I'm looking at rangers and will still go with the 3.2L because it's a known factor. They have been quite reliable for 10 years or so whereas I'm not convinced thr 2L will be as reliable. Surely the 2L is much more highly stressed and running near maximum whereas thr 3.2L can be tuned up to gain more power. Interesting to see long term results for these engines.
The 3.2 is asthmatic asf. Ford needs to put the 3l v6 diesel out of the f150 in the ranger and everest. 2l bi turbo will self destruct before 200k if its worked hard.
The 3.2 was programmed by a bunch of fucking ninnies at Ford. Good powerfull engine but the torque is strangled. A re-map will make a huge difference. Most if not all the vids on RU-vid that I've watched on re-mapped fast as fuck Rangers its always the 3.2 Wildtrak because once the chains are loose it will go like shit off a shovel.
I own a 2015 Ranger Wildtrak here in Thailand and love the performance of it. The only problem is that you cannot really drive it with the traffic and road conditions and I have never had a load on it. Other than that it is very peppy and feels a lot like the 6.0 l diesels I drove in my F 250's in 2004 ish back in Texas.
This reminds me of what happened in 2000.... I was in the market to upgrade from my old GQ 4.2 (with aftermarket turbo) diesel, into a new GU Patrol. The salesman at the Nissan dealer in Cooma had one of the (then) brand new 3 litre GUs on the lot as a demo. I took it for a drive....it went like stink!!! Much quicker than my old 4.2TD. When I got back to his shop I ordered a new GU from him...BUT I ordered the 4.2TD. He tried to talk me out of it; reckoned I was crazy because the 3 litre had more power and torque (on paper) than the new GU factory turbo GU. I insisted on the 4.2TD because I was concerned about the LONGEVITY of a 3 litre engine...and I was only towing a 1200kg camper trailer! History proved my concerns to be well-founded...the 3 litre was to go on to earn the nickname "GRENADE". I can't help feeling this could be a case of Ford repeating history with the 2 litre go-fast bi-turbo.
Obviously engines have come a long way since 2000 but i actually agree with you. i would much rather a detuned higher displacement than a highly strung lower displacement.
that is exactly my concern. In F1 we have 700+ HP from 1.6 or so but millage ;) So yes, 2.0 bi-turbo is stronger etc but will it last as long as 3,.2? I doubt... I drive Kia Sorento 2.5 CRDI 2004. It is 16 yrs old 330+ kkm and engine and gearbox (automatic) works still like a charm. No failures up to now, exept two injectors that needed to be replaced by 160 and 230 kkm. Turbo still without any touch. That's it. Will 2.0 bi-turbo makes the same? I really really doubt...
No it doesn't. Engines have been getting more powerful per unit of swept volume for donkey's years and at the same time they have become more reliable, more refined, more economical and needed less servicing. Engines today last longer in general than they ever have. 250,000 miles with nothing but routine maintenance is commonplace, while back in the 1970's if an engine hit 60,000 without having the head off it was unusual and if it lasted 100,000 miles it was the talk of the district, all on 3000 to 5000 mile oil changes. I think the new Ranger has 20,000 mile service intervals.
Huw Williams damn straight, Huw! Engines with good bearing tolerances, oil supply and tune run on a film of oil. I’ve pulled down my 2 litre Subaru EJ207 which had 60,000km of running at around 280kw and much of that was on a race circuit. Pulled it out to put a bigger, more mental engine in it and the mains and big end bearings are perfect. Cross-hatching is still evident on the bores. These are considered fragile engines with narrow bearings. Way better than my old Clevo which was putting out less power with none of the abuse.
I thought like that too. But, I suggest you take a look at “Auto Expert” latest video. He discusses this exact issue and you might be surprised. Cheers
Aviation is the obvious comparison. Modern Tech makes 4 engine planes extinct except for cargo.. Big power from NEO makes twin engine jets far superior. Good bye old friend 747 I loved you Queen of the sky.
Very interesting comparison, but, you have to keep in mind the 3.2 has a six-xpeed box vs the 10-speed on the 2.0. i'm not doubting the power figures or ability of these beasts but to be fair, with KW and Torque figures fairly close, the gearbox makes a big difference.
