John, I just wanted to send a note of sincere thanks. A bit over year ago I had the opportunity to buy myself a new small car for the first time in a dozen years. I knew exactly which car I wanted as I had obsessed over this purchase for a couple of years. At least I thought I knew. Many thanks to you for providing a hefty pull on my shoulders to dislodge my head from my ass, reminding me to purchase with my well-researched brain and not my foolish heart. I've been extremely pleased with my what I believe in Shitsville is called a 2018 Mazda 3 SP25 Astina. A car that meets all of my needs while possessing a few compromises I am happy to live with. I even managed to score the vehicle for thousands of Yankee-bucks under my target number employing your purchasing tactics. Thanks for being not just an informative and entertaining journalist, but an even better automotive consumer advocate. Keep up the great work! - Some nut in Retardistan, Northeast of Walton Mountain
@@Rico_G Now this was a bloody enjoyable comment thread. I drove (didn't own) a Golf of some description a few years back. It had a normal and 'sports' mode. Great little polluter in sports mode and normal mode I'd wager. They are zippy little things, but you made a wise decision. On another note, you know the Kia Stinger? Our Queensland Police force have a fleet of them. I was having a yarn with a couple of cops in a Stinger today while we were stopped at the lights (I was in my little fridge truck). They're very happy with them as a Police vehicle, but they are crowded with cop-tech on the roof and in cab.
Those statistics speak highly of your driving manner and the quality of the diesel found in Australia! We usually replace the oil every 5,000 Km in Costa Rica, albeit, the diesel fuel is supposedly low sulphuric content and modern diesels with DPF’s after treatment of the exhaust benefit from this!
@@jeromedolique9950 , it a diesel turbo, moderate oil burn is normal, not a indication of wear , the oil analysis is to look at oil shear( molecular breakdown of the oil.)
I have owned both the 3.2lt and 2lt Bi turbo Ranger Wildtraks. Having just put 12,500km on the new 2019 2lt BiTurbo. I can quite categorically say the 2lt Bi Turbo is hands down a huge improvement over the old 3.2lt 5 cylinder dinosaur. As far as I am concerned the engines and performance is night and day. I drive alpine passes frequently, motorway and town and tow often. Faster, smoother, far more economical by approx 100km per tank full. The 10 speed is awesome, you don't even know your changing gear. The 2lt performance feels more like a petrol, it is far more responsive than the 3.2lt. So from a real world point of view, I would never go back to the old 3.2lt donkey. I thought I wouldn't notice much difference but I was very happily surprised.
12.4k? That’s nothing! Let us know when you hit 100k on the clock then we can see how the 2.0 stacks up. Yeah it might perform better than the 3.2 but that won’t matter if the engine shuts itself over 100k
Great analsys, helped me all the way in choosing the car. It's a Ranger 3.2 Wildtrak 2018 and I am very happy. Might be slower than 2.0, but it sure feels great and effortless. Thank you, sir!
I am in the market right now (COVID 19 aside) for a Ranger and I was looking for info on the 3.2 vs the 2.0. That is why I found you. I must congratulate for the wealth of info you have so succinctly provided, sir. Greetings from Spain
Looks like the 2.0 will become available across the range next month with the MY20. The 3.2 may hang on for another year but it's on the emissions chopping block soon. I just bought a 3.2 last week and love it.
A tuned 3.2 ltr is far better than the 2.0 ltr which is largely untenable. Off the shelf the 2.0 ltr numbers are slightly better. 3.2 ltr can gain large amounts in tourqe and power without any aftermarket performance parts.
I bought my 2019 bitubo Ford Ranger WildtrakX on September 2019 i have done one tip to Queensland and 2 trips to South Australia the car is amazing run like a dream. But the Engine is new to the market that why put the people off .Haven't say that if you never never go you never never know i just hope for the best but so far am very very impressed with the car luxury and performance!!!!
We own a 2014 2.2lt twin turbo 6 speed Ranger, it has been an excellent vehicle. We have done 160,000 k’s, no true off-roading, but a lot of heavy laden driving on very long tours. It has had a couple of issues over the years, first was ants making nests in the relays, they are attracted to them for some reason, that happened twice( $600 each time to repair), and recently we have spent $4500 sorting out the auto transmission. Apparently they are notorious for having problems at around 160-170K k’s. But overall, compared to the Nissan Pathfinder we owned previously, the Ford is a superior vehicle.
I've driven both and the 2L actually goes way better. It likes to rev alot more and doesn't run out of puff like the 3.2L. Much better acceleration on the highway too. A mate has owned both and had them both tuned and prefers the 2L also and it gets way better economy. As for issues in it sure. Another mate just had his 2L replaced because an Injector flooded the engine and filled the sump with diesel. Ford replaced the whole car.under warranty.
I run a 3.2 Wildtrak, I also ran a 2l bi for 10 weeks while Ford was doing my free rust treatment ,I could not wait to to get back into my 3.2 ,my wife and kids even said the 2l is horrible to drive ,the 10 speed box could not make up its mind what gear it wants to be in and it was jurking while driving in urban areas ,hated the thing ,3.2 all the way
Well done. Such a relief to find an expert with a sense of humour. Your knowledge is way outside the norm and that would probably offend the illiterate?
One of the things I like most about the 3.2L is its simplicity. It is by far the simplest design of all modern diesel engines. Anyone that has rebuilt one will know what I'm talking about
@@guywelch656 No I haven't driven both, although it's not about how they drive as much as long term engine life I would be concerned about because both engines move the vehicle along really well I'm sure.
In outboard engines, in the 250 HP range, Mercury used a 2.8 litre block, whereas Yamaha used a 4.2 litre block. Again, there was not significant weight advantage with the smaller block. I know which one I preferred, amongst other reasons, for the reason John is outlining in this video. Interesting to note that Mercury's latest 250 HP 4s is on a 4+ litre block.
The trade of with Performance is Reliability (inverse relationship). Twin Turbo (Twin the chances of expensive failures/repairs not just on the Turbo). With Fords reputation for Ecoboost, I am hesitant to give my confidence in the Longevity department.
Hi John. So jealous of that outstanding tool set and your organisational skills. I too noticed the different spanners in the background but knowing you, i knew there must be a reason. Thanks for explaining that for us viewers. Rob
dove the 2lt ford ranger yesterday love it,i have a bmw 320d tuned by diesel tuning Australia which goes really good,but i was impressed with the power delivery of the 2lt ranger and how quiet it was compared to my mates everrest 3.2
Great job on the 2.0/3.2 litre engine battle, oh yes and some electric Jesus 😀. I've been looking at at buying a DeLoren, low mileage, only used from time to time. Thanks for sharing.
I went for the 3.2 being a known (used) vehicle in Australia. Drove the 2 litre, liked it for the short distance driven, however as has been said before theres no replacement for displacement. MY BIGGEST gripe with Ford now having the 2018 XLT, is the shudder and thump upon take off. Im in communication with ford, however Ford are still continuing to call it a "characteristic" of the vehicle, which remarkably the characteristic wasn't present when I test drove 2 rangers. Ive been to the ACCC, and consumer affairs, it would appear that ultimately, this will end up in the court. John I would suggest you take your video crew and do some more research on this "known" fault by Ford, and their failure to adequately address the design, or part failure and stop calling it a characteristic. If I drove the car with the characteristic, I would've bought a Holden or Toyota.
Have you sorted you transmission problem out? Did you change the oil in the trans? Apparently some come under filled from factor and run hot and cause all sorts of problems. Running an oil cooler also helps out the trans
With the 3.2, stick a better turbo on, decent remap for performance/economy... whichever you prefer, catch can for the hell of it, better intercooler, better quality air filter and it should be miles ahead of the 2.0. They should have put the 3.2 in the raptor and factory tuned it for a lot more power from the engine then maybe people (other than the yummy mummies going to the shops) would be more inclined to buy it. Or, buy an amarok.
How many kms has your xlt?and is it better than the 2.0 liter bi turbo?i have a mazda bt 50 i havent use it since the pandemic this dec we will be back in the phils for a vacation i just tell my brother to use it once a week 20 kms highway..did you have any issue with your xlt?thank you
Last 3 cars Jeep grand Cherokee diesel 2013, Hyundai santa Fe 2018, ranger 3.2 2018. Ranger best tow car I have owned. Solid, relaxed, great engine braking. It's not always about raw grunt...
Driving a chipped 2016 3.2 6spd at its gvm of 3200kg all day everyday for work on highway and off highway including full off-road across farms and in river quarrys. Have had trailers behind it taking me to the 6 ton limit and just about every other diesel ute attempt to overtake me or out climb me on a hill and not once been let down by the ranger. That being said without that chip it is a very detuned beast.
This channel is seriously underrated. I've never seen another youtuber like John able to go so indepth about cars and the car industry. Now bring back the sheilas!
It's 2.0 L due to the Asian market. A 2.5 L version would have been more appropriate locally, slightly less boost though. It still could be 15 percent more powerful and be truly class leading. Supposedly they'll be replacing the ancient 3.2 5 cylinder with a 3.0 Powerstroke V6. Just hope it's updated on the existing Powerstroke.
Hi JC. I always thought that the way to look at decisions like this is that the turbo is an efficiency proposition. It will use less fuel when you are just driving around but still has the power when you need it. If you only do work and don't just drive around then you will be working a turbo hard all the time, and that will wear it out.
