FORD RANGER 2020 3.2 litre vs 2.0 litre BI-TURBO TOW TEST

[@billroach2393]

This reminds me of what happened in 2000.... I was in the market to upgrade from my old GQ 4.2 (with aftermarket turbo) diesel, into a new GU Patrol. The salesman at the Nissan dealer in Cooma had one of the (then) brand new 3 litre GUs on the lot as a demo. I took it for a drive....it went like stink!!! Much quicker than my old 4.2TD. When I got back to his shop I ordered a new GU from him...BUT I ordered the 4.2TD. He tried to talk me out of it; reckoned I was crazy because the 3 litre had more power and torque (on paper) than the new GU factory turbo GU. I insisted on the 4.2TD because I was concerned about the LONGEVITY of a 3 litre engine...and I was only towing a 1200kg camper trailer! History proved my concerns to be well-founded...the 3 litre was to go on to earn the nickname "GRENADE". I can't help feeling this could be a case of Ford repeating history with the 2 litre go-fast bi-turbo.

[@1989cranston]

Obviously engines have come a long way since 2000 but i actually agree with you. i would much rather a detuned higher displacement than a highly strung lower displacement.

[@daverandall747]

I was told by an employee of a Ford dealership to buy the 3.2 just for the reason you stated above

[@daverandall747]

@chris beerad Big deal

[@kevinoh4432]

@chris beerad that gq definitely has a piston clearance issue 🤣

[@ហុនសុវណ្ណារ័ត្នហុនសុវណ្ណារុង]

Kolb

[@michaeldearaugo4552]

Just ordered the Bi Turbo and was worried I’d picked the wrong engine but to see the difference on a real experience tow, I’m glad I did. V6 was a 12-18 month wait so we bit the bullet and bought the 2.0.

[@robbiejones9461]

How is the ute going now mate? Thinking of buying one also

[@michaeldearaugo4552]

@ it’s an Everest and I’m still impressed with it’s all round performance, fuel economy and comfort. If you’re going to tow I’d seriously look into upgrading your suspension, pedders , Lovells or a reputable 4X4 stockiest, you’ll thank me for that if you tow.

[@philross1680]

I’ve owned my MY19 Ranger BiTurbo for about 18 months now and absolutely love the performance, handling and quietness of the vehicle. My only niggle was a jittery feel and slight lag in the transmission but a recent recall to upgrade the software seems to have fixed this and has made the car feel a lot more smoother and responsive.

[@Karakaboardriders]

Get at throttle controller. I just got a wildtrak same year same motor and didn't like how laggy the throttle was so put the throttle controller I had in my Px1 super cab into it and wow it's brutally fast and responsive.

[@OzTrollracing]

I'm intrigued three years on what your opinion of the vehicle is and how many ks you've done now?

[@wayneschroeder1253]

Guys, Thankyou for taking the time to do this comparison. This is truly what we need to see so we can make better choices in purchasing a new vehicle. Love you work !

[@MountainTrailRV]

Thanks Wayne!

[@gerriepretoruis1138]

Vergelyk appels met appel bull dust

[@Ciddiyetle]

15:50 The Results

[@privatsergej]

Thanks!

[@AjG007]

Great comparative test gents. Thank you. The result shows why Ford are most likely ditching the 3.2 litre 5-cilinder engine for the upcoming 3 litre V6. I would love to see this comparative test repeated with the new 3L V6 vs the 2L bi-turbo as I will be buying one in April 2022.

[@nandorherpai8581]

I went to Ford and quickly bought one of the few leftover 3.2L Wildtrak :) People from Ford told me that now everybody wants the 3.2L..

[@mohdyasin7172]

Mind sharing why? Im curios

[@jamesrochez-maggs9594]

Yer because it won’t blow up when you tow 3t with it everyday!

[@cordellej]

@@mohdyasin7172 thats because a 2L engine producing alot of power is more stressed than a 3.2L producing the same amount of power. the 3.2L will last longer because the engine is just less stressed . the 2.0 is a 4 piston engine the 3.2 is a 5 piston so stress is spread across 5 pistons rather than 4 so each piston is doing less work hence less wear on the engine. the 3.2 is the better engine what would be amazing is a 3.2 with the 10 speed auto . and the gearbox is the only reason the 2.0 did better in this test it came down to gearing

@@cordellej that can not be taken as general rule, engine design has most influence: never forget famous Nissan 3.0 litre "granade" engine

[@paul.i3606]

They say that as they are trying to sell the remaining 3.2s

[@gary8397]

Best towing video I have seen a great job guys. I would have brought the 3.2 if I hadn't seen this video. Now I'm not so sure cubic inches are the answer. I have a caravan and I'm looking for a new tow car.

[@raymann4027]

I tow in S mode in my 3.2 litre Ranger. In your test, you were in D mode in the 3.2 litre compared to the 2 litre in S mode for the same hill climb. This can make a difference to the pulling power of the Ranger

[@ricardoperks396]

Na it was both in d mode which means drive or S that means second?. seriously I was impressed with their test.

[@dale8535]

ricardo perks s is sports mode it revs gears out more and has better throttle response. Big difference between them 👍

[@jamesrichardson645]

@@dale8535 the manual also says to tow in Sport.

[@Jonobueno]

Sport mode keeps the gearbox cooler too they say,, unless you prefer a hot tranny...