I would love to have gotten the 10 speed in the 3.2. Personally, I would rather a larger engine doing less work, than a smaller engine working over-time, and it worries me what reliability will be like. If you only keep your ranger a few years as a work car, then go for the 2.0, but if you want a better resale value and want it to last, then go the 3.2, which can be cheaply retuned to put out the same amount of power as the 2.0, if desired.
I dunno, one guy on here is saying what I've heard from other sources, the ten speeds are not yet sorted (his blew up !), so right now, maybe just maybe, the older rig is a better thing all round.
@@TheTripleDubya The gearboxes in the 3.2 shit themselves all the time too. Can't be rebuilt, so I've heard, have to be replaced. They are both still Fords.......
@@Anachroschism How is the smaller engine doing extra work??? RPM is work applied...the bi turbo sits on lower revs in all aspects. The engine runs a small turbo so it does not lag, 3.2 has turbo lag low meaning until the turbo spools it is labouring and working hard...when it is at speed the gear box sits the bi turbo motor at a bout 1500rpm...the 3.2 always sits 2000rpm...so as a min the 3.2 works 30% harder...not taking into the account more power and torque earlier in the bi turbo.At 1500rpm the bi turbo it hitting 470nm and the 3.2 does not get 470nm till about 2000rpm...at 3200rpm the 3.2l dies in torque back from 360nm to 318nm...the bi turbo is still at 420nm and does not drop to 400nm until 3750rpm... bi turbo is 50kg lighter as well...so please explain how it works harder ??? if you retune the biturbo as well you get benifit more than 3.2 due to being able to tune 2 turbos and more advanced management system..
@@mohdyasin7172 thats because a 2L engine producing alot of power is more stressed than a 3.2L producing the same amount of power. the 3.2L will last longer because the engine is just less stressed . the 2.0 is a 4 piston engine the 3.2 is a 5 piston so stress is spread across 5 pistons rather than 4 so each piston is doing less work hence less wear on the engine. the 3.2 is the better engine what would be amazing is a 3.2 with the 10 speed auto . and the gearbox is the only reason the 2.0 did better in this test it came down to gearing
3 года назад
@@cordellej that can not be taken as general rule, engine design has most influence: never forget famous Nissan 3.0 litre "granade" engine
You have unfortunatly forgot to measure refs , the 2l must by logic use much higher revolutions to achieve the same results than the 3.2, and therefore will wear much faster and won't hold as long as the 3.2. Thank you. Jan
The 3.2 is getting old. I know loosing a cylinder and some displacement is not cool, but the 3.2 has got to go. Its loud, looses all its power up top and also is quite inefficient. I´ve tested the 3.2 against our stock 2.2 and the 2.2 comes out on top. And thats testing it with a proper 3,5t trailer. I was quite shocked to see that result and assume that its due to the new emission regulations the 3.2 only barely reaches. Mind you that was testing a 2012 2.2 against a 2016 3.2. Either way I was disappointed.
@@y4nnickschmitt You had a different experience. On my part 2.2 is no where near 3.2 when it comes to towing and hauling and loads. Especially on the road. Torque is key
@@Kyxmyx I assume the earlier 3.2s where better than what I had for testing. Either way the 3.2 is not a performer. The 3.0 5 cylinder from before was a different story though.
Not sure it would be classed as a fair test or how much difference it makes but you tested the 3.2 in D and the 2ltr in S. Would this not change the way each vehicle goes up the gears.
It would make a massive difference. In drive the transmission is trying to select the highest gear possible to maintain economy. In Sport mode the transmission is trying to maintain power. The owners manual tells you to tow in sport mode.
After how many KM will that little 3.2L blow up and the 4.5L LandCruiser come past it, or the 6L diesel Chev Silverado etc etc.... That is an argument that could go on and on but the 2L seems to be pretty well sorted so far, it has been out for quite a while now since it has been in other Ford models well before it was in the Ranger.
How will it blow up? it produces more power, more torque at lower rev's it cruises at 100km/h unloaded at 1500rpm compared to 2000rpm in the 3.2... i suppose you still use a bag phone as well because the battery is bigger???
@@darrynrich6616 theses things work fine when theyre nice n new n perfect but when something goes astray or out of whack you see how dependent you are on each little cube to be doing its job
You think so? yet to be proven though. Its still quite a long stroke with smaller pistons and two turbos dont mean they are being ringed out and working hard. Quite opposite in fact. The 10 speed gearbox coupled up to the smaller motor with higher torque and kw is great. Toyotas twin turbo on the 4.5L v8 is a great example. No reliability issues and they must 5 years old now you think?
