Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Non Ranger Related Subjects
Post Reply
Scotty56
300 Club
Posts: 311
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: 2636
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: 563
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: 126
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: 2636
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
75 Club
Posts: 79
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: 154
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: 48
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: 1406
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: 48
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
50 Club
Posts: 64
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: 1406
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.
User avatar
Trublu
Moderator
Posts: 3144
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: 1406
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: 48
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.
User avatar
Trublu
Moderator
Posts: 3144
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: 1406
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.
User avatar
Trublu
Moderator
Posts: 3144
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: 1406
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.
PLWildtrak
50 Club
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:35 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by PLWildtrak »

I have a 2020 PXIII with 2.0l bi-turbo & 10-speed and I can't find any guidelines in the manual referring to D or S or manual mode etc for towing.
Under Transmission it says "In Sport mode the transmission selects the optimum gear for best performance. This gear selection is typically lower than that of Drive".
Under Towing it just says "Use a low gear when decending a steep down hill slope", but it doesn't give any guidelines as to whether that should be done in D or S.

Just had mine out for it's first tow test today in preparation for getting away at Xmas. I used S mode as it seemed to make more sense given that I've got 3T hanging off the back.

Have to say I was mightily impressed. Towing our near 3T caravan and it was great. Can't compare it to the 3.2l, but I can compare it to my previous 200 Series and for me with the exception of initial acceleration from a standing start, the Ranger is a better tow vehicle. The 200 Series gets off the line faster, but the Ranger is better once at speed. It's more stable with it's longer wheelbase, is far better at keeping the motor in the torque band (due to having more gears) and pulls up hills way better. Towing with the 200 Series going up Mt Ousley out of Wollongong would have the 200 Series transmission getting damn hot by the top, and that is even holding it back a bit and running up at 70kph rather than the 80kph speed limit. The Ranger romped up it at 80kph today, and while the Ranger engine temps and trans temps are higher by design than the 200 Series under normal driving, they stayed very close to the normal temps even running up Mt Ousley. No sign of worryingly high temps at all. At one point I got stuck behind a truck and got down to about 40kph, and it still had the power to accelerate back to 80kph even running up the hill, and all without cooking the engine or transmission. I was very impressed.

For what I want and how I use it the Ranger beats the 200 series hands down. I only tow 3T, so not quite to the max, and otherwise the back of the Ranger isn't heavily loaded so I'm not pushing GVM or GCM limits. It seems to do everything I want brilliantly, and it also uses 3l/100km less fuel than the 200 Series in pretty much all conditions, including towing. Definitely a happy camper.
MY20.75 2.0l Bi-turbo Wildtrak X
Rbjet
100 Club
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Rbjet »

That certainly is interesting comparing it to the 200 which I thought would have been better in most situations.
bgnz
25 Club
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:54 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by bgnz »

I've had both and have to say the 2.0 is the nicer engine. The only downside is that it sounds like a sewing machine. Hey, it might not last as long in 300,000 kms, but i trade at 100kms and wont own the ute then anyway. In the meantime id rather have a nicer smoother engine.

BUT...... The fuel economy is exactly the same between the 2.0 and 3.2 over 30,000 kms so far. 7.* litres is a crock of s***.
butch.
300 Club
Posts: 2636
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. »

Rbjet wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:28 am 200 which I thought would have been better in most situations.
Why?
cheers, Butch.
Rbjet
100 Club
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Rbjet »

butch. wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:18 pm
Rbjet wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:28 am 200 which I thought would have been better in most situations.
Why?
cheers, Butch.
Mainly due the weight of the 200 adding to stability and more torque than a Ranger.
I've never towed with a 200 though so no idea what they're like.
PLWildtrak
50 Club
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:35 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by PLWildtrak »

And you'd be right. It's weight is generally an asset in terms of stability, and the fact that it's permanent 4WD, and it's additional torque means it gets underway better. The 2 main issues I had with it in terms of towing are that the wheelbase is too short which can allow some fore-aft pitching, and the transmission is archaic. It relies far too much on the torque convertor which then generates way too much heat. Add to that the fact that the engine is in a really low state of tune for it's capacity, especially considering the bulk it is carrying, and the transmission needs to work even harder. A better transmission would change the whole vehicle, and likely improve fuel economy massively as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's terrible. Clearly it's not given the number of them out there used for towing, but it's far from the ideal and perfect towing platform that it is touted as. In many respects it is typical of conservative (or lazy depending on your perspective) Toyota. They done enough with it to make it good, but they've done no more than they had to. In so many areas it could have (and should have given the price they charge) been much better with a few relatively minor tweaks. All in all not a bad vehicle, but for what I need the Ranger seems better.
MY20.75 2.0l Bi-turbo Wildtrak X
Rbjet
100 Club
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Rbjet »