[@melvincaramba2942]

I will Definitely BUY the BI-TURBO Engine for my Granddad and Grandma for touring throughout Land Down Under as a Christmas Gift and for their Golden Wedding too as well. Shalom

[@brixsteezy4486]

My father bought a 2.0l ranger wildtrak in march 2019 ,he has been using it daily for heavy loads for like a year now and still it held up pretty good it has about a 65000 kms in its milage and it still runs really smooth,there was this one time that it had to tow an old isuzu dumptruck from narra to brookes point palawan Philippines(yes im a Filipino) it was about 115 km trip and it dint have a problem towing it for about 2hours straight,the wildtrak has good performance and great durability it has gone through a high mountains and rivers to transport rice for local natives has towned alot of other vehicles and all i can say is it held up and still performs well,i feel bad for the ranger getting hate from people,just because the sentence *_there's no replacement for displacement_* is the usual rule americans and other rich countries consider before buying a truck it hurts people like us who hear wrong things about a truck that has good qualities,just from experience i know the ranger wildtrak will last long because if it the engine wasn't durable it could have already exploaded when it was towing trucks but no it dint and it is still alive to this day

[@martinjudd1284]

Just need to point out that it is not a 2.2L the Biturbo engine is a 2.0L

[@hedydd2]

@@martinjudd1284 Yes. I have a 2.2 automatic [150hp] and it tows 3.5 tons easily, although I bet the 0-100kph time isn't very impressive. Who cares? I don't. What I do care about is the emissions crap that stops the engine from gaining power off idle without a long delay. Pulling out of a junction uphill with 3+ tons behind is a very leisurely business indeed but once it gets going it is fine. Would need low range every time if it was a manual version without a torque convertor.

[@Jonobueno]

Palawan is a really nice place. Loved my time in El Nido and other spots. Awesome!

[@KaburuMNgariama]

Local natives eh? Who are those now?

[@dhiquobgnaloo]

Extracting big power from a small capacity engine means it has to work harder which usually make it less reliable in the long run.

[@hedydd2]

No it doesn't. Engines have been getting more powerful per unit of swept volume for donkey's years and at the same time they have become more reliable, more refined, more economical and needed less servicing. Engines today last longer in general than they ever have. 250,000 miles with nothing but routine maintenance is commonplace, while back in the 1970's if an engine hit 60,000 without having the head off it was unusual and if it lasted 100,000 miles it was the talk of the district, all on 3000 to 5000 mile oil changes. I think the new Ranger has 20,000 mile service intervals.

[@bengibson3955]

Huw Williams damn straight, Huw! Engines with good bearing tolerances, oil supply and tune run on a film of oil. I’ve pulled down my 2 litre Subaru EJ207 which had 60,000km of running at around 280kw and much of that was on a race circuit. Pulled it out to put a bigger, more mental engine in it and the mains and big end bearings are perfect. Cross-hatching is still evident on the bores. These are considered fragile engines with narrow bearings. Way better than my old Clevo which was putting out less power with none of the abuse.

[@Handleyman]

100% correct!

[@Handleyman]

I thought like that too. But, I suggest you take a look at “Auto Expert” latest video. He discusses this exact issue and you might be surprised. Cheers

[@gigaboat]

Aviation is the obvious comparison. Modern Tech makes 4 engine planes extinct except for cargo.. Big power from NEO makes twin engine jets far superior. Good bye old friend 747 I loved you Queen of the sky.

[@jurgenfreissmuth9375]

The comparison of durability and maintenance costs after 150 000 km would be interesting

[@s4060]

Just look at car sales…. How many are 350,000kms?

[@brucehart4627]

I think Id prefer the 3.2 l for longevity

[@JimBob-vb8oz]

Wouldn't trust either of them to reach 150,000 kms honestly

[@bryaname6644]

Who keeps a ute beyond 150,000kms

[@adpar4247]

I have a Amarok 2.0 2013 with 480,000km. Engine intact

[@jobocean4722]

The 2.0 Litre Bi-Turbo is shifted in Sports mode while the 3.2 Litre Turbo is only in Drive mode. There are a lot of power difference when the vehicle is in Sports and Drive mode

[@agilelad]

Very true

[@Pik000]

No difference in power, only how long it holds in a specific gear. When your foot is to the floor it won't make a difference.

[@jobocean4722]

But the response of the vehicle depends on the mode you select even if you floor the accelerator, the transmission will not shift to the lowest possible gear if you’re in drive mode and using sports mode enables the car to deliver its full power unlike in drive mode, the car usually prevent the car from using its full power to maintain the economical level. Flooring the your car in sports mode is different from flooring in drive mode.

[@1989cranston]

@@Pik000 there definitely is difference in power. in sports shift it locks the torque converter in most situations where it would be unlocked in normal drive mode and losing sooooo much power to the torque converter fluid coupling. This is one of the main reasons for the sports shift mode. it not only holds the gear but locks the converter.

[@keithklijnsma7678]

LOL put a 10 speed auto behind a 3.2 you would get the same results in the hill climb. Nothing to do with power output its all about gearbox ratios.

[@grantwells6189]

Thanks Nick. That is the exact test I was looking for as I will be looking to by a Ranger in the next 12 months. Must admit I was only considering the 3.2 as I just thought it would be better for towing.

[@WCEsuck]

By or buy?

[@1989cranston]

@@WCEsuck okay champion

[@1989cranston]

if you were smart and want even more power, hold on for the 2021 ranger which will have a V6, plenty more power and torque.

[@ricardoperks396]

Me too. was suprised at the results. I like how they tested going up hills which really is the sealer for me

[@johnhuggard1983]

Thanks Blacklock Ford for the Utes, and a Big thank you for the video - help make up my mind on the next car, a ford ranger FX4 - Max

[@troyus111]

@john huggard me too

[@kentaylor2950]

I'm looking at rangers and will still go with the 3.2L because it's a known factor. They have been quite reliable for 10 years or so whereas I'm not convinced thr 2L will be as reliable. Surely the 2L is much more highly stressed and running near maximum whereas thr 3.2L can be tuned up to gain more power. Interesting to see long term results for these engines.