3.2 is better than 2.0 because of reliability. 2.0 biturbo has a big problems of leaking oil at turbo parts. This is really bad. This problem happened about 90% of biturbo 2.0 engines (ranger and everest) in Vietnam and Thailand. Some vehicles got this problem at less than 10k km.
@chris beerad no need for a twin turbo with just a good remap you can get from this big engine a number close from 300 hp on stock internals without risk. Because is a "Real" 4wd truck engine not an enhanced hatchback diesel engine.
Agreed they said the 2.0l was quieter but on the video the noise was way worse. The thing is the 3.2 is detuned and the 2.0l is turned up to get the power out of a smaller engine. They have v6 out now so that shows the faith they had in the 2.0L. Personally I prefer the sound of the 3.2 L and i own two of them local dealer trying to get me to change up but I don’t want a shitty 2.0L engine that sound is awful. My 1.3L jimmy sounds like that.
@@vincentmothapa2421 yeah 👍 I have heard a few issues with that engine (2.0L). But I have to eat my words cos I just brought a third ranger and it's binturbo wildtrak2.0L 🤣😣. I still prefer the sound and the feel of my old px1 ranger with the 3.2 L. But the 2.0 L is pretty quiet and quick. Throttle is laggy so I took the throttle controller out of my Px1. Its so much more responsive now. My PX1 had a non standard pipe on it and sounded really good the 2.0L isn't as nice in that department.
now give us a 5 year test , i'm not an enemy of the 2.0 ltr but i doubt that longevity is something that rates high for car manufacturers ...they want you to buy new cars not drive old cars
Yeah true but Ford are backing the new one. I am firm believer in liter capacity means low down torque I own trucks. But the numbers are the numbers and the 2.0L wins on torque and HP and then add the close ratio tranny . I got extended factory warranty to 8 years because I was worried about a new donk, 10 speed transmision and twin turbos. Cost me 2.2k extra but that gives me 8 years and yes I got the pds to make sure the diff turbos gearbox and motor was included. I think ford did a pretty good job to transition and still offer the bullet proof tried and tested 3.2L 6 speed. They are both good good rigs. Im waiting for the 5 year test too mate
@@ricardoperks396 good honest reply, if Ford put a good warranty period on the vehicle could be the deal sealer. Whether it wins or loses and is not my problem...
Great comparative test gents. Thank you. The result shows why Ford are most likely ditching the 3.2 litre 5-cilinder engine for the upcoming 3 litre V6. I would love to see this comparative test repeated with the new 3L V6 vs the 2L bi-turbo as I will be buying one in April 2022.
You had the 3.2 litre in Drive and the 2.0 litre in S sports mode on the hill climb. Sports mode will change down sooner and hold the gear higher into the rev range compared to Drive mode.
@@351tgv read their comments, they ran both tests in S mode, it’s just the B roll that shows the transmission in D, but that’s not how they did the test.
sounds good darren how much can the 2.litre tow ,ive got pajero 3.2 litre turbo ,i love the car for its 4wd capability,but im gonna buy an 18ft off road twin axle caravan that appear to be heavier than the normal vans and im wondering about these cars .
Like any motor, a detuned or badly tuned 3.2l will ALWAYS give a poor result. We don't know how well it was tuned for this comparison do we? I'll take the bigger motor any day. It will last twice as long for a start cause that little motor is seriously stressed hauling around up to 6 ton including van. The 3.2l does it easily. This is about Ford offering a cheaper smaller motor with slightly better fuel economy and possibly emissions. In this disposable age the smaller motor offered is NOT designed to improve longevity so there's that.
I agree with you, the only thing they noticed the smaller turbo when it boosts. Well install a bi-turbo on the 3.2l and watch the fireworks. Let's see the 2.0l when it reaches the 150k. @@kevinblythe2192
@@ibramguirguis you're not wrong. We have a 2.0L ranger for dedicated towing duties, has pulled between 2.5 and 3.2 ton five day's a week, depending on the job since 6000 km's and it's pretty much rooted. Compared to our other 2.0L ranger that has never towed (dedicated pilot vehicle) which still drives as tight as a drum. Despite being purchased six months apart, they both have roughly 160,000 km's on them. Given this has been a long term test for us (by default), I think for the average man in the street towing a caravan or boat over the holidays, the 2.0L is more than adequate. But as a long term proposition, forget it. I can't really comment on the 3.2, as I've never driven one to compare, but I suspect a comparably lazier 5 cyl would/should last longer than a higher stressed 4 cylinder. Towing 3000 + kgs combined with the weight of the truck with a small capacity 2.0L engine is a big ask in anybody's language.
