaged 35Km/h and got brutal mileage figures. Airport security ute... My manual ranger regularly sits under 8.5 l a hundy, long term average all driving is 8.7. The autos are alot more hungry.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Im a careful lady driver. My 3.2L averages 10.2 L/100 for tarmac driving. Gets up around 10.8-11 on the rough. How does that compare with the Mazda?

3.2 l Mazda cab n a half 4x4 flat deck does about the same figures as yours, after all they're mostly just a badge change.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

3.2 l Mazda cab n a half 4x4 flat deck does about the same figures as yours, after all they're mostly just a badge change.

That face though...

The bonnet doesn't have that bulge to it so you get slightly better forward view if your into driving slightly interesting places.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Get something with a big Cummings in it

Those girls are even worse, very few with low miles

Originally Posted by Rushy

First On Race Days

Are they going back to F1 or something?

Originally Posted by Tahr

Im a careful lady driver. My 3.2L averages 10.2 L/100 for tarmac driving. Gets up around 10.8-11 on the rough. How does that compare with the Mazda?

I think the later ones burnt more fuel to meet emission standards. My old 2013 3.2 2WD gets under 9 on a trip. 230k on it now.
Have had air con problems, replaced the EGR valve and just recently split the air intake pipe, fuel usage went out the window.
Going to clean the intake manifold and put an aftermarket breather on it to circumvent the shit being burnt through the engine.
Just had a mate change jobs, which helps dollar wise.

Originally Posted by Maca49

I think the later ones burnt more fuel to meet emission standards. My old 2013 3.2 2WD gets under 9 on a trip. 230k on it now.
Have had air con problems, replaced the EGR valve and just recently split the air intake pipe, fuel usage went out the window.
Going to clean the intake manifold and put an aftermarket breather on it to circumvent the shit being burnt through the engine.
Just had a mate change jobs, which helps dollar wise.

royal egr cleaner is bloody awesome stuff. cleaned out a massive amount of crud from the old triton

Originally Posted by gonetropo

royal egr cleaner is bloody awesome stuff. cleaned out a massive amount of crud from the old triton

I’m going to take the manifold off to clean.
But will try some

Originally Posted by 7mmsaum

The 350 big cam was the pick for me

When the silver series fuel pincher from Detroit came out it knocked it off it’s perch though

we had a 855 rated at 335 hp. that was probably the best for outright grunt and noise.

An N14 at 500hp was another standout. softer power though. electronic injectors

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.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Im a careful lady driver. My 3.2L averages 10.2 L/100 for tarmac driving. Gets up around 10.8-11 on the rough. How does that compare with the Mazda?

Hi @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.

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.