[@krismaitland7885]

Change out the cane type oil pump and if you have and auto,get a bigger trans cooler

[@alanmathews7695]

Really appreciate that guys, great test, great info. I am switching from Mitsubishi L200 XLS to the ranger and was focused on the 3.2 thinking bigger is better, clearly not. Decision made, bi-turbo it is. Thanks again.

[@RedderBlob]

My dad has a 3.2 and it's great and I love the sound of the 3.2

[@PrintShell8765]

Very real world testing guys. LOVE IT! Please keep doing more :)

[@davidcox8943]

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a real world test between these two very different engine type vehicles. About a year ago I was shopping for a replacement tow vehicle and decided on a Ford Everest as we wanted a wagon. I looking at the 3.2 litre but after some discussions with the dealer chose the 2 litre Bi Turbo. While we have been very pleased with our decision to go with the 2 litre, having travelled over 35000 ks to date it with our van in tow was good to see that the differences between both vehicles were so noticeable.

[@tranlee5622]

Noticeable as in 3.2 is better or 2 lit is better?

[@anitatoekoen6915]

I just LOVE Ford Ranger pickups!! REALLY COOL to own one

[@wdstoltz4410]

It is the gearbox that makes the difference... mate the 10speed to a 3.2 and you will have a beast of a union...

[@hernandovillamarinbuenaven7476]

Absolutely agree. Not to mention reprogramming ECU.

[@janbrand931]

You have unfortunatly forgot to measure refs , the 2l must by logic use much higher revolutions to achieve the same results than the 3.2, and therefore will wear much faster and won't hold as long as the 3.2. Thank you. Jan

[@y4nnickschmitt]

The 3.2 is getting old. I know loosing a cylinder and some displacement is not cool, but the 3.2 has got to go. Its loud, looses all its power up top and also is quite inefficient. I´ve tested the 3.2 against our stock 2.2 and the 2.2 comes out on top. And thats testing it with a proper 3,5t trailer. I was quite shocked to see that result and assume that its due to the new emission regulations the 3.2 only barely reaches. Mind you that was testing a 2012 2.2 against a 2016 3.2. Either way I was disappointed.

[@Kyxmyx]

@@y4nnickschmitt You had a different experience. On my part 2.2 is no where near 3.2 when it comes to towing and hauling and loads. Especially on the road. Torque is key

[@y4nnickschmitt]

@@Kyxmyx I assume the earlier 3.2s where better than what I had for testing. Either way the 3.2 is not a performer. The 3.0 5 cylinder from before was a different story though.

[@adrianlieutier7159]

I had a 2017 wildtrak 3.2 from new and did 140,000ks and towed a 2.7t boat most of the time. Only issue I had was the fuel injectors went at 122,000 but got them replaced under warranty. I’ve just purchased the 2.0 bi turbo wildtrak - I’ll put it to the test over the next few years. Watch this space for updates!!!

[@noproblem2big337]

How is the 2L twin turbo going so far? there are a few negative comments just wondering...

[@Ricardo-ur7tp]

How did the 2lt go my friend

[@gregfletcher3358]

You had the 3.2 litre in Drive and the 2.0 litre in S sports mode on the hill climb. Sports mode will change down sooner and hold the gear higher into the rev range compared to Drive mode.

[@351tgv]

Exactly and these buffoons have yet to say why they made this monumental f up.

[@tlevans62]

@@351tgv read their comments, they ran both tests in S mode, it’s just the B roll that shows the transmission in D, but that’s not how they did the test.

[@desmondanfield7771]

Very interesting comparison, but, you have to keep in mind the 3.2 has a six-xpeed box vs the 10-speed on the 2.0. i'm not doubting the power figures or ability of these beasts but to be fair, with KW and Torque figures fairly close, the gearbox makes a big difference.

[@Anachroschism]

I would love to have gotten the 10 speed in the 3.2. Personally, I would rather a larger engine doing less work, than a smaller engine working over-time, and it worries me what reliability will be like. If you only keep your ranger a few years as a work car, then go for the 2.0, but if you want a better resale value and want it to last, then go the 3.2, which can be cheaply retuned to put out the same amount of power as the 2.0, if desired.

[@stephenlee5497]

Yeah spot on. The old adage that there's no replacement for displacement may not necessarily apply if you have an auto with 10 gears!

[@TheTripleDubya]

I dunno, one guy on here is saying what I've heard from other sources, the ten speeds are not yet sorted (his blew up !), so right now, maybe just maybe, the older rig is a better thing all round.

[@einfelder8262]

@@TheTripleDubya The gearboxes in the 3.2 shit themselves all the time too. Can't be rebuilt, so I've heard, have to be replaced. They are both still Fords.......

[@darrynrich6616]

@@Anachroschism How is the smaller engine doing extra work??? RPM is work applied...the bi turbo sits on lower revs in all aspects. The engine runs a small turbo so it does not lag, 3.2 has turbo lag low meaning until the turbo spools it is labouring and working hard...when it is at speed the gear box sits the bi turbo motor at a bout 1500rpm...the 3.2 always sits 2000rpm...so as a min the 3.2 works 30% harder...not taking into the account more power and torque earlier in the bi turbo.At 1500rpm the bi turbo it hitting 470nm and the 3.2 does not get 470nm till about 2000rpm...at 3200rpm the 3.2l dies in torque back from 360nm to 318nm...the bi turbo is still at 420nm and does not drop to 400nm until 3750rpm... bi turbo is 50kg lighter as well...so please explain how it works harder ??? if you retune the biturbo as well you get benifit more than 3.2 due to being able to tune 2 turbos and more advanced management system..