Just ordered the Bi Turbo and was worried I’d picked the wrong engine but to see the difference on a real experience tow, I’m glad I did. V6 was a 12-18 month wait so we bit the bullet and bought the 2.0.
I've had Rangers will all engines (except new 3LV6). I can say the 2.2 was the worst with massive turbo lag. Entering a round-about was terrifying, power loss was horrible. The Bi Turbo wasn't much better, back off the throttle at low speed and it's hesitation can be scary. The 3.2 is the best - power instantly when you need it.
Good video but there is no comparison. 2 litre bi turbo produce negligible better power, it’s the gearbox that makes the difference not the engine. 2 litre works harder and gotta rev higher plus and extra turbo to replace when blown. No way I’d pick the 2 litre before the 3.2. How often do you need that extra performance, we got the 3.2 with bull bar, winch, canopy and tow a 5.5 mt boat, it tows just perfect, yes we could use the extra gears the 2 lt has but for the few times it’s warranted I would rather have the longevity from the 3.2. 3.2 hands down
👌🏻👍INTERESTING🙏 on how the 2.0 w/Bi-turbo got more power in real world test. ☝️ I do hope you can complete that Review in terms of revs at every speeds bcz it’s a Mind buggling for us buyers to see why the bigger 5cyl has the same fuel consumption than the Smaller one. 🧠 Did it mean that the 2.0 is working more at High revs to get that power that The 3.2 does? ☝️ i also want to know the comarison ON what is the lowest RPM they acheived AT 80kph, 100kph & 120kph
The 3.2 would outlast the 2L by a mile. The EGTs in the 2L would be REALLY HIGH resulting in cracked pistons and/or melted pistons over a long period. Im not saying that’s what’s going to happen, but for a grey nomad pulling a trailer like that almost everyday, my choice would be the 3.2. For occasional towing and weekends away I’d go with the 2L.
@@raphael3873 "everyone knows that" is not exactly providing any evidence whatsoever. Anyone can easily claim anything and insist it's true despite having no evidence to back up their claim
That 2.0 litre was already reached its maximum setting performance while the 3.2 litre only show maybe about 50-60 percent performance from factory setting.
@@andre899 The main issue with the 2.0 has been failed injectors on early ones and failed wet belts. Both addressed in production. The earlier 2.2 and 3.2 also had the injector issues causing pistons to melt if they failed, plus the failed oil pumps which caused the engines to seize with little warning. I replaced the oil pump in my 2.2 Ranger at 80,000 miles [130,000kms] just in case and I’m keeping it while adding a new model T6.2 2.0 bi-turbo to the fleet in July 2023.
Two days ago I run to the local Ford dealer and quickly bought one of the few remaining old 3.2 Litre Wildtrak. The salesman told me that only a few left because people buying them as never before...
I’ve had two 3.2 Ranger wildtracks,loved them.Just ordered a new Ranger Thunder 2.0 bi turbo will see how it compares.Not so sure on how long the 2.0 bi turbo will last,will only keep it while under warranty.
Ha ha ha ! Ford Australian has ditched the 3.2. Of course they will say the 2.0 is better. IMO I’d rather the 3.2 with some ‘mods’. I know in the long run it’s a longer lived engine because it’s not as stressed. “THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT !!”
They aren’t scrapping it, people who don’t tow just need a Ute will take the 2.0 for every day driving, that’s why it’s used in the Everest. Ford said that since the sales of the 3.2 is higher then the 2.0 Ute they will not discontinue the 3.2
Thanks, guys. Liked and subbed. Im in the market next month but have spent the past three months researching and had settled on the 3.2, my [old school] thoughts being engine capacity and importantly that to my understanding a larger engine would not need to work as hard to get there which would equate to long term reliability. One month out from my purchase you have completely changed my mind and as of now, I'm going 2ltr and the new tech. However: Before I write it in stone would you or any other people following along with mechanical experience comment on that long term reliability in terms of my (seemingly faulty) logic that a larger capacity engine will work less hard and therefore wear better over time? Thanks so much. I had been looking for this information for ages.
you probably dont care but does anyone know of a way to log back into an instagram account?? I was stupid forgot my account password. I would love any tips you can give me.