Funny you mention the cool down of turbos. Whatever happened to the "turbo timer" which was bread and butter and common sense in the past. BMW told my brother it makes no difference on his X5 which caused a heated debate.
Julian Graziani weeeelllllll... Most modern turbo petrols have watercooled turbos, while most diesels still just rely on their oil supply for cooling. When you shut the engine down, the modern turbo petrol engine will continue to pump coolant through that circuit to cool the turbo down, while the diesel’s oil supply will stop and there is a propensity for the oil to cook to the turbine shaft and f*** it. Diesels do run lower EGTs though
Just about all modern turbos are oil and coolant cooled. Which doesn’t require a timer. Irregardless of that. Anything turbocharged should have at least a couple of min idle time after a hard part of road time
the 2.0 is already a disaster out here in Thailand where we make them, the 3.2 is no longer offered the 2.0 is eating oil worryingly, especially in the Raptor some seem to solve it with heavier grade oil, Ford warranty seem to suggest it is still normal, but change to heavier oil if you complain enough. the missing oil seem to disappear down the exhaust in collect in the turbo, or even leaks into the radiator resulting in sludge
Bob; I live in Thailand and heard about the problems with the Ford 2.0 bi turbo. I opted for the Toyota Hilux with 2.4 Diesel engine because I heard rumours about the 2.8 having DPF problems.
3.2 has been problem free? I’ve got 3 mates on their second or third motor still under warranty. Good to see you can read of the specs sheet with no real world experience.
Relatively problem free around the world I think he said. It’s been a pretty successful engine . Got a few mates who haven’t had problems at all. 1 towing around Australia few times last 10 years still going strong
I just updated from a 2012, 2.2 Ltd Ranger , which finally gave up the ghost at 390,000ks , to a 2017 3.2 Ranger, which is really good, so far. Just love the thing, plenty of power for what I need it for, comfortable and just nice to drive. Hoping to get similar range out of this one👍. Will keep an eye on that cooler thing though. Thanks.
I have a 3.2ltr Ford Ranger I have had many similar vehicles in my lifetime, recently I was cohersed into taken a 2ltr ford ranger for a run. My verdict was it was the biggest heap of crap I have driven in comparison with my 3.2ltr Ranger, the capital letters say it for me.
Is it purely the eninge you dislike on the ranger with the 2.0 or are there other things you don't like about the newer ranger models? Looking to buy a used ranger but still deciding to go for a 2019model with the 3.2 or a newer 2.0 model....all advice is welcome
Apologies for any grammatical issues below. Typing this on my phone with big fingers and then accidentally catching the post buttons before finishing and proof reading will leave me a sitting duck for criticism. Please forgive big figures ob small keyboard. Keep up the good work.
Hi. Instead of stopping then idling for 2 or so minutes I prefer to slow down for last 3 minutes or 2 kilometers to allow cooling down. What do you think of this act?.
I have the 2 litre and the 10 speed. A few people are having injector problems and a few people are having gear box problems. My Ranger has 7,500ks on the clock and my gear box has started giving me problems. Shifting from 10 to 9 is no longer smooth. It’s a violent shift now when I put the foot down to go faster on the freeway. Other than that I love the vehicle. Fingers crossed Ford will easily diagnose the problem and fix it with relative easy!!
The 3.2 is hardly problem fee with literally hundreds of them seizing and needing replacement. Ford have not resolved these issues. In fact I saw one last week that seized as it left the showroom. Engine reconditioners across the country are cashing in on the fatal flaws.
@@hedydd2 just shows what you have owned. I have a 2007 Renault clio RS with over 300 000 km on the clock. Engine has never been opened. I have a 2011 megane rs with 120 000km on the clock. Engine has never been opened. Iv had the nissan for 2 years now. Never had any problems. I owned a ford ranger 2.5td 2005 for 11 years. I have spent more on repairs over this period than what I paid new for the car. Sold it with 380 000km on the clock. If you have owned a vehicle and have had experience you can talk. Other wise sit down and shut the fuck up.
Sir, I seriously like your stuff, especially your engaging and informed discussions with Michael West. I want to add my piece to your comments about shutting down a turbo engined vehicle. I have observed exhaust gas temperatures in turboed diesels and seen how the temperatures climb when they are loaded up. Similarly I have observed the drop in temperature when the load is removed. In short, the exhaust gas temperature drops about as instantaneously as the load on the engine drops. Given that post load/coital exertion is the main reason for "idling" down a tuboed engine and how in most ordinary driving scenarios vehicles are not instantaneously shut down after having run at 3/4 - full throttle I would say that the "idling down" procedure and the money making devices to affect this are not necessary. I would welcome any response from your informed standpoint. Sincerely and with respect.
Love your videos, from a fellow Shitsvillian. You forgot to mention that buying a new Ford is like playing Russian Roulette with an expensive fully loaded pistol (at least in Shitsville, with our legendary Ford Service and Support). Also, (just for a laugh) something that got to my not inconsiderable level of OCD. Your last spanner in the 2 sets you looked at, its upside down (or the other 2 are). LOL.
The thing is that people don't want to seem to get is that as the years roll on the engines will all eventually be the little engines that could as we enter a hybrid age and the car companies are all wanting to cut there emissions down. I have a 3.2 ranger and i had quite a few issues with it and just upgraded to a 2020 2.0 bi turbo XLT.
"Big is less stressed than small" - engineering doesn't work that way all the time. For example, I could extract 48kW from a new Ford 2.0 litre twin turbo 4 ciylinder engine and stress it much less than extracting 48kW from a 1932 Ford 3.6 litre V8 (maximum power 48kW). The design via technology will determine the stress and strain on an engine. This is an extreme example, but it applies to the two engines considered, and any engines. The 2.0 is a newer design, it may benefit from newer (stronger and more durable) materials and other improved technology which offsets the simplistic "mine is bigger than yours so it is better" equation, but the 2.0 maybe also be worse, the design may not be better, and without duration testing we don't know and only the test of time will answer the question. (I'm a mechanical engineer since 1984.)
well naturally yes but when considering the 2 engines are designed by the same company and so closely together its pretty safe to assume that brute for strength components like the rods have been designed using their tried and trued formula of how much peak torque at how low in the rev range. The wear in question will come down to wear components specifically like the bearings, piston skirts and cylinder liners where it really doesnt matter how much stronger you make internal components in the engine these components will undergo wear and tear and unless theyve made the pistons considerably smaller and the rods and deck height considerably larger these components should wear proportinantly to the displacement/power of the the engine. (that is if load on both engines were the same)
@@CtrlAltSk8 Your assumptions are wrong. "All" engine components including the wearing components factor in the durability of any engine, so why would you separate them in your consideration - I don't? The designs and the materials of "all" engine components can produce an engine that won't wear out by normal use in a human lifetime - they exist, but they don't suit the throwaway economics of our modern society. But car makers are constantly trying to make cars cheaper to produce and to last a prescribed duration that is socially acceptable (not indefinitely); they cut corners with fingers crossed, they replace the "tried and trued" designs and methods with outcomes that are risky, and they fail to properly test new designs - design failures are common in modern cars. Ford does not adhere to "tried and trued" methods, but Ford are not alone, they all behave a similar way, but with some worse than others. But having said that, it comes down to the position of the company at the time they design the new engine. The directive may be, "just get this thing out asap as cheap as you can", or, "we can't afford another stuff up, and we need this engine design to see us through to the end of the ICE". Each directive may deliver a different engine, one that becomes the classic "bullet proof", and the other, the classic "boat anchor". (I became a mechanical engineer in 1984 and I worked designing machine components among a variety of other design tasks for over 30 years.)
Dude they're built in the same year with probably the same materials. The 2liter is a mondeo engine, a car engine. The 3 liter is a truck engine. If you plan to use it as a car get the 2 liter, if you plan to use it as a truck get the truck engine.
@@SoulTouchMusic93 What does the year have to do with it? What has the respective engine usages have to do with the output of the vehicle? The relative outputs are different but not so different that they would make any appreciable difference in application, and remember there is a much lower output Ranger, and as to its configuration, made exclusively for doing work. Folksy ideas about engineering are exactly that.
@@martintaper7997 it has to do plenty. The parts and manufacturing is not that different from engine to engine. Ford doesn't makes the pistons, they just order them from some factory. Probably same grade in both engines just different sizes.
Hey john, how are you?, i've just subscribed to your channel. I like watching your channel because of your expertise. Keep up the good works and keep on sharing your knowledge. I love listening to experts like you. Experts who are addept and knows what they're talking about. Your know-how is a plus factor to my learning more about automotives. God bless you mr cadogan!.
I bought a brand new 2015 Ford Ranger wildtrak 4x4 with the 3.2 diesel. Gearbox failed at 20,000km, then again at 25,000km. Crankshaft snapped at 27,000km requiring full engine replacement. Will NEVER buy Ford again, and I tell everyone I know the same.
@@orical2832 ....given only the choice of 2 bi or 3.2 , the 3.2 should instrinsically be more reliable and give less. Issues long term . But I'll be steering clear of both of them in the second hand market
In the uk they have sold, since new model, 2013, 2.2 6spd or 3.2 6spd. The 2.2 is the plastic engine fitted to the transit van, mondeo, x type jag etc. It can't pull its self out of bed. The 3.2 js so much better in a vehicle this size, as Volkswagen found out with the amorok, a 2.0 engine in a 3 ton car is pulling its bollocks out. Can't believe that car manufacturers fit these small engines with 130bhp when they make 3ltr v6 diesel with near 300bhp.