[@bluemoon1960]

I recently purchased a new Ford ranger Fx4 max and I am very pleased with the purchase but before I bought it I did a lot of research and found that it has a lot of inbuilt technology that Ford has installed. One of the new features is the engine has a 10 degree offset crank this allows the pistons to not kick sideways on combustion which prevents oval wear in the combustion chambers dramatically increasing engine life. Another feature is a timing belt that runs in an oil bath dramatically decreasing engine noise and increased timing belt life. Also the twin turbos are made from a metal developed by nasa that is used in rocket engine components. So secretly Ford has spent a lot of time and money developing this Engine for longevity. I personally believe this is the best diesel engine ever built.As far as cabin noise is concerned it is very quiet possibly due to the quieter engine and the acoustic windscreen that comes standard in the Fx4 max. So for $68.000 that is bloody good deal of technology compared to Nissan Toyota ?

[@gijirajin4421]

I live my life with 2.2 xl. Worth of buying. Good work horse too

[@0BuLLeT01]

Just bought one. Waiting for delivery. Very excited!

[@williezietsman4784]

I stay in Port Elizabeth, South Africa and I'm a 100% TRUE Ford fan/supporter. I really enjoy the presentator's way of informing me about the new Ford bakkies. Even when comparison tests are done, I'm given the info I want to know such.

[@krecha1]

The ZD30 was revised sometime after 2004 (thereabouts) to address the Grenade issues. It was improved further with the introduction of the Common Rail system.There are increasing reports of these engines doing over 500K without any problems. I believe there are some that are over 600k. These vehicles have apparently been looked after like all diesels should be (including installation of engine safety mods and professional - mild to moderate performance enhancements). This engine is of course no where near as highly strung as the 2L mentioned here but I guess only time will let us know the outcome.

[@sangwoojo1802]

This video quality is really good and the information is helpful to me. Thanks mate.

[@nev357]

Having owned both. The 2lt is by far the better ute. No comparison really.

[@richmacdod]

What a fantastic comparison video. Well done guys.

[@nandorherpai8581]

Two days ago I run to the local Ford dealer and quickly bought one of the few remaining old 3.2 Litre Wildtrak. The salesman told me that only a few left because people buying them as never before...

[@MrKiwijosh]

Salesman are good at telling you what you want to hear.

[@hedydd2]

That's because they are massively discounted compared to the new stock.

[@jimmybe64]

Never ask or believe a sales person

[@Naessey]

I drove Ford 2.0L with boat. They didn’t have a 3.2L for met to test, so I drove a DMax 3.0 (similar NM) with expectation I would return to the Ford dealer and put my money down. I didn’t. Not only did the Isuzu feel more relaxed, I didn’t expect it to do it so well for such a cheaper price. I do love the Rangers, but what was suppose to be unfair comparison became my reason not to buy with the new DMax out in September. I’m no mechanic, but 75k for an unproven engine is a lot of money. If I wasn’t towing most weekends, I wouldn’t be worried.

[@jonathancanavan9146]

One of the best car reviews I have seen. Very informative and detailed. Well done to all involved. More like this please.

[@billgates3452]

Great comparison guys, after owing both and as a diesel mechanic I agree and can hands down say the 2L (and trans) is the better engine in every way that counts. Yes I wish we had a 6 or v8 diesel option but there are advantages and efficiencies by staying small.

[@MountainTrailRV]

Thanks for the great feedback! We agree!

[@marcusbarnes5929]

Tune the 3.2L and it blows the doors off the 2.0L biturbo it's not even in the same ball park.

[@billgates3452]

@@marcusbarnes5929 yeah actually you are so right what was everyone thinking. I also agree comparing a tuned and stock engine is a fair comparison. I’ve got a great idea, let’s run down to Ford and buy a new Ranger with the 3.2L, oh wait the dinosaur has been discontinued. Definitely in different leagues.

[@marcusbarnes5929]

@billgates3452 🤣🥴 The stock amount of boost in the 2.0L reaching upto 30psi is still alot higher than a tuned 3.2L.. Adding just a few more pounds of boost in the tune to the 3.2L to make around 22 to 24 psi and its all around superior to the little 2.0L. The 3.2L is alot more reliable for towing. The 3.2L is not tuned to 1 inch of its life from factory so has alot of power to make. The new 3.0L v6 diesel should be great and tuned quite well from factory ...notice how the 2.0L biturbo is the poverty spec engine in the new rangers.

[@billgates3452]

@@marcusbarnes5929 yeah what you said is completely irrelevant, stock vs tuned means nothing. The 2.0L is a new generation engine, it tows much better, it’s faster, better on fuel and so far has been just as reliable if not more than the 3.2L. As soon as the 2.0L was released it was the premium & best option, you had to pay more to get it and they used it in the Raptor, 3.2L was the basic bitch. biturbo now sits below the V6 but 3.2L has been outperformed in every metric and has been deleted. I don’t dislike the 3.2l and believe whatever you want, I’m a qualified diesel tech & I’ve owned both and facts are facts.

[@adriaanvanzyl]

Awesome test. The 2L is better in every way. We have had both the 3.2L and the now the 2l BiTurbo. The 3.2L is good but feels sluggish compared to the 2L in everyday drive. The 2L accelerate quicker and is by far quieter and comfier on road. Both still great vehicles. Cheers

[@ivanroux435]

Excellent crisp footage and awesome test. I did not expect the result! Well done.

[@joepsaila2837]

Thanks guys I’m thinking of buying a ford ranger in the next few months cheers

[@ronniehill6142]

I have always owned Fords however I love my 2003 Toyota Tacoma better than any American Truck I have ever driven

[@douglasyong6939]

Sold my Wildtrak 3.2 after 5 good years of ownership, and now loving my Wildtrak 2.0 Biturbo with a tad more power and less NVH...

[@craigdargie6929]

What they didn't tell you is that the 10 speed auto needs to be put into sport mode when towing. It has a good chance of failing if you don't. This also frees up the torque converter to allow it to rev easier. If you want a ranger that really tows great, get a 3.2, do a turbo and intercooler upgrade and have it remapped. Some companies offer driveline warranty with the tune. I've got 170000kms on mine and love it. Puts out more power and torque than a 200 series. Get mid 9 litres per 100kms around town and low 8s country runs. Towing our 19 foot full off road van it uses 12.6 litres per 100kms, up to mid 13s if pushing into a strong head wind. And I'm running 33 inch mud tyres. By, by, bi.