@Leonel Cayden I really appreciate your reply. I found the site on google and I'm trying it out now. Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
I’ve owned my MY19 Ranger BiTurbo for about 18 months now and absolutely love the performance, handling and quietness of the vehicle. My only niggle was a jittery feel and slight lag in the transmission but a recent recall to upgrade the software seems to have fixed this and has made the car feel a lot more smoother and responsive.
Get at throttle controller. I just got a wildtrak same year same motor and didn't like how laggy the throttle was so put the throttle controller I had in my Px1 super cab into it and wow it's brutally fast and responsive.
And I'd just add my 2.5 MN triton after 426k kms the engine running like I got it at 120k kms just so still the same turbo at 426k kms the engine still perfect. Beat that Ford RANGER?
The ZD30 was revised sometime after 2004 (thereabouts) to address the Grenade issues. It was improved further with the introduction of the Common Rail system.There are increasing reports of these engines doing over 500K without any problems. I believe there are some that are over 600k. These vehicles have apparently been looked after like all diesels should be (including installation of engine safety mods and professional - mild to moderate performance enhancements). This engine is of course no where near as highly strung as the 2L mentioned here but I guess only time will let us know the outcome.
I tow in S mode in my 3.2 litre Ranger. In your test, you were in D mode in the 3.2 litre compared to the 2 litre in S mode for the same hill climb. This can make a difference to the pulling power of the Ranger
Well done comparison guys.... prob the best I have seen. Shame you cant buy the 10 speed mated to the 3.2.... Only outstanding question is which will last longer ?? A highly stressed 2 litre or a lazy 3.2
Look back in history for reliability of older design large displacement or lower power engines in the same vehicle type and you will find increasing levels of reliability and longevity with less routine maintenance and overhauls even as engines get more and more power per unit of swept volume. Better economy too. It makes me think that engine designers of the 20th century must have been taking the customer for a ride.
The 2.0 Litre Bi-Turbo is shifted in Sports mode while the 3.2 Litre Turbo is only in Drive mode. There are a lot of power difference when the vehicle is in Sports and Drive mode
But the response of the vehicle depends on the mode you select even if you floor the accelerator, the transmission will not shift to the lowest possible gear if you’re in drive mode and using sports mode enables the car to deliver its full power unlike in drive mode, the car usually prevent the car from using its full power to maintain the economical level. Flooring the your car in sports mode is different from flooring in drive mode.
@@Pik000 there definitely is difference in power. in sports shift it locks the torque converter in most situations where it would be unlocked in normal drive mode and losing sooooo much power to the torque converter fluid coupling. This is one of the main reasons for the sports shift mode. it not only holds the gear but locks the converter.
Thanks Nick. That is the exact test I was looking for as I will be looking to by a Ranger in the next 12 months. Must admit I was only considering the 3.2 as I just thought it would be better for towing.
the 2.0 engine breaks down quickly because the engine is small but the load is heavy. I prefer to use 3.2 especially when climbing hills because the power is quite satisfactory
Watching from the Philippines! ^_^ great content very relaxing to watch. May i request you do a side by side test again this time the Mitsubishi Triton. Specifically the previous gen (4D56 engine 2.5 liters) versus the latest model facelift (4N15 engine 2.4 liters). Should be also an exciting comparison in power, fuel consumption and general car feel. Thank you very much! Take care guys. Keep safe!
“A certain number of Ranger and Everest vehicles equipped with the 2.0L Bi-Turbo engine and 10-speed transmission may experience the failure of transmission fluid pump gears, which can cause the loss of hydraulic fluid pressure in the transmission and result in a transmission malfunction and a loss of drive,” says Ford ...Jun 4, 2020
Great technology until it fails. I'm going to stay with my good old 2003 Ford Super Dutys, close fuel consumption and easier and cheaper to fix. I have a 2003 Ford F350 powerstroke 6.0 diesel with a 5 speed auto and I can tell you that fuel consumption towing is similar (empty city driving not), so I prefer the old 325hp and 759 NM 6.0 v8 engine. I have a F250 with a 5.4 petrol and 4 speed transmission, not the same torque of the diesel, but with the same fuel consumption and really easy and cheap to repair and fix, and with LPG it gets great running costs. Greetings from Costa Rica. (Edit: oh, and my small workhorse Suzuki as my daily personal car)
As you were getting the 2003 models there were others probably saying that they'd stick with their nice simple 1990 models for reliability, simplicity and ease of repair. LOL
Exactly. I'm a diesel mechanic, and can tell you now that small engine is being strained way too hard. Watch them blow up when they're a few years old, and being ubused.