@@oldbloke100 were do you live? In the uk the 2ltr motor for 2019/2020 model is supplied with a 130ps 2ltr as stated by ford in the brochure I have here and on their own website. It is 213ps in the wildtrack model or raptor. Normal ranger, rear drive pickup has 130ps an 6spd manual transmission.
The 3.2l is like the old girlfriend which you broke up with for no particular reason(out of boredom). The 2l on the other hand is like a new curvy girl(small displacement) with a child (extra turbo) to reckon with, that is a reject from another guy. The 3.2 has been there for a long time and not all have problems. Now purchasing the new 2l, you're always gonna have a fear of the unknown and its costly.
I owned the 3.2 and even at full throttle towing the caravan up hill it felt under stressed, like it could run at full noise for hours on end without issue.
Hello how are you?hows your 3.2 liter engine going now?is it still runs as you like to?i owned a bt 50 with the same engine i really miss it,i bought it and only drove it for 60 days since the pandemic i havent use it 🙈🙈i just said to my bro to use it once a week 20 kms on highway this december atlast we can go and i can use it again
The old Mercedes 3l diesels still run after 30++ years, no turbo no frills . Look at all the new german diesels , you be lucky to get 100k out of them without any dramas. Just sayin
North of the equator in U.S., reintroduced "ranger" model is selling fewer than 10,000 units per month. Though you have fewer choices in Australia, here you can get a full-size truck for just a couple-thousand more. Even with a V6 or V8, the fuel economy numbers are pretty close. We only get the 2.3 engine with turbot fillet. Part of the problem is the ordering model. Dealers want optioned-up selections on the lot so they make more money. Customers don't want to pay $43,000 U.S. for a truck smaller than the one next to it.
Having owned both a 3.2 and 2.0 ranger (and a 2.8 Hilux) I love the 2.0 for day to day and highway runs. Excellent fuel economy compared to the 3.2, cheaper rego and tows a 2t camper fine. It does not get off the line as well as the 3.2 while towing but runs rings around the 3.2 everywhere else. Gearbox gets a bit confused in lower gears but all up could recommend it for general driving which 90% of us use it for, if towing all day everyday 3.2 would likely be a better choice.
Three guys are sitting at the bar of a café in the middle of the red light district in Amsterdam. After quite a few drinks, one of the guys suddenly announced he was the reincarnation of Buddha, and he had many followers around the globe. Upon that, one of the other two guys looked at the guy, and told him he had him beat because he was the reincarnation of Allah, and he had more followers than any other religion. After a short moment of silence, the third guy told the other two he was Jesus Christ in person, not some reincarnation, so he had beat the two of them hands down, and could prove him being Jesus Christ as well. He took them to one of the prostitutes, knocking on the glass. The girl opened the door, exclaiming: "Jesus Christ, are you here again already!"
I would use 3.2 for frequent towing since you need most of the power all the time. 3.2 would be smoother and quieter. I would take 2.0-biturbo if car would be used lightly most of the time. It CAN consume less if driven lightly and still perform hard if needed.
@@larjkok1184 There is not replacement for displacement - truth from day one of internal combustion engine. AND I had many petrol, turbo-petrol, diesel and turbo-diesel engined cars. Modern car downsized turbo-petrol engines are NOT made for constant 90% power delivery, like truck engines. These engines are made as such for fuel saving purposes, tax redduction purposes, CO2 reduction figures and in the end PRICE reason. Turbos are mostly small, to wind up fast and are more AID than full time gadget. I rather have petrol-electric HYBRID than small turbo engine. Much more efficient for low speeds, can add great boost and for normal fast driving diesel or even petrol is efficient.
Have had the 2ltr in an Everest for 10 months now and are still impressed by how nice it is to drive. We went the 2ltr over the 3.2ltr because it was a lot quieter and smoother to drive on our back to back tests. The power difference is quite noticeable, maybe because the 10 speed helps to keep it in the sweet spot.
I can certainly guarantee you in a few years to come you'll be busting a few head gaskets and cracking a few pistons along the way with a gearbox replacement also on the list! I hope you enjoy your purchase it's only a small engine! You should have bought a Hilux a bigger motor which is ideal for carrying and towing heavy loads! The real men drive Hiluxes!
@@creeatd they are pieces of shit bud. I have just had mine bought back by toyota for the full price i paid. It gave me nothing but problems and toyota are a nightmare to deal with. I am thinking of a going over to Ford or possibly Mitsubishi. Toyota are holding on to past reputation. They are not unbreakable and they are definitely not the truck they used to be.
@@MarinePredators84 mate hilux was never that great to begin with. All that was just a bunch of BS pushed by owners and the manufacturer over a vehicle that was average. Back in the day nissans, mitsubishi, isuzu, mazda, ford, chevy even land rover I dare say were solid and just as reliable if not more than toyota. Toyota my ass, biggest shitbox out. Mate sad what happened to you but I'd definitely recommend mitsubishi, you won't be disappointed. Isuzu is also good but is just so damn expensive now
P.S. the bearing issues was caused by the arcing between the surfaces to earth. The solution the rail industry used for this bearing was to install ceramic bearings or ceramic insulation rings between the outer race and the modified end case / cap and I don't remember which was the final solution because it was last centuries model and issues.
Hi John, I must say I have some concerns about the 2l bi turbo 10 auto power train Ford now offer in the ranger. I'm not hearing good words on the 10 auto with people saying they are having issues. I'm not aware of the exact issues. I am aware that the transmission was developed by Ford and GM jointly. Most electronically controlled auto trans use 2 oil pumps. A low pressure pump to feed the solenoid circuit that actuates the high pressure spool valves and circuits to feed the clutch packs, the band pistons and the torque convertor. (The only unit I'm aware of the only uses a single pump is the Kia 8 speed auto transmission which locks the convertor clutch from either 2nd or 3rd gear, I don't quite recall, but it has a significant jump in fuel economy as a result). The Ford GM unit uses an electrically driven second pump. Having never stripped one or look at the exploded view, I suspect it is buried somewhere deep in the transmission close to the top of the oil pan and will quietly bake particularly when towing your acoustically transparent dunny up the hills to DPC when they come screaming to a stop to take in the view and heat soak sends the temperature inside soaring. I also suspect the pump motor will be of a 3 phase traction type. The rail industry has been using this type of drive for 20 years and the insulation is critical. To turn DC into 3phase AC, they use 3 sets of electronic switches that create a stepped voltage increases and decreases to form an approximal sinusoidal wave form. Then the use capacitors and inductors to smooth the wave form. Speed control is by changing the frequency of the wave form rather than the voltage. The issue is that everytime you turn switches, be the mechanical or electronic on and off, you get a voltage spikes 100s of times per second. I know of a train that had a chroma discharge (if i remember correctly it was from the traction circuit to the 3 phase 415 supplementary equipment for things like the air conditioning etc) as a result of the discharge that took the entire trains 415 volt 3 phase and 240 voltage single phase equipment requiring an extended repair time. There are 2 issues I know of the are problematic in this type of variable frequency or created 3 phase drive systems. The first is the insulation. Any weaknesses in the insulation of motor windings gets pounded by the voltage spikes until it fails and the motor dies. The 2nd it the motor bearings. Your commentary on the Tesla motor failure was like as a result of this. Transitory currents pass through the bearings. (This is also an issue with bodies hung DC traction motors in rail traction equipment that use electronic switching for the traction control systems and where I saw it first over 30 years ago). The current passage goes through the bearing surprise and degrades the ultra smooth surfaces. Over time it just grinds itself (the bearing) to failure and grinds the motor with it. Given the extended exposure to heat, the auto industries predisposition to cheap, I have little doubt this is the Achilles heel of this transmitting, class action to follow, stay tuned. The second issue I will take advice and /or correction on. I am lead to believe that the 2 litre engine is or come from assistance from the people paying the big fine to the ACCC. Their pedestrian decrepit dual cab sports a 2 litre bi turbo. Hmmm. One in the same perhaps? I hear of a lot of that manufactures small high output turbo engines going bang just out of the warrant, one person had 2 company vehicles fail twice from engine intra trou poppy. I just hope the the V6 ranger uses the V6 engine and transmission that was in the last Territory. I was a good engine to my knowledge, although the stuff around it left something to be desired. (Although I did hear a roomour that a similar class action was occurring in Britian regarding the emissions failure of that engine)
Thankyou for another interesting report. The information given presents in my mind a question whether the automotive industry is getting to the point that vehicles are much too complicated for practical use. You describe the 2.0 example as having twin turbos and a 10 speed gearbox to achieve essentially the same result as the simpler 3.2 version (particularly at heavier loads). How soon is it going to be before we see quadruple turbos and 20 speed gearboxes? I am not an engineer, but do watch and try to take in as much technical information as possible. I would welcome your thoughts on the practicality of this development process and whether it is time to now scrap the clutch, gearbox, transfer box and differential concepts in favour of electric drive. May I say up front that this is not a "green" issue, but one of practicality and performance. I know that you have expressed reservations about the BEV design and significant hostility to Hydrogen designs (which I completely agree with). However, having driven two BEVs for significant time, my observations are that they are significantly better in terms of performance, comfort and convenience than any of the many petrol and diesel vehicles that I have driven. Strong arguments against BEVs often are around the battery system and the lack of towing capacity on current models. However, the railway industry long ago figured out the practicality of electric drive over mechanical drive and so towing using electric drive should not be a problem. It is just a matter of correct specification. In addition, the bonus from electric drive is the ability to make four wheel drive much simpler. I would therefore be interested in your thoughts on why the automotive industry has not gone to diesel/petrol driven generators with electric traction motors, particularly for vehicles like the ones in this report that are designed to be capable of heavy towing.