[@tranlee5622]

Any tuning done for your ute inorder to get 9l per 100 on 33s?

[@theotherphil]

Good test! I noticed however that you had the 3.2 auto box in “D” for the test. The owner manual suggests to use Sports mode whilst towing. This locks out the overdrive gears and raises the shift point to allow less speed drop between changes. It also provides better engine braking, improves throttle performance and locks the torque converter. It’d be interesting to see what impact that has on the performance aspect of the test, as well as fuel economy.

[@MountainTrailRV]

We actually did the route twice, to make sure it was accurate. One route was the actual test, then we went back and shot the whole thing for b roll! That is 4 trips in total. The editor used the wrong shot as B Roll, but they were both in Sport Mode the whole time in the test. KB

[@hedydd2]

@@MountainTrailRV It really doesn't matter anyway because there is a vast difference between the six speed, its ratios and gearchange characteristics compared to the vastly superior ten speed. It's like a chalk and cheese comparison.

[@photografiq_presents]

@@hedydd2 I wonder if you understand the point of comparisons.

[@hedydd2]

It’s to get results @numbnuts. They got a very clear winner. Besides which, both vehicles automatically set a tow mode when trailer lights are attached which replicates the sporty mode very closely. Apart from which the Ford six speed auto is one of the least responsive that I’ve driven over the last 38 years. It doesn’t even kick down when the driver wants it to and the engine straining at maximum torque. Neither does it downchange for engine braking down hills in any mode you like.

[@TheRdwyer]

So for you Ford owners out there. Is the 10spd issues fixed. I'm leaning on the Ford sport with the 6spd with single turbo over the biturbo and 10spd. Would appreciate inputs.

[@sizwemasenya5747]

The winner is the gearbox! The 2.0l has TEN gears! That's a serious advantage!

[@clintonfouche6379]

Agreed!!! I rate couple that 10speed to the 3.2.. Think it would be really good.. the 2L wont work with the speed at all!!

[@timothyfoster5659]

Holy shit 3 seconds amazing!

[@timothyfoster5659]

Think what you could do with that time

[@Nik_The_Heavy_Vehicle_Mechanic]

Calling an auto a gearbox cracks me up 😆😆😆

[@vevohoeyo]

@@Nik_The_Heavy_Vehicle_Mechanic It is actually a gearbox weather its auto or manual. It's a box with gears in it.

[@westaussie9497]

Thank Q. You have changed my mind. Yes, the 3.2 turbo. I always thought was ducks nuts, to tow my caravan. A 2.0 litre in my mind would be working hard towing the caravan. I am talking along the lines of weeks on the road. But. To maintain a higher speed on a hill climb, with a 2.0 motor fitted with bi turbo. Puts, another vehicle on our new ( to us ) list.

[@darbyharrison3876]

Please get the 3.2, my dads mate is a mechanic and he said the 2.0 litre is better for around town. But when towing or light off roading it struggles and when towing they have more issues. He said do not get one overall.

[@2011barnstormer]

I drove a brand new Ford Ranger 2.0 litre Bi-Turbo for 2 weeks while my car was being repaired at Ford. The Bi-Turbo kicks arse it has so much grunt with a 10 speed auto I'd have the Bi-Turbo any day.

[@jaimusicxx]

yep same for me

[@TheBlueOwl21]

Really good review, in fact the best that I have seen !👍🇬🇧

[@Jeffnz020]

The 3.2 is asthmatic asf. Ford needs to put the 3l v6 diesel out of the f150 in the ranger and everest. 2l bi turbo will self destruct before 200k if its worked hard.

[@mohammedjaved4382]

Yes give us the 3l V6 out of f150 and into a ranger then we can finally annihilate the V6 Amorok

[@philmja9143]

The 3.2 was programmed by a bunch of fucking ninnies at Ford. Good powerfull engine but the torque is strangled. A re-map will make a huge difference. Most if not all the vids on KZbin that I've watched on re-mapped fast as fuck Rangers its always the 3.2 Wildtrak because once the chains are loose it will go like shit off a shovel.

[@pbodymathis]

I own a 2015 Ranger Wildtrak here in Thailand and love the performance of it. The only problem is that you cannot really drive it with the traffic and road conditions and I have never had a load on it. Other than that it is very peppy and feels a lot like the 6.0 l diesels I drove in my F 250's in 2004 ish back in Texas.

[@Patrick-oh7rk]

I have a 2019 550 amarok.. probably walk its ass over these.. i want to see next wildtrack, raptor and maybe xlt with v6 power to keep up with me

[@jimmybe64]

@@vevohoeyo Thailand bro. Where are Fords made?

[@joelopic]

Excellent video. Real world test and comparison. That's what people really want. Great work, thank you.

[@wernerkruger8450]

Brilliant test. Well done!

[@MountainTrailRV]

Thank you very much! Appreciate watching!

[@TwoHemiViewer]

What the! A real world genuine informative comparison with a relitively high level of same driving conditions give or take a few percentage points. Well done you blokes. I do wonder the longevity of each engine, the assumption would be the 3.2 litre might last longer however one should never assume.

[@jaimusicxx]

Brilliant video guys; I have to agree on all accounts having owned both the 3.2 and now a 2.0 - The tech in the new 2.0 engines is miles ahead of the old 3.2 and the 2.0 motor wins hands down on every level - Great work and very useful unbiased information on which motor is better for anyone wanting to tow a large van.

[@e.demirovic]

Did you ever had any problems with the 3.2?