I will Definitely BUY the BI-TURBO Engine for my Granddad and Grandma for touring throughout Land Down Under as a Christmas Gift and for their Golden Wedding too as well. Shalom
Nice test guys! I just bought a 3.2 BT50..🤭🤦🏼♂️. But I hear the Triton will give them both a hiding. I went for the 3.2 because I intend to chip it to 175kw /550nm soon. I think the gearbox makes the biggest difference. The Pajero Sport and Triton have the same motor but different gearboxes and that makes the Pajero Sport far more “pokey”.
My Pajero Sport is great standard and because l scored a 7 year warranty chipping won't happen. I did install an IDRIVE though and it is amazing. Towing my 6.6 metre road caravan it is almost forgotten when accelerating compared to no IDRIVE. Have you guys ever done a compare with this $300 plug and play which my dealer sold me?
Great comparison guys, after owing both and as a diesel mechanic I agree and can hands down say the 2L (and trans) is the better engine in every way that counts. Yes I wish we had a 6 or v8 diesel option but there are advantages and efficiencies by staying small.
@@marcusbarnes5929 yeah actually you are so right what was everyone thinking. I also agree comparing a tuned and stock engine is a fair comparison. I’ve got a great idea, let’s run down to Ford and buy a new Ranger with the 3.2L, oh wait the dinosaur has been discontinued. Definitely in different leagues.
@billgates3452 🤣🥴 The stock amount of boost in the 2.0L reaching upto 30psi is still alot higher than a tuned 3.2L.. Adding just a few more pounds of boost in the tune to the 3.2L to make around 22 to 24 psi and its all around superior to the little 2.0L. The 3.2L is alot more reliable for towing. The 3.2L is not tuned to 1 inch of its life from factory so has alot of power to make. The new 3.0L v6 diesel should be great and tuned quite well from factory ...notice how the 2.0L biturbo is the poverty spec engine in the new rangers.
@@marcusbarnes5929 yeah what you said is completely irrelevant, stock vs tuned means nothing. The 2.0L is a new generation engine, it tows much better, it’s faster, better on fuel and so far has been just as reliable if not more than the 3.2L. As soon as the 2.0L was released it was the premium & best option, you had to pay more to get it and they used it in the Raptor, 3.2L was the basic bitch. biturbo now sits below the V6 but 3.2L has been outperformed in every metric and has been deleted. I don’t dislike the 3.2l and believe whatever you want, I’m a qualified diesel tech & I’ve owned both and facts are facts.
love the test. One thing which you cant test is how long the 2ltr will last. Formula 1 motors are big performance,small capacity which last one race only.
These trucks, both of them, automatically change their engine/transmission change mapping to 'trailer mode' when they detect a trailer light socket attached. The six speed has a massive gap between second and third ratio and is reluctant to change up and down in hilly areas while the 10 speed has no such gap and is responsive in all conditions. The difference is like comparing chalk to cheese.
Exactly! The 2L is very highly strung from the factory, not much headroom left and tuners are only getting very minimal gains safely. The old 3.2L on the other hand has a lot more headroom, and even running a conservative tune it would smoke the 2L all day every day and still live longer
The 3.2 litre, which i own is a work horse and i love it, that 2 litre twin turbo will die if it is worked hard, ok its faster than the 3.2, but who is in a hurry anyway, as for fuel consumption if you cant afford to run a 3.2, you wont be able to rebuild a 2 litre twin turbo when it dies
Good test! I noticed however that you had the 3.2 auto box in “D” for the test. The owner manual suggests to use Sports mode whilst towing. This locks out the overdrive gears and raises the shift point to allow less speed drop between changes. It also provides better engine braking, improves throttle performance and locks the torque converter. It’d be interesting to see what impact that has on the performance aspect of the test, as well as fuel economy.