with you all the way davidarf, though if you are going to carry around a diesel/petrol driven generator, you have to pay the price of added weight (reliability & economy), complexity, maintenance etc...why not just let the "Tesla fanboys" buy BEV's to create demand for charge points that will pave the way for the rest of us owning BEV's? I mean, you need infrastructure to drive on - roads, tracks, petrol stations, street furniture, bridges etc. etc. - even if its a track so why do we balk at equipping the country with chargers? My gut feeling is that heavy BEV will only become a reality when battery technology gets more power dense and lightens the load by some substantial amount. Hydrogen, I agree with JC is dead in the water, due simply to the physics of efficiency that impinges it so greatly. I have no concerns that the metro areas will get the infrastructure, but my heart is in the bush, so the thought "when will the bush get suitable chargers when there isn't the grid grunt to feed them occurs often. I wonder though how long it will be for some capitalist somewhere to realise that a charge station in the bush, surrounded by solar panels, wind turbines and a mass of suitable battery storage will earn them revenue at a RoR that beats the liquid fuel alternative to an absolute pulp? (and they better be quick before BP gets all the good spots).
@@MiniLuv-1984 ever heard of tesla,nikola.world wide free,,,,energy..but.so long as the oil moguls are alive,THERES NO FKN HOPE FOR THIS PLANET.PLAIN & SIMPLE.once you get rid of oil/money.we might advance..until then,wallow in your own sht.what do you think all the pyramids were,around the earth,????????,free power outlets..lost technology.to us,but not the powers that be that know this,..how many people /ideas,have been killed,or shelved,because it elliminates oil.??????? ITS A SCAM !!!. wake up.!!.
@@phantomwalker8251 Yeah, you are right about everything - the seeing eye in the triangle you are! Where did you get such worldly knowledge harry walker?
Ok sorry i was thinking that whole 2 l engines are towing 2.5 tonnes. Now i want to ask what is the reason for what the raptor has such a low towing capacity. Thanks for your help . Cheers appreciate your work !!!
I upgraded from a 5yr old Android to the iPhone 11 pro - the price is embarrassing BUT I got it for the photography and video capabilities - my holiday pics are awesome :)
Thanks for the discussion - Personally I figure the more 'parts and tech' something has the more can go wrong with something. Good value coasters - bought wheels for a movable bench build for the kitchen - great to maximize space in a 'small' open plan home.
For LONG-TERM usage: the 3.2 Liter would have the Engine last longer. Twin-Turbo engines tend to be EXPENSIVE to fix when something bad happens, and usually, turbo engines wear out faster. So for those who intend to keep their Ford Ranger for 10+ years, then you should only buy the 3.2 Liter non-Turbo because you don't know how the previous owner took care of the vehicle.
I saw a YT review of the 2 models in a side by side comparison. Surprisingly the 2L motor was much better with regards to performance....by unanimous agreement. That includes towing uphill. Fuel consumption was around the same. Probably too early to comment on longevity.
Unless it is the camera angle, it looks like the castor swivel is not horizontal when the castor is engaged. Castors hate to swivel unless the swivel is exactly horizontal. I think those castor brackets need to be reengineered.
2.0 bi-turbo just showed up in 2020 transit here in American, might come to NA ranger in next year or two to boost fuel economy numbers. After all, if your going to throw it one(us) , you might as well just throw it in the other (CA) as well right?
Ford recently introduced the European version of the Ranger in North America. The only engine option available for the Ranger in North America is a lightly detuned version of the 2.3l found in the Ford focus RS and Mustang ecoboost.
I got rid of the 2020 Raptor a few months ago. The 2.0ltr was just ok,sounded terrible, went into a limp mode 100km before a service, but gees that auto was junk, troublesome clunky. Hence got rid of it. Delay off the line was crazy..
Trouble with both Rangers is that Ford dealers eventually service them. I have a local Ford dealer that was incapable of delivering on a part order for a phone holder, got called in three times to say it had arrived, when it hadn’t.
Different rego prices could be a factor too - not sure if its the same in all states but here in Queensland it costs the same amount to rego a 5cyl as a 6cyl. Whereas with the 2.0 you'd be paying that cheaper 4cyl registration.
Owned the 3.2 for 2 years, sold it with no major issues. Test drove the 2.0 bi turbo to see what all the fuss was about, ordered a new 3.2.
Zero chills 😂
😂😂
I am a Ford engineer , in Thailand. I bought the 3.2 because of proven reliability.
I'd prefer to admit being a pedophile than a Ford Engineer.
@@rsattahip your an idiot, crawl back in your hole.
The 3.2 is anything, but reliable 😂
HUH? I've seen alot of rangers on the dealership getting repaired thanks to that reliability
Ford gingineer should have got a beemer !
John,
I just wanted to send a note of sincere thanks. A bit over year ago I had the opportunity to buy myself a new small car for the first time in a dozen years. I knew exactly which car I wanted as I had obsessed over this purchase for a couple of years. At least I thought I knew. Many thanks to you for providing a hefty pull on my shoulders to dislodge my head from my ass, reminding me to purchase with my well-researched brain and not my foolish heart. I've been extremely pleased with my what I believe in Shitsville is called a 2018 Mazda 3 SP25 Astina. A car that meets all of my needs while possessing a few compromises I am happy to live with. I even managed to score the vehicle for thousands of Yankee-bucks under my target number employing your purchasing tactics. Thanks for being not just an informative and entertaining journalist, but an even better automotive consumer advocate. Keep up the great work!
- Some nut in Retardistan, Northeast of Walton Mountain
My pleasure - glad the reports helped.
@Cankersaurus Why don't Yah all come an visit soon now , Yah *hear* ?! 🍻
I feel the need to know what you were planning on buying before you got a hot dose of sanity from ....."down there"? (I'm betting it was a VW).
@@wafive If only you had bet real money.... of course it was a GTI.
@@Rico_G Now this was a bloody enjoyable comment thread. I drove (didn't own) a Golf of some description a few years back. It had a normal and 'sports' mode. Great little polluter in sports mode and normal mode I'd wager. They are zippy little things, but you made a wise decision. On another note, you know the Kia Stinger? Our Queensland Police force have a fleet of them. I was having a yarn with a couple of cops in a Stinger today while we were stopped at the lights (I was in my little fridge truck). They're very happy with them as a Police vehicle, but they are crowded with cop-tech on the roof and in cab.
Just bought a 3.2. I am beyond excited
220,000km on my 3.2L Change oil at 15k & do oil analysis. The engine has burned 23,000 litres of diesel.
All clear so far
Those statistics speak highly of your driving manner and the quality of the diesel found in Australia! We usually replace the oil every 5,000 Km in Costa Rica, albeit, the diesel fuel is supposedly low sulphuric content and modern diesels with DPF’s after treatment of the exhaust benefit from this!
Did it start to burn oil?
you should be very happy, this is indeed rare
@@jeromedolique9950 , it a diesel turbo, moderate oil burn is normal, not a indication of wear , the oil analysis is to look at oil shear( molecular breakdown of the oil.)
Oil changes every 15 K ?
Ouch!!!
More like 5K if you want to keep the vehicle
I have owned both the 3.2lt and 2lt Bi turbo Ranger Wildtraks. Having just put 12,500km on the new 2019 2lt BiTurbo. I can quite categorically say the 2lt Bi Turbo is hands down a huge improvement over the old 3.2lt 5 cylinder dinosaur. As far as I am concerned the engines and performance is night and day. I drive alpine passes frequently, motorway and town and tow often. Faster, smoother, far more economical by approx 100km per tank full. The 10 speed is awesome, you don't even know your changing gear. The 2lt performance feels more like a petrol, it is far more responsive than the 3.2lt.
So from a real world point of view, I would never go back to the old 3.2lt donkey. I thought I wouldn't notice much difference but I was very happily surprised.
Do you still have to do the 10min oil changes in the new 2ltr?
@@dennischeruiyot5352 yeah 10min oil changes every 100,000 miles
@@nev357 100,000 mile oil changes ?!
12.4k? That’s nothing! Let us know when you hit 100k on the clock then we can see how the 2.0 stacks up. Yeah it might perform better than the 3.2 but that won’t matter if the engine shuts itself over 100k
@@subabuu2427 I change my vehicle every 60k.I don't care if it shits itself after 100k.
Great analsys, helped me all the way in choosing the car. It's a Ranger 3.2 Wildtrak 2018 and I am very happy. Might be slower than 2.0, but it sure feels great and effortless. Thank you, sir!
Yes the 2l can't make up its mind what gear it wants to be in around town ,very jerky ride ,but the 3.2 all the way ,very smooth
Buying.a.new.car.is.like.marrying.an.American.woman.The.divorce.is.going.to.be.expensive.
@Joe Me prius makes people infertile.
I am in the market right now (COVID 19 aside) for a Ranger and I was looking for info on the 3.2 vs the 2.0. That is why I found you. I must congratulate for the wealth of info you have so succinctly provided, sir. Greetings from Spain
What did you buy?