[@MegaKelias]

Thanks guys .. great video ... helping me pick my next ranger!

[@panos8444]

Side by side the 2.0L has to work 70% harder than the 3.2L to make the same power, something to consider longevity?

[@gerriepretoruis1138]

Nou praat ju 3.2 beter motor

[@beerneverbrokemyheart]

Don't bring common sense into the conversation please.

[@manuelstyluzthirdymicuiii1831]

As mechanic myself. I would always choose larger displacement with a low peak power than to choose low displacement engine with high paper -rating. Durability and realibility will always be on the side of bigger cc than bigger power.

[@hentyellis779]

I’ve had two 3.2 Ranger wildtracks,loved them.Just ordered a new Ranger Thunder 2.0 bi turbo will see how it compares.Not so sure on how long the 2.0 bi turbo will last,will only keep it while under warranty.

[@silkyfox7603]

How’s it going?

[@Ted...youtubee]

Any update? Please

[@dale8535]

I’ve got a 3.2 and there’s no doubt there a bit sluggish and noisy compared to the 2.0 but they love a tune or remap and for $1200-1500 for one it’s well worth it. Gearbox is the key although they can outsmart themselves finding the right gear when pulling a van. Both good choices there’s horse for courses. Still better than a gutless HILUX

[@darrenrobinson9242]

I drove both as well. I bought the 2.0 bi turbo. Was no comparison. 3.2 felt lazy and noisey. I also tow a big boat. You don’t even know it’s there.

[@nev57]

sounds good darren how much can the 2.litre tow ,ive got pajero 3.2 litre turbo ,i love the car for its 4wd capability,but im gonna buy an 18ft off road twin axle caravan that appear to be heavier than the normal vans and im wondering about these cars .

[@lemrivanroiset5926]

Same. I drive 3.2 a little bit not aggressive. 2.0 is much responsive and smooth

[@kevinblythe2192]

Like any motor, a detuned or badly tuned 3.2l will ALWAYS give a poor result. We don't know how well it was tuned for this comparison do we? I'll take the bigger motor any day. It will last twice as long for a start cause that little motor is seriously stressed hauling around up to 6 ton including van. The 3.2l does it easily. This is about Ford offering a cheaper smaller motor with slightly better fuel economy and possibly emissions. In this disposable age the smaller motor offered is NOT designed to improve longevity so there's that.

[@ibramguirguis]

I agree with you, the only thing they noticed the smaller turbo when it boosts. Well install a bi-turbo on the 3.2l and watch the fireworks. Let's see the 2.0l when it reaches the 150k. @@kevinblythe2192

[@mikesievers1482]

@@ibramguirguis you're not wrong. We have a 2.0L ranger for dedicated towing duties, has pulled between 2.5 and 3.2 ton five day's a week, depending on the job since 6000 km's and it's pretty much rooted. Compared to our other 2.0L ranger that has never towed (dedicated pilot vehicle) which still drives as tight as a drum. Despite being purchased six months apart, they both have roughly 160,000 km's on them. Given this has been a long term test for us (by default), I think for the average man in the street towing a caravan or boat over the holidays, the 2.0L is more than adequate. But as a long term proposition, forget it. I can't really comment on the 3.2, as I've never driven one to compare, but I suspect a comparably lazier 5 cyl would/should last longer than a higher stressed 4 cylinder. Towing 3000 + kgs combined with the weight of the truck with a small capacity 2.0L engine is a big ask in anybody's language.

[@OzzieOverland]

The exact video I was after! Thanks lads good work!!

[@alinherts5414]

In the hill climb you have the 3.2 in D and the 2.0 in S.

[@MichaelD1008]

I saw that too, so you can't count on the comparison!

[@jemijona]

As others have said for the hill climb, the 2l is in sports mode and the 3.2l is in drive. Different pumps used at the servo on the after run fills, and the 2l did its run later in the day, with possibly cooler air. I'll stick with the less stressed 3.2.

[@gregreed402]

Things are good when their brand new and technology is also awesome ,but in the end it will tell the truth if you own it long enough

[@Chris.Mechanic]

that is exactly my concern. In F1 we have 700+ HP from 1.6 or so but millage ;) So yes, 2.0 bi-turbo is stronger etc but will it last as long as 3,.2? I doubt... I drive Kia Sorento 2.5 CRDI 2004. It is 16 yrs old 330+ kkm and engine and gearbox (automatic) works still like a charm. No failures up to now, exept two injectors that needed to be replaced by 160 and 230 kkm. Turbo still without any touch. That's it. Will 2.0 bi-turbo makes the same? I really really doubt...

[@jarrodpascoe8130]

Excellent video. That is all the shit people want to know who tow something . Good job. Liked and subscribed 👍

[@johnnguyen2484]

3.2 is better than 2.0 because of reliability. 2.0 biturbo has a big problems of leaking oil at turbo parts. This is really bad. This problem happened about 90% of biturbo 2.0 engines (ranger and everest) in Vietnam and Thailand. Some vehicles got this problem at less than 10k km.

[@randyalmazar826]

your right. i have a 2019 2.0 single turbo and it has a leak on the hose of the turbo on less than 30k on the clock.

[@fishaddiction]

Problem was fixed by end 2020.

[@dainebatchelor9382]

This is by far the best comparison ive seen on youtube. The tests give real figures which make the comparison easy to distinguish. Nothing like a head to head shootout! Cant wait for my new 20.75 bi turbo saber orange wildtrak to arrive in November!!

[@DragonRyder2979]

I baught the XLT fully loaded version in 2.0ltr. One word, AMAZING.

[@enyakiwiyachts8333]

Price?

[@goprob1]

Great real world test guys. Well done!

[@deanwylie9893]

The guy at the servo would have been the most confused person on the planet that day.

[@dlandzna]

Real time real review real test comparison. Great test video!