It'd be interesting comparing a 200 with a tune, lock up converter and good suspension to the Ranger then.
lincolnland
300 Club
Posts: 8685
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:17 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by lincolnland »

Noel
25 Club
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:09 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Noel »

I think the main reason the Ranger is a good tow vehicle is the long wheelbase 300mm longer than a 2000 series, i personally prefer the 3.2L as it hold gears longer and is not continually changing gears, for me it's not about getting to the top of a hill a couple of seconds earlier. Just happy with the the way it holds a gear even on undulating roads towing 3.2T
allover
100 Club
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:24 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by allover »

Just came back from 4 days in the high country, had trouble negotiating around a fallen tree, where as a Hilux and 100 series got thru easy. Out of interest ran the tape measure over both that night and they were 300mm shorter wheel base, was quite surprised
blueshine
75 Club
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by blueshine »

2019 specs for wheelbase:
Ranger XLT 3220mm
Hilux SR5 3085mm
Triton GLS 3000mm

They've apparently converged in more recent models then. I'm not surprised on the difference to Triton, the rear wheels on that vehicle are right at the front of the tray, it is visually a lot shorter. I am surprised at the 14cm difference between Ranger and Hilux as they don't look that different. Ranger great for towing, a bit less great for ramp over angle. No wonder I bottom out more than others!
Iddledoo
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:53 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Iddledoo »

lincolnland wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:00 pm https://youtu.be/o93K1_1DI1c
Could this be any more Toyota bias? Comparing showroom dualcabs against heavily modified (for towing) Toyota’s. If you take away the tune, lockup kit and after market suspension away from the 200 series and also take away the clutch, tune and suspension away from the 70 series they come crashing back to the pack.
I have a PX Series 1 XLT Manual 3.2 and have towed many different weights and sizes up to 3.2T and can honestly say it’s one of the best tow vehicles I’ve had. The only mod I have is 300kg constant springs in the rear and that’s for what I put in the tray not for what I tow.
blueshine
75 Club
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by blueshine »

It's not actually an unbiased review, even though it pretends to be one. Like every other 4wd 24x7/4wd action video it's an advertorial and barely even disguised at that. Usually fun to watch but certainly not something to use for buying advice, I imagine that most of the audience must have this figured out by now.
diomac
300 Club
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:38 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by diomac »

It's not really a fair comparison, to be honest, and ultimately is not about the 2L vs the 3.2L but rather the 6spd vs the 10spd. I will say this I have owned my Wildtrak 3.2 manual for almost 5 years now, and had my 2L Work Raptor for 2 years. I would take the 3.2L manual every day of the week over the 2L 10spd when spending my own money.

The big issue with the 3.2L 6spd is Ford has put BS torque limits on the transmissions from the factory and detuned the 3.2L a lot to pass emissions, limits not found on the over tuned 2L 10spd.

I have a BPT Motorsport flash tune on my Wildtrak that removed the torque limits on 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear and gave the 3.2L some much needed safe punch. This totally transformed the way it drives, and honestly how they should come off the showroom floor.

With the 2L 10spd they work hard, you drive them as if you stole them and I really worry about long term ownership, they sit much higher in the Rev range and work, my 3.2L 6spd basically cruises everywhere and tows beautifully and pulls down low properly with the torque limits removed.
ab67
300 Club
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by ab67 »

I look at it like the patrol 3L vs 4.2L
3L has more power on paper, but the older donk was more reliable
Brente1982
300 Club
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:25 pm
Location: Epping, Victoria

Re: Ranger 3.2 litre vs 2 litre tow test.

Post by Brente1982 »

blueshine wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:53 am 2019 specs for wheelbase:
Ranger XLT 3220mm
Hilux SR5 3085mm
Triton GLS 3000mm

They've apparently converged in more recent models then. I'm not surprised on the difference to Triton, the rear wheels on that vehicle are right at the front of the tray, it is visually a lot shorter. I am surprised at the 14cm difference between Ranger and Hilux as they don't look that different. Ranger great for towing, a bit less great for ramp over angle. No wonder I bottom out more than others!
I noted this in a carpark at Bunnings when I pulled up because a new hilux. Front wheels dead level, but the difference at the rear was remarkably noticeable.
PX2 My17 XLT Dual Cab - Aluminium Silver
Fitted with a host of accessories that have made my Ranger one heavy a$$ b1atch
Post Reply