@@joebradley7595 At the end I had a good deal on a 1-year GLE 350, so no pick-up this time!
Looks like the 2.0 will become available across the range next month with the MY20. The 3.2 may hang on for another year but it's on the emissions chopping block soon. I just bought a 3.2 last week and love it.
3.2 is more powerful than 2.0 right?
@@MoonWarriors 2.0 goes harder unladden though you gotta rev it real hard to get that power and big loads the 3.2 chugs along better
A tuned 3.2 ltr is far better than the 2.0 ltr which is largely untenable. Off the shelf the 2.0 ltr numbers are slightly better. 3.2 ltr can gain large amounts in tourqe and power without any aftermarket performance parts.
I bought my 2019 bitubo Ford Ranger WildtrakX on September 2019 i have done one tip to Queensland and 2 trips to South Australia the car is amazing run like a dream. But the Engine is new to the market that why put the people off .Haven't say that if you never never go you never never know i just hope for the best but so far am very very impressed with the car luxury and performance!!!!
It's now tried and true the 2.0TTD, the 3.2 is gone too, an old outdated engine. You made the right choice.
We own a 2014 2.2lt twin turbo 6 speed Ranger, it has been an excellent vehicle. We have done 160,000 k’s, no true off-roading, but a lot of heavy laden driving on very long tours. It has had a couple of issues over the years, first was ants making nests in the relays, they are attracted to them for some reason, that happened twice( $600 each time to repair), and recently we have spent $4500 sorting out the auto transmission. Apparently they are notorious for having problems at around 160-170K k’s. But overall, compared to the Nissan Pathfinder we owned previously, the Ford is a superior vehicle.
I've driven both and the 2L actually goes way better. It likes to rev alot more and doesn't run out of puff like the 3.2L. Much better acceleration on the highway too. A mate has owned both and had them both tuned and prefers the 2L also and it gets way better economy. As for issues in it sure. Another mate just had his 2L replaced because an Injector flooded the engine and filled the sump with diesel. Ford replaced the whole car.under warranty.
I run a 3.2 Wildtrak, I also ran a 2l bi for 10 weeks while Ford was doing my free rust treatment ,I could not wait to to get back into my 3.2 ,my wife and kids even said the 2l is horrible to drive ,the 10 speed box could not make up its mind what gear it wants to be in and it was jurking while driving in urban areas ,hated the thing ,3.2 all the way
Well done. Such a relief to find an expert with a sense of humour. Your knowledge is way outside the norm and that would probably offend the illiterate?
One of the things I like most about the 3.2L is its simplicity. It is by far the simplest design of all modern diesel engines. Anyone that has rebuilt one will know what I'm talking about
Great advise 👍
I would go with the 3.2 any day of the week.
2.0 is too stressed for my liking.
Matt D you obviously haven’t driven both then
@@guywelch656 No I haven't driven both, although it's not about how they drive as much as long term engine life I would be concerned about because both engines move the vehicle along really well I'm sure.
Dealer here had 6 2.0L ones out the back with blown motors, 3.2 all the way
Designed to reduce friction so premature wearing is not a worry
@@tonystewart7287you just suck at driving and vehicle maintenance
Just a bloody fantastic analysis. Not that I’m buying a 4x4 anytime soon, but just very interesting. Thank you
My pleasure - thanks for watching.
I think it is more down to the 6-speed vs 10-speed transmission, and 10-speed is better for towing.
Have read of a few 10 speeds failing. Best to avoid the early versions I think
@@davgpol Interesting I like the 5 year warranty and 150k so far very pleased.
In outboard engines, in the 250 HP range, Mercury used a 2.8 litre block, whereas Yamaha used a 4.2 litre block. Again, there was not significant weight advantage with the smaller block. I know which one I preferred, amongst other reasons, for the reason John is outlining in this video. Interesting to note that Mercury's latest 250 HP 4s is on a 4+ litre block.
The trade of with Performance is Reliability (inverse relationship).
Twin Turbo (Twin the chances of expensive failures/repairs not just on the Turbo).
With Fords reputation for Ecoboost, I am hesitant to give my confidence in the Longevity department.
Even my 2.2 stand still today. It depend on your feet and finger. Nothing last forever. Love ranger from malaysia
does ford ranger 2.2 diesel and 3.2 diesel have aluminum or cast-iron engine block????
Great review!
I always choose a big engine over a small turbo engine.
In Vietnam Ford 2.0 is suffering from oil spills at the engine!
How about other issues?
Hi John.
So jealous of that outstanding tool set and your organisational skills. I too noticed the different spanners in the background but knowing you, i knew there must be a reason. Thanks for explaining that for us viewers. Rob
dove the 2lt ford ranger yesterday love it,i have a bmw 320d tuned by diesel tuning Australia which goes really good,but i was impressed with the power delivery of the 2lt ranger and how quiet it was compared to my mates everrest 3.2
Great job on the 2.0/3.2 litre engine battle, oh yes and some electric Jesus 😀.
I've been looking at at buying a DeLoren, low mileage, only used from time to time.
Thanks for sharing.
i was looking at bying a ford pantera,but then i woke up this yr.
It's been 2 years now. How's the reliability of the 2 litre now ?
Check the ranger tow test by Mountain Trail RV, very interesting.
I went for the 3.2 being a known (used) vehicle in Australia. Drove the 2 litre, liked it for the short distance driven, however as has been said before theres no replacement for displacement. MY BIGGEST gripe with Ford now having the 2018 XLT, is the shudder and thump upon take off. Im in communication with ford, however Ford are still continuing to call it a "characteristic" of the vehicle, which remarkably the characteristic wasn't present when I test drove 2 rangers. Ive been to the ACCC, and consumer affairs, it would appear that ultimately, this will end up in the court. John I would suggest you take your video crew and do some more research on this "known" fault by Ford, and their failure to adequately address the design, or part failure and stop calling it a characteristic. If I drove the car with the characteristic, I would've bought a Holden or Toyota.
Have you sorted you transmission problem out?
Did you change the oil in the trans? Apparently some come under filled from factor and run hot and cause all sorts of problems.
Running an oil cooler also helps out the trans
C'mon John. Every mechanic knows what it means if you have a neat and tidy workshop with spotlessly clean tools.
With the 3.2, stick a better turbo on, decent remap for performance/economy... whichever you prefer, catch can for the hell of it, better intercooler, better quality air filter and it should be miles ahead of the 2.0. They should have put the 3.2 in the raptor and factory tuned it for a lot more power from the engine then maybe people (other than the yummy mummies going to the shops) would be more inclined to buy it. Or, buy an amarok.
I miss my 3.2 XLT! That engine and performance is way better that my current Bi-Turbi
How many kms has your xlt?and is it better than the 2.0 liter bi turbo?i have a mazda bt 50 i havent use it since the pandemic this dec we will be back in the phils for a vacation i just tell my brother to use it once a week 20 kms highway..did you have any issue with your xlt?thank you
Last 3 cars Jeep grand Cherokee diesel 2013, Hyundai santa Fe 2018, ranger 3.2 2018.
Ranger best tow car I have owned. Solid, relaxed, great engine braking. It's not always about raw grunt...
Driving a chipped 2016 3.2 6spd at its gvm of 3200kg all day everyday for work on highway and off highway including full off-road across farms and in river quarrys. Have had trailers behind it taking me to the 6 ton limit and just about every other diesel ute attempt to overtake me or out climb me on a hill and not once been let down by the ranger. That being said without that chip it is a very detuned beast.
На сколько лошадей чип?
3.2 for towing, no question. I got mine in a bt50 for better value.
Why? It has less power, torque and 4 less gears. It's been tested and its way better at towing, 4 extra gears makes all the difference.
This channel is seriously underrated. I've never seen another youtuber like John able to go so indepth about cars and the car industry. Now bring back the sheilas!
Thank you Andrew. More hotties to come in future.
@@AutoExpertJC do they lead to demonetization?
@@jordyn3563 well, the Sheila's do take your money, so I guess the answer would be, yes.
@@roverboy01 painfully true response
@@AutoExpertJC Your videos are riveting, any chance of signing up for a motoring series on English tv? Gooday cobber!
It's 2.0 L due to the Asian market. A 2.5 L version would have been more appropriate locally, slightly less boost though. It still could be 15 percent more powerful and be truly class leading. Supposedly they'll be replacing the ancient 3.2 5 cylinder with a 3.0 Powerstroke V6. Just hope it's updated on the existing Powerstroke.
Hi JC.
I always thought that the way to look at decisions like this is that the turbo is an efficiency proposition. It will use less fuel when you are just driving around but still has the power when you need it. If you only do work and don't just drive around then you will be working a turbo hard all the time, and that will wear it out.
Funny you mention the cool down of turbos. Whatever happened to the "turbo timer" which was bread and butter and common sense in the past. BMW told my brother it makes no difference on his X5 which caused a heated debate.
Heated debate...
Petrol... yes.
Diesel... no real difference.
Julian Graziani weeeelllllll...
Most modern turbo petrols have watercooled turbos, while most diesels still just rely on their oil supply for cooling. When you shut the engine down, the modern turbo petrol engine will continue to pump coolant through that circuit to cool the turbo down, while the diesel’s oil supply will stop and there is a propensity for the oil to cook to the turbine shaft and f*** it.