[@lahmyaj]

Great video guys. Been helping the parents decide on a good vehicle for Grey Nomad’ing and the old man really appreciated being able to see this comparison of actual towing. He was in the traditional mindset that capacity matters most (and obviously it does to a fair degree) but I knew Ford wouldn’t bring out such a ‘small’ 2.0L engine unless they knew it was more capable than their old 3.2L and obviously the 10-speed auto plays a huge part here vs. the old 6-speed married to the 3.2L. Keep up the good work 👍🏻

[@bettinaneumeyer6760]

I have a 2009 ranger in Canada. I got the 4.0 litre 6 cylinder engine and tow occasionally. I am so glad i did. I have lots of other issues with the truck but one thing for sure is that engine is solid and had no problems. I would never buy a new ranger. Turbos are nothing but trouble. I learned that from Scotty Kilmer on utube.

[@bertofly9050]

After many kilometers of towing that little 2.0 twin turbo will blow up and the 3.2 will come passed it

[@gavinwolfe3238]

After how many KM will that little 3.2L blow up and the 4.5L LandCruiser come past it, or the 6L diesel Chev Silverado etc etc.... That is an argument that could go on and on but the 2L seems to be pretty well sorted so far, it has been out for quite a while now since it has been in other Ford models well before it was in the Ranger.

[@darrynrich6616]

How will it blow up? it produces more power, more torque at lower rev's it cruises at 100km/h unloaded at 1500rpm compared to 2000rpm in the 3.2... i suppose you still use a bag phone as well because the battery is bigger???

[@mikewatt1376]

@@darrynrich6616 theses things work fine when theyre nice n new n perfect but when something goes astray or out of whack you see how dependent you are on each little cube to be doing its job

[@ricardoperks396]

You think so? yet to be proven though. Its still quite a long stroke with smaller pistons and two turbos dont mean they are being ringed out and working hard. Quite opposite in fact. The 10 speed gearbox coupled up to the smaller motor with higher torque and kw is great. Toyotas twin turbo on the 4.5L v8 is a great example. No reliability issues and they must 5 years old now you think?

[@fireman24fishy]

Great video guys well done answered all my questions thanks

[@Shilo-fc3xm]

Thanks, guys. Liked and subbed. Im in the market next month but have spent the past three months researching and had settled on the 3.2, my [old school] thoughts being engine capacity and importantly that to my understanding a larger engine would not need to work as hard to get there which would equate to long term reliability. One month out from my purchase you have completely changed my mind and as of now, I'm going 2ltr and the new tech. However: Before I write it in stone would you or any other people following along with mechanical experience comment on that long term reliability in terms of my (seemingly faulty) logic that a larger capacity engine will work less hard and therefore wear better over time? Thanks so much. I had been looking for this information for ages.

[@tonitighe4008]

And I’ve been in a Ford Ranger once and the speaker bass and echo was insane

[@LC-uw6er]

Great real world test. Funny all the negative Nellie's who chose to buy the 3.2 over the bi-turbo 2.0 because they told themselves the 3.2 just had to be better. 6 speed, 10 speed excuses, etc Overall the 2.0 bi-turbo is the better package in real world driving. Smoother, quieter and more powerful package.!!

[@DragonRyder2979]

Agreed, that's why I baught the 2.0ltr one. Its simply amazing

[@MK.uLtrA-113]

@@DragonRyder2979 how many K's do you get to a tank of normal driving?

[@hedydd2]

@@MK.uLtrA-113 Not quite relevant to the models above but my 2.2 150hp automatic T6 is a workhorse and gets barely 18mpg towing a heavy trailer and 23 overall. It is capable of 30mpg on unladen unhurried long road trips. Imperial gallons of course, not the tiny American ones. This may sound bad, and it isn't great even compared to my 4.2 100 series Land Cruiser, but believe it or not and despite lacking 50hp and 50Nm torque, the Ranger 2.2 is the better towing vehicle and is sprightlier unladen. The fuel economy is about the same as my old 1984 Land Rover HiCap pickup that had the 67hp naturally aspirated diesel. The Ranger feels as if it has ten times the power not just over double.

[@BedfordGibsons]

Great video. Loved it. Just what I needed to know. Just about to get a Ford ranger and need it to tow a 3.2 tonne caravan. Spot on video addressing all the issues. Even the electronic braking on the van was one of my questions. Thank you

[@TomPembertonFarmLife]

Great video guys, wouldn't have thought it would do that ( Dont want to say to much to spoil the results)

[@raylantrevor54]

you probably dont care but does anyone know of a way to log back into an instagram account?? I was stupid forgot my account password. I would love any tips you can give me.

[@leonelcayden3934]

@Raylan Trevor Instablaster =)

[@raylantrevor54]

@Leonel Cayden I really appreciate your reply. I found the site on google and I'm trying it out now. Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.

[@raylantrevor54]

@Leonel Cayden it worked and I now got access to my account again. I'm so happy:D Thank you so much you saved my account!

[@leonelcayden3934]

@Raylan Trevor you are welcome xD

[@Paul-un5ps]

Great video, I just got myself a 2.0 ltr Ranger. If it will tow your 3 tonne van it will easily tow mine at 1 tonne. Also what beautiful countyside.

[@christeitzel9609]

I wonder what the result would be if they both had a 10 speed gearbox...

[@keithklijnsma7678]

it would be the same result.

[@akuapiatas]

I wonder what the result would be had the 5cyl had twin turbos

[@timfreeman2603]

I wonder what the 2.0L would be like with another cylinder?

[@MK.uLtrA-113]

I wonder if the 2.0L was a 6.0L with 4 turbos and 4 extra cylinders what the result would be??

[@gaaloulmed4753]

@chris beerad no need for a twin turbo with just a good remap you can get from this big engine a number close from 300 hp on stock internals without risk. Because is a "Real" 4wd truck engine not an enhanced hatchback diesel engine.

