Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Non Ranger Related Subjects
Post Reply
Scotty56
300 Club
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:36 pm
Location: SE Melbourne

Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Scotty56 »

Scotty
2013 BT50
butch.
300 Club
Posts: 2506
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: Horsham, Victoria. Spittin distance to S.A.

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by butch. »

Just watched the vidio and wasn't surprised. However the best part was reading all the comments :lol: :lol:
cheers, Butch.
Grant L1
300 Club
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Grant L1 »

Agree with Butch, the comments were worth the read and as for the speculation of the smaller engines longevity, only time will tell us all that.
Willobend
100 Club
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:57 am

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Willobend »

Pretty easy to see which category 2.0 haters fall into. The descriptions are pretty apt.

https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/od ... -adoption/
butch.
300 Club
Posts: 2506
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: Horsham, Victoria. Spittin distance to S.A.

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by butch. »

Willobend wrote:Pretty easy to see which category 2.0 haters fall into. The descriptions are pretty apt.

https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/od ... -adoption/
Geezzz, now that's an interesting read. I couldn't really define my category. Maybe I'm just unique 8-) ..........or not :oops:

cheers, Butch.
blueshine
25 Club
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by blueshine »

Nice one. Not surprised on the outcome at all having driven both. A good quantitative A/B comparison test is hard to come by so much appreciated. Youtube comments are mostly junk with the occasional insight from someone with a clue, so I pretty much knew what was going to be there even before I saw them.
allover
100 Club
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:24 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by allover »

Correct me if i am wrong, the Ford manual says to tow in S, on the video he clearly states he is Auto!!
Don't know if this would have made much difference, but sure you would read the manual first
cmar
25 Club
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by cmar »

Mmmm a rubber cam and oil pump drive belt, running in hot sooty diesel oil, changed every 15,000 Km. What could possibly go wrong. :lol: I'm sorry, you can't really do long term testing by computer simulation or accelerated testing. Running an engine at full throttle until it breaks is not the same as 10 years worth of start, stop, crap in engine accumulating cycles. The only way to see how reliable an engine is long term, is to run it long term.

And fortunately here's some proof of that: http://www.mechanicdublin.ie/services/f ... -wet-belt/ and https://www.fordownersclub.com/forums/t ... ming-belt/ There are lots more. Lets hope materials have improved.

Think I'' stick to my 3.2
User avatar
naddis01
300 Club
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by naddis01 »

Gee using the wrong oil or missing regular servicing in a different engine can degrade the lifespan of a wet belt by 150,000km. Who would have thought.
cmar
25 Club
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by cmar »

Never said it was the same engine, just the same technology, that why i said some proof, and as I said, I hope materials have improved since then.
But the warnings are there, how many on this forum run the exact Ford recommended oil in their engines right now, and for that matter how many dealers?
And servicing confusion already exists, why is it that Ford specify 15,000 Km oil change intervals, and Mazda 10,000 for the exact same engine? Possibly not a problem for most people here, who probably follow the severe service schedule if anything, I don't see many pushing out past 15,000 Km.
Still something for people buying the 2.0 litre with a view to severe use, / long term ownership to consider.
mjt57
25 Club
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 9:42 am

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by mjt57 »

That was an interesting video.

I watched it before I made my decision to go with the 3.2 engined Wildtrak.

A couple of interesting points.
Where they clipped the brakeaway lanyard - on one of the safety chains. Aren't they supposed to be affixed to somewhere separate to the towbar assembly?
No towing mirrors. Does this mean that the Ranger mirrors are adequate for towing a van or that these guys couldn't be bothered?
And finally, I like the idea of a wireless trailer brake controller. I'll investigate these before I decide whether to fit the Tow Pro Elite or maybe get one of them.
User avatar
naddis01
300 Club
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by naddis01 »

cmar wrote:And servicing confusion already exists, why is it that Ford specify 15,000 Km oil change intervals, and Mazda 10,000 for the exact same engine?
Because Mazda specify a lower grade of oil.
Trublu
Moderator
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:54 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Trublu »

naddis01 wrote:
cmar wrote:And servicing confusion already exists, why is it that Ford specify 15,000 Km oil change intervals, and Mazda 10,000 for the exact same engine?
Because Mazda specify a lower grade of oil.
I thought Mazda was same as Ford specs for the 2.2 & 3.2 engines, usually increased sump capacity also plays a role in longer service intervals.
Cheers
Attachments
2012 Lubricant guide BT50Fluids.jpg
User avatar
naddis01
300 Club
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by naddis01 »

See the multiple specs that Mazda allow. Ford only have the one.
cmar
25 Club
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by cmar »

Interesting that Mazda specify 140 oil for the rear diff also. Is Ford sacrificing longevity to the fuel consumption gods? Or is 140 just overkill, I would probably use it by preference if towing.
Trublu
Moderator
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:54 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Trublu »

naddis01 wrote:See the multiple specs that Mazda allow. Ford only have the one.
Go read your ford service guide book, you can use SAE5W-30 that meets the specification defined by ACEA A5/B5-08
User avatar
naddis01
300 Club
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by naddis01 »

That's correct but the Mazda you can also use the other ones listed in the table you posted. In the Ford you cannot.

By the way, PXII is WSS-M2C913-D.

Anyway, we are getting off topic.
Ducfat
100 Club
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:01 am

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Ducfat »

allover wrote:Correct me if i am wrong, the Ford manual says to tow in S, on the video he clearly states he is Auto!!
Don't know if this would have made much difference, but sure you would read the manual first
Does the manual really recommend to tow in Sport mode? I've looked and couldn't actually find anything. I've only ever heard it on the grapevine.
Trublu
Moderator
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:54 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Trublu »

Ducfat wrote:
allover wrote:Correct me if i am wrong, the Ford manual says to tow in S, on the video he clearly states he is Auto!!
Don't know if this would have made much difference, but sure you would read the manual first
Does the manual really recommend to tow in Sport mode? I've looked and couldn't actually find anything. I've only ever heard it on the grapevine.
Depends on which year ranger you have, all the PX1 models owner books have it printed where as I know it PX2 models onward the owners book does not mention towing in sports mode.
Ford knows how to confuse you! :o

Cheers
User avatar
naddis01
300 Club
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by naddis01 »

It says it in my PXII manual under the heading - Sports mode and manual shifting. It goes on to say - Note: When towing heavy loads or in hilly terrain, it is recommended that sport mode is selected. This will result in cooler transmission temperatures and additional engine braking.

I only know because I looked it up for a mate that was buying a second hand Ranger that had been towing a caravan.
Post Reply