Diesels do run lower EGTs though
Just about all modern turbos are oil and coolant cooled. Which doesn’t require a timer. Irregardless of that. Anything turbocharged should have at least a couple of min idle time after a hard part of road time
@@lukekilah6257 that's my point. a turbo timer takes all the guess work out. Its the same as insurance for me with multiple drivers
the 2.0 is already a disaster out here in Thailand where we make them, the 3.2 is no longer offered the 2.0 is eating oil worryingly, especially in the Raptor some seem to solve it with heavier grade oil, Ford warranty seem to suggest it is still normal, but change to heavier oil if you complain enough.
the missing oil seem to disappear down the exhaust in collect in the turbo, or even leaks into the radiator resulting in sludge
wow.... now thats disturbing.....
will it resolve with a OCC/ Oil Catch Can?
@@YGF00 some seem to have success with oil catcher/ earlier batch also have problems with oil venting onto alternator since solved with longer hoses
Does the 2.0 bi turbo sufficient in mud trailing or should I say "hard trail" mostly mud/uphill trails? Or should I go look for 3.2 models instead
Bob; I live in Thailand and heard about the problems with the Ford 2.0 bi turbo. I opted for the Toyota Hilux with 2.4 Diesel engine because I heard rumours about the 2.8 having DPF problems.
3.2 has been problem free? I’ve got 3 mates on their second or third motor still under warranty. Good to see you can read of the specs sheet with no real world experience.
Same many people I know have problems
2.0 biturbo is better?im also buying ford ranger and i dont know which one should i take.so which one?Thx
Relatively problem free around the world I think he said. It’s been a pretty successful engine . Got a few mates who haven’t had problems at all. 1 towing around Australia few times last 10 years still going strong
@@michaeldoyle3320 3.2 l?
@@michaeldoyle3320 yeah I used to work on them at Ford. Wouldn’t want one that’s for sure.
I just updated from a 2012, 2.2 Ltd Ranger , which finally gave up the ghost at 390,000ks , to a 2017 3.2 Ranger, which is really good, so far. Just love the thing, plenty of power for what I need it for, comfortable and just nice to drive.
Hoping to get similar range out of this one👍. Will keep an eye on that cooler thing though. Thanks.
I have a 3.2ltr Ford Ranger I have had many similar vehicles in my lifetime, recently I was cohersed into taken a 2ltr ford ranger for a run. My verdict was it was the biggest heap of crap I have driven in comparison with my 3.2ltr Ranger, the capital letters say it for me.
Is it purely the eninge you dislike on the ranger with the 2.0 or are there other things you don't like about the newer ranger models?
Looking to buy a used ranger but still deciding to go for a 2019model with the 3.2 or a newer 2.0 model....all advice is welcome
THE FORD RANGER WITH THE 3.2 MOTOR IS THE ONE TO BUY. 2LTR IS CRULTY TO DUMB ANNIMALS.
The Ford Ranger with the 3.2 motor is the one to buy.
Your humour earned you a sub, love it
I have 3.2 for 5years. No problem so far. Problem free indeed
Apologies for any grammatical issues below. Typing this on my phone with big fingers and then accidentally catching the post buttons before finishing and proof reading will leave me a sitting duck for criticism. Please forgive big figures ob small keyboard. Keep up the good work.
Hi. Instead of stopping then idling for 2 or so minutes I prefer to slow down for last 3 minutes or 2 kilometers to allow cooling down. What do you think of this act?.
I have the 2 litre and the 10 speed. A few people are having injector problems and a few people are having gear box problems. My Ranger has 7,500ks on the clock and my gear box has started giving me problems. Shifting from 10 to 9 is no longer smooth. It’s a violent shift now when I put the foot down to go faster on the freeway. Other than that I love the vehicle. Fingers crossed Ford will easily diagnose the problem and fix it with relative easy!!
Someone know if the 3.2 Manual transmission has the same or better tow capacity? Thanks
Spoke to an owner this morning with exact same issue
Sooo no replacement for displacement then.
The 3.2 is hardly problem fee with literally hundreds of them seizing and needing replacement. Ford have not resolved these issues. In fact I saw one last week that seized as it left the showroom. Engine reconditioners across the country are cashing in on the fatal flaws.
I was warned by my mechanic to stay away form the new ford rangers as the engines and turbos are very unreliable. I bought a new nissan instead.
@@hedydd2 just shows what you have owned. I have a 2007 Renault clio RS with over 300 000 km on the clock. Engine has never been opened. I have a 2011 megane rs with 120 000km on the clock. Engine has never been opened. Iv had the nissan for 2 years now. Never had any problems. I owned a ford ranger 2.5td 2005 for 11 years. I have spent more on repairs over this period than what I paid new for the car. Sold it with 380 000km on the clock. If you have owned a vehicle and have had experience you can talk. Other wise sit down and shut the fuck up.
@@hedydd2 Stop making statements and put up facts Renault/ Nissan engine problem?
Is the Hilux better you think?
Sir, I seriously like your stuff, especially your engaging and informed discussions with Michael West.
I want to add my piece to your comments about shutting down a turbo engined vehicle.
I have observed exhaust gas temperatures in turboed diesels and seen how the temperatures climb when they are loaded up. Similarly I have observed the drop in temperature when the load is removed. In short, the exhaust gas temperature drops about as instantaneously as the load on the engine drops.
Given that post load/coital exertion is the main reason for "idling" down a tuboed engine and how in most ordinary driving scenarios vehicles are not instantaneously shut down after having run at 3/4 - full throttle I would say that the "idling down" procedure and the money making devices to affect this are not necessary.
I would welcome any response from your informed standpoint.
Sincerely and with respect.
Love your videos, from a fellow Shitsvillian.
You forgot to mention that buying a new Ford is like playing Russian Roulette with an expensive fully loaded pistol (at least in Shitsville, with our legendary Ford Service and Support).
Also, (just for a laugh) something that got to my not inconsiderable level of OCD. Your last spanner in the 2 sets you looked at, its upside down (or the other 2 are). LOL.
Agreed on the R. Roulette - I have said this many times before, but thought I'd stick to the point. I'll check that last spanner...
Bought some of those casters they are excellent, I set mine under the bottom shelf as I had clearance so it didn't make a trip hazard.
Thr Ford Ranger is a remarkable vehicle. After so many being built there are still so many on the road, the rest of them made it home!😃
The thing is that people don't want to seem to get is that as the years roll on the engines will all eventually be the little engines that could as we enter a hybrid age and the car companies are all wanting to cut there emissions down. I have a 3.2 ranger and i had quite a few issues with it and just upgraded to a 2020 2.0 bi turbo XLT.
It all is dependent on the gearbox and ratios. Turbo charging can be effective in a small motor if all the variables are right.
"Big is less stressed than small" - engineering doesn't work that way all the time. For example, I could extract 48kW from a new Ford 2.0 litre twin turbo 4 ciylinder engine and stress it much less than extracting 48kW from a 1932 Ford 3.6 litre V8 (maximum power 48kW). The design via technology will determine the stress and strain on an engine. This is an extreme example, but it applies to the two engines considered, and any engines. The 2.0 is a newer design, it may benefit from newer (stronger and more durable) materials and other improved technology which offsets the simplistic "mine is bigger than yours so it is better" equation, but the 2.0 maybe also be worse, the design may not be better, and without duration testing we don't know and only the test of time will answer the question. (I'm a mechanical engineer since 1984.)
well naturally yes but when considering the 2 engines are designed by the same company and so closely together its pretty safe to assume that brute for strength components like the rods have been designed using their tried and trued formula of how much peak torque at how low in the rev range. The wear in question will come down to wear components specifically like the bearings, piston skirts and cylinder liners where it really doesnt matter how much stronger you make internal components in the engine these components will undergo wear and tear and unless theyve made the pistons considerably smaller and the rods and deck height considerably larger these components should wear proportinantly to the displacement/power of the the engine. (that is if load on both engines were the same)
@@CtrlAltSk8 Your assumptions are wrong. "All" engine components including the wearing components factor in the durability of any engine, so why would you separate them in your consideration - I don't? The designs and the materials of "all" engine components can produce an engine that won't wear out by normal use in a human lifetime - they exist, but they don't suit the throwaway economics of our modern society. But car makers are constantly trying to make cars cheaper to produce and to last a prescribed duration that is socially acceptable (not indefinitely); they cut corners with fingers crossed, they replace the "tried and trued" designs and methods with outcomes that are risky, and they fail to properly test new designs - design failures are common in modern cars. Ford does not adhere to "tried and trued" methods, but Ford are not alone, they all behave a similar way, but with some worse than others. But having said that, it comes down to the position of the company at the time they design the new engine. The directive may be, "just get this thing out asap as cheap as you can", or, "we can't afford another stuff up, and we need this engine design to see us through to the end of the ICE". Each directive may deliver a different engine, one that becomes the classic "bullet proof", and the other, the classic "boat anchor".
(I became a mechanical engineer in 1984 and I worked designing machine components among a variety of other design tasks for over 30 years.)
Dude they're built in the same year with probably the same materials. The 2liter is a mondeo engine, a car engine. The 3 liter is a truck engine. If you plan to use it as a car get the 2 liter, if you plan to use it as a truck get the truck engine.
@@SoulTouchMusic93 What does the year have to do with it? What has the respective engine usages have to do with the output of the vehicle? The relative outputs are different but not so different that they would make any appreciable difference in application, and remember there is a much lower output Ranger, and as to its configuration, made exclusively for doing work. Folksy ideas about engineering are exactly that.