We actually did the route twice, to make sure it was accurate. One route was the actual test, then we went back and shot the whole thing for b roll! That is 4 trips in total. The editor used the wrong shot as B Roll, but they were both in Sport Mode the whole time in the test. KB
@@MountainTrailRV It really doesn't matter anyway because there is a vast difference between the six speed, its ratios and gearchange characteristics compared to the vastly superior ten speed. It's like a chalk and cheese comparison.
It’s to get results @numbnuts. They got a very clear winner. Besides which, both vehicles automatically set a tow mode when trailer lights are attached which replicates the sporty mode very closely. Apart from which the Ford six speed auto is one of the least responsive that I’ve driven over the last 38 years. It doesn’t even kick down when the driver wants it to and the engine straining at maximum torque. Neither does it downchange for engine braking down hills in any mode you like.
So for you Ford owners out there. Is the 10spd issues fixed. I'm leaning on the Ford sport with the 6spd with single turbo over the biturbo and 10spd. Would appreciate inputs.
With the 2 litre, you are just forcing blood from a stone. Who cares how quick it goes. The 3.2 is a better tow proposition if you wish to get a long life out of it. Basic physics. Also these lightweight utes should not be towing any more than 2.5 ton. Sheer lunacy.
What they didn't tell you is that the 10 speed auto needs to be put into sport mode when towing. It has a good chance of failing if you don't. This also frees up the torque converter to allow it to rev easier. If you want a ranger that really tows great, get a 3.2, do a turbo and intercooler upgrade and have it remapped. Some companies offer driveline warranty with the tune. I've got 170000kms on mine and love it. Puts out more power and torque than a 200 series. Get mid 9 litres per 100kms around town and low 8s country runs. Towing our 19 foot full off road van it uses 12.6 litres per 100kms, up to mid 13s if pushing into a strong head wind. And I'm running 33 inch mud tyres. By, by, bi.
I love how technology moves forward however I’d seriously doubt that 2.0L engine will last towing that much weight the amount of pressure on that unit would be unreal ok if you keep it for three years and move it on but I would personally stick with the 3.2L 5cyl which I own and it’s very tuneable, also shame they don’t use the 10speed in both that would be interesting, just my opinion
I have a 2003 Ford F350 powerstroke 6.0 diesel with a 5 speed auto and I can tell you that fuel consumption towing is similar (empty city driving not), so I prefer the old 325hp and 759 NM 6.0 v8 engine. I have a F250 with a 5.4 petrol and 4 speed transmission, no the same torque of the diesel, but with the same fuel consumption and really easy and cheap to repair and fix, and with LPG it gets great running costs.
Just bi-turbo the 3.2 engine and increase the intercooler size, with new injectors and new remapping then have a decent power / torque output numbers up around 210kw / 650 nm , and even at these increased power output numbers the 3.2 engine would still be less stressed (65.6kw/litre) than the 2.0L engine in it’s current form of (78.5kw/litre) . If the 3.2 was pushed to the same stress level the power output would be in 250kw range (335hp) so the current power of the 3.2 at (45.9kw/litre) is very lightly stressed.
it was a good test but you can't compare one truck to the other on pulling or all-in-all engine performance & fuel consumption because the biggest difference of those trucks it's not only the motor but what gives it the power to the wheels, US.Ranger 10-speed transmission rest of the world Ranger 6-speed transmission. that 10-speed as a lot more gear ratios that gives the 4-cylinder smaller engine more power in better fuel economy so I think if people want to compare 1 motor to the other one they should put a 10-speed Auto behind the 3.2 engine and then compare and see which is better. But all in all there is no better truck than Ford trucks..
I’ve got a 3.2 and there’s no doubt there a bit sluggish and noisy compared to the 2.0 but they love a tune or remap and for $1200-1500 for one it’s well worth it. Gearbox is the key although they can outsmart themselves finding the right gear when pulling a van. Both good choices there’s horse for courses. Still better than a gutless HILUX
Also it's not an apples to apples comparison, rather a joke 3.2L was in normal "D" mode 2.0L was in sport "S" mode Also they simply think it's more powerful ?, they fail to look at specifics that actually matter Things like final drive ratios, transmissions, etc In this case the 3.2L is let down by a dated 6sp auto 2.0L is backed by a 10sp auto They both run different final drive ratios which does effect overall tow performance. If they were both 10sp auto's, i'd reckon the 3.2L would have demolished it 🤣🤣🤣
Clearly the 3.2 is in d for drive indicated by the red d and the 2.0 is in s for sports mode indicated by the red s. The 3.2 would have pinned its ears back in sports mode and got up there 10 kmph faster at least. Which ever gear your in is indicated by the letter lighting up red.