@@martintaper7997 it has to do plenty. The parts and manufacturing is not that different from engine to engine. Ford doesn't makes the pistons, they just order them from some factory. Probably same grade in both engines just different sizes.
More air is not necessary more fuel. Certain cars have the turbo charger for increasing the combustion ratio inside the piston.
Hey john, how are you?, i've just subscribed to your channel. I like watching your channel because of your expertise. Keep up the good works and keep on sharing your knowledge. I love listening to experts like you. Experts who are addept and knows what they're talking about. Your know-how is a plus factor to my learning more about automotives. God bless you mr cadogan!.
Ive got a 3.2l manual
Best vehicle ive ever owned
It’s now 2022 and our local Ford dealer imports mostly 3.2L. Thinking out loud, maybe they don’t like to having to give refunds.
I would choose 3.2L too!
Take the 3.2....no question ( in a world without Toyotas that is .)
I bought a brand new 2015 Ford Ranger wildtrak 4x4 with the 3.2 diesel. Gearbox failed at 20,000km, then again at 25,000km. Crankshaft snapped at 27,000km requiring full engine replacement. Will NEVER buy Ford again, and I tell everyone I know the same.
@@orical2832 ....given only the choice of 2 bi or 3.2 , the 3.2 should instrinsically be more reliable and give less. Issues long term . But I'll be steering clear of both of them in the second hand market
@@orical2832 Ranger is NZ's biggest selling UTE . BUT 49.99 % of NZ'rs are below average intelligence
Buy a Toyota Hilux with the 2.4 diesel engine. I just don't understand on the Toyota why the manual has less torque than the automatic.
John Anderson Toyota have very special engineer
In the uk they have sold, since new model, 2013, 2.2 6spd or 3.2 6spd. The 2.2 is the plastic engine fitted to the transit van, mondeo, x type jag etc. It can't pull its self out of bed. The 3.2 js so much better in a vehicle this size, as Volkswagen found out with the amorok, a 2.0 engine in a 3 ton car is pulling its bollocks out. Can't believe that car manufacturers fit these small engines with 130bhp when they make 3ltr v6 diesel with near 300bhp.
The whole ranger platform has always had the 2.2....its usually sold in base model 4x2s etc.
the 2lt is 210HP
@@oldbloke100 only on the top model. Others are 130bhp well ps but not much in it.
@@michaelbamber4887 there is only 1 2lt motor, same as in the raptor, you can get it in an XLT, WILDTRAK OR RAPTOR, comes with a 10 speed automatic.
@@oldbloke100 were do you live? In the uk the 2ltr motor for 2019/2020 model is supplied with a 130ps 2ltr as stated by ford in the brochure I have here and on their own website. It is 213ps in the wildtrack model or raptor. Normal ranger, rear drive pickup has 130ps an 6spd manual transmission.
The 3.2l is like the old girlfriend which you broke up with for no particular reason(out of boredom). The 2l on the other hand is like a new curvy girl(small displacement) with a child (extra turbo) to reckon with, that is a reject from another guy. The 3.2 has been there for a long time and not all have problems. Now purchasing the new 2l, you're always gonna have a fear of the unknown and its costly.
I owned the 3.2 and even at full throttle towing the caravan up hill it felt under stressed, like it could run at full noise for hours on end without issue.
It's a big displacement for the output.
Hello how are you?hows your 3.2 liter engine going now?is it still runs as you like to?i owned a bt 50 with the same engine i really miss it,i bought it and only drove it for 60 days since the pandemic i havent use it 🙈🙈i just said to my bro to use it once a week 20 kms on highway this december atlast we can go and i can use it again
The old Mercedes 3l diesels still run after 30++ years, no turbo no frills . Look at all the new german diesels , you be lucky to get 100k out of them without any dramas. Just sayin
Not only German American new crap it’s the same.
This is the best video of yours I've seen yet, concise, well explained.
I’d buy the 3.2
It’ll have more tune ability than the 2.0
North of the equator in U.S., reintroduced "ranger" model is selling fewer than 10,000 units per month. Though you have fewer choices in Australia, here you can get a full-size truck for just a couple-thousand more. Even with a V6 or V8, the fuel economy numbers are pretty close. We only get the 2.3 engine with turbot fillet.
Part of the problem is the ordering model. Dealers want optioned-up selections on the lot so they make more money. Customers don't want to pay $43,000 U.S. for a truck smaller than the one next to it.
why not twin the 3.2 and be done with it ?
2l cheaper?
Having owned both a 3.2 and 2.0 ranger (and a 2.8 Hilux) I love the 2.0 for day to day and highway runs. Excellent fuel economy compared to the 3.2, cheaper rego and tows a 2t camper fine. It does not get off the line as well as the 3.2 while towing but runs rings around the 3.2 everywhere else. Gearbox gets a bit confused in lower gears but all up could recommend it for general driving which 90% of us use it for, if towing all day everyday 3.2 would likely be a better choice.
No long term conclusions!!!!! The statement of the decade!!!
Three guys are sitting at the bar of a café in the middle of the red light district in Amsterdam. After quite a few drinks, one of the guys suddenly announced he was the reincarnation of Buddha, and he had many followers around the globe. Upon that, one of the other two guys looked at the guy, and told him he had him beat because he was the reincarnation of Allah, and he had more followers than any other religion. After a short moment of silence, the third guy told the other two he was Jesus Christ in person, not some reincarnation, so he had beat the two of them hands down, and could prove him being Jesus Christ as well. He took them to one of the prostitutes, knocking on the glass. The girl opened the door, exclaiming: "Jesus Christ, are you here again already!"
Righto. Pretty disrespectful there mate, must be proud of yourself. Pat yourself on the back.
That's very good hahaha
@@yjkader - Dude, it is a joke, OK...no disrespect intended. But I promise to never put Amsterdam or the prostitutes in a bad light again...
I would use 3.2 for frequent towing since you need most of the power all the time. 3.2 would be smoother and quieter. I would take 2.0-biturbo if car would be used lightly most of the time. It CAN consume less if driven lightly and still perform hard if needed.
Gee, that’s the opposite of what the towing tests show.
Where are you getting your information?
@@larjkok1184 There is not replacement for displacement - truth from day one of internal combustion engine. AND I had many petrol, turbo-petrol, diesel and turbo-diesel engined cars. Modern car downsized turbo-petrol engines are NOT made for constant 90% power delivery, like truck engines. These engines are made as such for fuel saving purposes, tax redduction purposes, CO2 reduction figures and in the end PRICE reason. Turbos are mostly small, to wind up fast and are more AID than full time gadget. I rather have petrol-electric HYBRID than small turbo engine. Much more efficient for low speeds, can add great boost and for normal fast driving diesel or even petrol is efficient.
Have had the 2ltr in an Everest for 10 months now and are still impressed by how nice it is to drive. We went the 2ltr over the 3.2ltr because it was a lot quieter and smoother to drive on our back to back tests. The power difference is quite noticeable, maybe because the 10 speed helps to keep it in the sweet spot.
I can certainly guarantee you in a few years to come you'll be busting a few head gaskets and cracking a few pistons along the way with a gearbox replacement also on the list!
I hope you enjoy your purchase it's only a small engine!
You should have bought a Hilux a bigger motor which is ideal for carrying and towing heavy loads!
The real men drive Hiluxes!
@@creeatd they are pieces of shit bud. I have just had mine bought back by toyota for the full price i paid. It gave me nothing but problems and toyota are a nightmare to deal with. I am thinking of a going over to Ford or possibly Mitsubishi. Toyota are holding on to past reputation. They are not unbreakable and they are definitely not the truck they used to be.
@@MarinePredators84 mate hilux was never that great to begin with. All that was just a bunch of BS pushed by owners and the manufacturer over a vehicle that was average. Back in the day nissans, mitsubishi, isuzu, mazda, ford, chevy even land rover I dare say were solid and just as reliable if not more than toyota. Toyota my ass, biggest shitbox out. Mate sad what happened to you but I'd definitely recommend mitsubishi, you won't be disappointed. Isuzu is also good but is just so damn expensive now
P.S. the bearing issues was caused by the arcing between the surfaces to earth. The solution the rail industry used for this bearing was to install ceramic bearings or ceramic insulation rings between the outer race and the modified end case / cap and I don't remember which was the final solution because it was last centuries model and issues.
Hi John,
I must say I have some concerns about the 2l bi turbo 10 auto power train Ford now offer in the ranger. I'm not hearing good words on the 10 auto with people saying they are having issues. I'm not aware of the exact issues. I am aware that the transmission was developed by Ford and GM jointly. Most electronically controlled auto trans use 2 oil pumps. A low pressure pump to feed the solenoid circuit that actuates the high pressure spool valves and circuits to feed the clutch packs, the band pistons and the torque convertor. (The only unit I'm aware of the only uses a single pump is the Kia 8 speed auto transmission which locks the convertor clutch from either 2nd or 3rd gear, I don't quite recall, but it has a significant jump in fuel economy as a result). The Ford GM unit uses an electrically driven second pump. Having never stripped one or look at the exploded view, I suspect it is buried somewhere deep in the transmission close to the top of the oil pan and will quietly bake particularly when towing your acoustically transparent dunny up the hills to DPC when they come screaming to a stop to take in the view and heat soak sends the temperature inside soaring. I also suspect the pump motor will be of a 3 phase traction type. The rail industry has been using this type of drive for 20 years and the insulation is critical. To turn DC into 3phase AC, they use 3 sets of electronic switches that create a stepped voltage increases and decreases to form an approximal sinusoidal wave form. Then the use capacitors and inductors to smooth the wave form. Speed control is by changing the frequency of the wave form rather than the voltage. The issue is that everytime you turn switches, be the mechanical or electronic on and off, you get a voltage spikes 100s of times per second. I know of a train that had a chroma discharge (if i remember correctly it was from the traction circuit to the 3 phase 415 supplementary equipment for things like the air conditioning etc) as a result of the discharge that took the entire trains 415 volt 3 phase and 240 voltage single phase equipment requiring an extended repair time. There are 2 issues I know of the are problematic in this type of variable frequency or created 3 phase drive systems. The first is the insulation. Any weaknesses in the insulation of motor windings gets pounded by the voltage spikes until it fails and the motor dies. The 2nd it the motor bearings. Your commentary on the Tesla motor failure was like as a result of this. Transitory currents pass through the bearings. (This is also an issue with bodies hung DC traction motors in rail traction equipment that use electronic switching for the traction control systems and where I saw it first over 30 years ago). The current passage goes through the bearing surprise and degrades the ultra smooth surfaces. Over time it just grinds itself (the bearing) to failure and grinds the motor with it.
Given the extended exposure to heat, the auto industries predisposition to cheap, I have little doubt this is the Achilles heel of this transmitting, class action to follow, stay tuned.
The second issue I will take advice and /or correction on. I am lead to believe that the 2 litre engine is or come from assistance from the people paying the big fine to the ACCC. Their pedestrian decrepit dual cab sports a 2 litre bi turbo. Hmmm. One in the same perhaps? I hear of a lot of that manufactures small high output turbo engines going bang just out of the warrant, one person had 2 company vehicles fail twice from engine intra trou poppy. I just hope the the V6 ranger uses the V6 engine and transmission that was in the last Territory. I was a good engine to my knowledge, although the stuff around it left something to be desired. (Although I did hear a roomour that a similar class action was occurring in Britian regarding the emissions failure of that engine)
Thankyou for another interesting report. The information given presents in my mind a question whether the automotive industry is getting to the point that vehicles are much too complicated for practical use. You describe the 2.0 example as having twin turbos and a 10 speed gearbox to achieve essentially the same result as the simpler 3.2 version (particularly at heavier loads). How soon is it going to be before we see quadruple turbos and 20 speed gearboxes?
I am not an engineer, but do watch and try to take in as much technical information as possible. I would welcome your thoughts on the practicality of this development process and whether it is time to now scrap the clutch, gearbox, transfer box and differential concepts in favour of electric drive. May I say up front that this is not a "green" issue, but one of practicality and performance. I know that you have expressed reservations about the BEV design and significant hostility to Hydrogen designs (which I completely agree with). However, having driven two BEVs for significant time, my observations are that they are significantly better in terms of performance, comfort and convenience than any of the many petrol and diesel vehicles that I have driven.
Strong arguments against BEVs often are around the battery system and the lack of towing capacity on current models. However, the railway industry long ago figured out the practicality of electric drive over mechanical drive and so towing using electric drive should not be a problem. It is just a matter of correct specification. In addition, the bonus from electric drive is the ability to make four wheel drive much simpler.
I would therefore be interested in your thoughts on why the automotive industry has not gone to diesel/petrol driven generators with electric traction motors, particularly for vehicles like the ones in this report that are designed to be capable of heavy towing.
with you all the way davidarf, though if you are going to carry around a diesel/petrol driven generator, you have to pay the price of added weight (reliability & economy), complexity, maintenance etc...why not just let the "Tesla fanboys" buy BEV's to create demand for charge points that will pave the way for the rest of us owning BEV's? I mean, you need infrastructure to drive on - roads, tracks, petrol stations, street furniture, bridges etc. etc. - even if its a track so why do we balk at equipping the country with chargers? My gut feeling is that heavy BEV will only become a reality when battery technology gets more power dense and lightens the load by some substantial amount. Hydrogen, I agree with JC is dead in the water, due simply to the physics of efficiency that impinges it so greatly.
I have no concerns that the metro areas will get the infrastructure, but my heart is in the bush, so the thought "when will the bush get suitable chargers when there isn't the grid grunt to feed them occurs often. I wonder though how long it will be for some capitalist somewhere to realise that a charge station in the bush, surrounded by solar panels, wind turbines and a mass of suitable battery storage will earn them revenue at a RoR that beats the liquid fuel alternative to an absolute pulp? (and they better be quick before BP gets all the good spots).
@@MiniLuv-1984 ever heard of tesla,nikola.world wide free,,,,energy..but.so long as the oil moguls are alive,THERES NO FKN HOPE FOR THIS PLANET.PLAIN & SIMPLE.once you get rid of oil/money.we might advance..until then,wallow in your own sht.what do you think all the pyramids were,around the earth,????????,free power outlets..lost technology.to us,but not the powers that be that know this,..how many people /ideas,have been killed,or shelved,because it elliminates oil.??????? ITS A SCAM !!!. wake up.!!.
@@phantomwalker8251 Yeah, you are right about everything - the seeing eye in the triangle you are! Where did you get such worldly knowledge harry walker?
Ok sorry i was thinking that whole 2 l engines are towing 2.5 tonnes. Now i want to ask what is the reason for what the raptor has such a low towing capacity. Thanks for your help . Cheers appreciate your work !!!
My ford Ranger made me a Toyota owner for life.
You'd have to be. Once you buy a Toyota, you can never afford another car.
@@mini696 afford or need? I can afford a 2020. I'll drive my old Tundra and spend that Ford money on trips around the world, instead.
You know John if you turn the Chicago bulls logo upside down its a robot slamming a crab.
Hopefully the ford 2.0tt isn't as bad as the Volkswagen 2.0tt
A few complains on fuel injection problems on the Ford 2.0 bi turbo in Malaysia
You can find just as many complaints with the 3.2...just been around longer.
I upgraded from a 5yr old Android to the iPhone 11 pro - the price is embarrassing BUT I got it for the photography and video capabilities - my holiday pics are awesome :)
Thanks for the discussion - Personally I figure the more 'parts and tech' something has the more can go wrong with something.
Good value coasters - bought wheels for a movable bench build for the kitchen - great to maximize space in a 'small' open plan home.
We're here talking about a Ford Ranger but oddly enough I got a Dodge Ram truck ad before this video.
Ads are based on your browsing history.
For LONG-TERM usage: the 3.2 Liter would have the Engine last longer. Twin-Turbo engines tend to be EXPENSIVE to fix when something bad happens, and usually, turbo engines wear out faster. So for those who intend to keep their Ford Ranger for 10+ years, then you should only buy the 3.2 Liter non-Turbo because you don't know how the previous owner took care of the vehicle.
I saw a YT review of the 2 models in a side by side comparison. Surprisingly the 2L motor was much better with regards to performance....by unanimous agreement. That includes towing uphill. Fuel consumption was around the same. Probably too early to comment on longevity.
Unless it is the camera angle, it looks like the castor swivel is not horizontal when the castor is engaged. Castors hate to swivel unless the swivel is exactly horizontal. I think those castor brackets need to be reengineered.
In Canada they released this ranger with only one engine option:
The 2.3l ecoboost.
I'd love to get my hands on either diesel powered option.
2.0 bi-turbo just showed up in 2020 transit here in American, might come to NA ranger in next year or two to boost fuel economy numbers. After all, if your going to throw it one(us) , you might as well just throw it in the other (CA) as well right?
Oh mate the 2012 3.2 goes hard lol
Ford recently introduced the European version of the Ranger in North America.
The only engine option available for the Ranger in North America is a lightly detuned version of the 2.3l found in the Ford focus RS and Mustang ecoboost.
That would suck in a light commercial...
This was fucken great mate. Confirmed my thoughts about sticking to 6speed manual and 3.2.
I got rid of the 2020 Raptor a few months ago. The 2.0ltr was just ok,sounded terrible, went into a limp mode 100km before a service, but gees that auto was junk, troublesome clunky. Hence got rid of it. Delay off the line was crazy..
You replaced it with another brand/pickup?
@@70xr7Cougar DT ram limited
Thanks for your honesty
Trouble with both Rangers is that Ford dealers eventually service them. I have a local Ford dealer that was incapable of delivering on a part order for a phone holder, got called in three times to say it had arrived, when it hadn’t.
Hello, to make the story short, who won?
Different rego prices could be a factor too - not sure if its the same in all states but here in Queensland it costs the same amount to rego a 5cyl as a 6cyl. Whereas with the 2.0 you'd be paying that cheaper 4cyl registration.
Any updates on the reliability of the 2l 10 speed john ?
does ford ranger 2.2 diesel and 3.2 diesel have aluminum or cast-iron engine block????
So after all these year's what has been the outcome?
I'm still sticking with my 3.2.
Anyone else thinks the 2.2 tdci is a good balance between economy and power, without the engine being overly stressed
Your hilarious John im glad your an Aussie mate you've taught me alot how about teaching me some punctuation
mr mojo risin It seems you’ve forgotten that lesson. It’s I’m not “im”, you’re not “your” and how about finishing with a full stop.
You're = you are. Your welcome... wait...