I drove Ford 2.0L with boat. They didn’t have a 3.2L for met to test, so I drove a DMax 3.0 (similar NM) with expectation I would return to the Ford dealer and put my money down. I didn’t. Not only did the Isuzu feel more relaxed, I didn’t expect it to do it so well for such a cheaper price. I do love the Rangers, but what was suppose to be unfair comparison became my reason not to buy with the new DMax out in September. I’m no mechanic, but 75k for an unproven engine is a lot of money. If I wasn’t towing most weekends, I wouldn’t be worried.
Your test wasn't equal, 3.2 ltr didn't have a tornne cover on it more drag where the 2.0 ltr bi turbo did, fuel consumption would have been the same or better
I love my biturbo wildtrak! That being said, coming down mountains I really prefer my 3L chevy. I have to drop 8 gears before the engine starts to slow me down on the 10 speed and I can just feel that the engine has less .. ummph ... than a larger displacement engine for engine braking .
If I leave my 3.2 5 cylinder, I’m going to the new V6 diesel, front the new Ranger, I’ll not regret to a 2.0 4 cylinder, it vibrates more, there isn’t de beautiful sound of the 5 cylinder and feels that have less torque em low rpm...
no need for concern; i had the gearbox fixed twice in my old 3.2; once at 45,000 kms and then a gearbox overhaul (shim failed) at 78,000 kms; so far the 10 speed has been flawless
Neither a Ranger nor a 3.2 are large. Ranger is a mid-size pickup. The size above mid-size if full size and large pickup is the class above that. In the Large Pickup class the diesel offered by Ford is a 6.7L v8.
I had a 2017 wildtrak 3.2 from new and did 140,000ks and towed a 2.7t boat most of the time. Only issue I had was the fuel injectors went at 122,000 but got them replaced under warranty. I’ve just purchased the 2.0 bi turbo wildtrak - I’ll put it to the test over the next few years. Watch this space for updates!!!
Really appreciate that guys, great test, great info. I am switching from Mitsubishi L200 XLS to the ranger and was focused on the 3.2 thinking bigger is better, clearly not. Decision made, bi-turbo it is. Thanks again.
Awesome test. The 2L is better in every way. We have had both the 3.2L and the now the 2l BiTurbo. The 3.2L is good but feels sluggish compared to the 2L in everyday drive. The 2L accelerate quicker and is by far quieter and comfier on road. Both still great vehicles. Cheers
Best towing video I have seen a great job guys. I would have brought the 3.2 if I hadn't seen this video. Now I'm not so sure cubic inches are the answer. I have a caravan and I'm looking for a new tow car.
The performance difference is down as much to the 10 speed auto as anything. The 6 speed is a reluctant shifter, both up and down the range, and it has a massive gap between second and third. The 10 speed is responsive and seamless. Yes the 2.0 is quieter and more refined and I feel that the suspension on the current 2.0 is more refined than older versions as well. Its a win-win for the 2.0 bi-turbo with 10 speed automatic, no doubt about it.
Please get the 3.2, my dads mate is a mechanic and he said the 2.0 litre is better for around town. But when towing or light off roading it struggles and when towing they have more issues. He said do not get one overall. He said heaps of the 2.0 are in the shop with blown head gaskets and the 10 speed is a disaster
@@darbyharrison3876 Neither of which is true. Both had the usual teething troubles on early build, especially the 2.0 engine which was fitted in Transit for a couple of years before hitting the Ranger. Biggest issues were failures or the wet belts and injectors which would fail and burn through pistons. The injectors were sourced from specialists of course and have now been replaced by revised units. I am about to take delivery [June 2023] of the latest model Ranger Wildtrak with the 2 litre engine. I have every confidence in the 10 speed auto because Ford must have made over 2 million units by now and issues are few and far between and mostly on early builds. This new one will be in addition to my existing 2.2 auto that has given great service for the last nine years, mainly needing the occasional new rear spring but recently blew its top pressurised hose from the top of the intercooler to the intake manifold.
Loved the video guys. Have you towed with a Raptor? I know it is rated for less but the engine size is the same. I guess its the rear suspension that would make the difference - is that correct?