[@emptycognitivemind850]

Good on you guys. You are better than the claims of manufacturers. 👍

[@MountainTrailRV]

Thanks 👍

[@rossprivate5456]

now give us a 5 year test , i'm not an enemy of the 2.0 ltr but i doubt that longevity is something that rates high for car manufacturers ...they want you to buy new cars not drive old cars

[@deryckd1982]

Amen!

[@kingbryantan5922]

Can reach 5m km

[@ricardoperks396]

Yeah true but Ford are backing the new one. I am firm believer in liter capacity means low down torque I own trucks. But the numbers are the numbers and the 2.0L wins on torque and HP and then add the close ratio tranny . I got extended factory warranty to 8 years because I was worried about a new donk, 10 speed transmision and twin turbos. Cost me 2.2k extra but that gives me 8 years and yes I got the pds to make sure the diff turbos gearbox and motor was included. I think ford did a pretty good job to transition and still offer the bullet proof tried and tested 3.2L 6 speed. They are both good good rigs. Im waiting for the 5 year test too mate

[@rossprivate5456]

@@ricardoperks396 good honest reply, if Ford put a good warranty period on the vehicle could be the deal sealer. Whether it wins or loses and is not my problem...

[@trevorshields7347]

I agree. The proof is always in the eating. Everything is good when new, but add time to the equation and things can be totally different

[@martinkrahge5568]

Outstanding review guys - well done.

[@paulwebb2097]

Excellent comparison. Just still a little concerned with the BiTurbo as there has been quite a few Gearbox oil pump issues that are coming to light.

[@jaimusicxx]

no need for concern; i had the gearbox fixed twice in my old 3.2; once at 45,000 kms and then a gearbox overhaul (shim failed) at 78,000 kms; so far the 10 speed has been flawless

[@JMo1515]

It’s an official recall no so it’s been addressed.

[@donigilobor7721]

Thank you for this video! Amazing comparison, it provides more information. Thank you again & more power to you guys...🙂👍

[@ryanherbert980]

The test when accelerating from 80kms up the hill, the 3.2 is in D mode and the 2.0L is in sport mode. Will change how the vehicle performs

[@moova1000]

This is exactly what I was about to comment

[@ThomasFG]

Also it's not an apples to apples comparison, rather a joke 3.2L was in normal "D" mode 2.0L was in sport "S" mode Also they simply think it's more powerful ?, they fail to look at specifics that actually matter Things like final drive ratios, transmissions, etc In this case the 3.2L is let down by a dated 6sp auto 2.0L is backed by a 10sp auto They both run different final drive ratios which does effect overall tow performance. If they were both 10sp auto's, i'd reckon the 3.2L would have demolished it 🤣🤣🤣

[@ricardoperks396]

There is no sport mode mate. It was in D.

[@jimmybe64]

Where is there no Sports mode?

[@dale8535]

Clearly the 3.2 is in d for drive indicated by the red d and the 2.0 is in s for sports mode indicated by the red s. The 3.2 would have pinned its ears back in sports mode and got up there 10 kmph faster at least. Which ever gear your in is indicated by the letter lighting up red.

[@the4ofus2023]

Thank you for this video, unfortunately I missed the breaking comparison.

[@Keenok]

I love my biturbo wildtrak! That being said, coming down mountains I really prefer my 3L chevy. I have to drop 8 gears before the engine starts to slow me down on the 10 speed and I can just feel that the engine has less .. ummph ... than a larger displacement engine for engine braking .

[@petermahoney636]

My 2014 triton has been to cape York and the Simpson desert Fraser island Tasmania has now done 426k kms just like my MH 2.6 . and MK 3.0 lt v6 have never let me down ever. all the some starter motor just faultless car's tritons are very much under rated all my tritons have never failed me ever. Always turn the key and drive.! O .wot a feeling Mitsubishi

[@Grahamrjohnson]

Well done comparison guys.... prob the best I have seen. Shame you cant buy the 10 speed mated to the 3.2.... Only outstanding question is which will last longer ?? A highly stressed 2 litre or a lazy 3.2

[@hedydd2]

Look back in history for reliability of older design large displacement or lower power engines in the same vehicle type and you will find increasing levels of reliability and longevity with less routine maintenance and overhauls even as engines get more and more power per unit of swept volume. Better economy too. It makes me think that engine designers of the 20th century must have been taking the customer for a ride.

[@KingMarvin]

Wow! This is very informative! It really helps me to decide which engine is best for me. BIG THANKS you all.

[@raulrrojas]

I wouldn't trust it that much, these people are probably being paid..

[@bryanmania888]

Watching from the Philippines! ^_^ great content very relaxing to watch. May i request you do a side by side test again this time the Mitsubishi Triton. Specifically the previous gen (4D56 engine 2.5 liters) versus the latest model facelift (4N15 engine 2.4 liters). Should be also an exciting comparison in power, fuel consumption and general car feel. Thank you very much! Take care guys. Keep safe!

[@Lcr34]

Mates tuned 2.4 seems to pulls harder than the 2.5 he used to have.

[@paulefc1971]

Fantastic job guys, thinking of getting a Ranger and reckon the Bi Turbo looks the better choice

[@johno8397]

My 2L has total gearbox failure at 22,000km and now has been recalled again for upgrades. Stay away very unreliable.

[@Wrastleman903]

Shoulda bought a Ram!

[@hazza_007]

What was the end result? Also what kind of driving have you been doing or towing

[@borisivancic222]

I had a new engine 3.2L at 3,000km, you did better

[@vevohoeyo]

You dont have one. Your simply hating on them cos u poor dog.

[@flyingrc2041]

@@vevohoeyo Most people who drive new cars are poor!

[@mangoco10]

Thank you for a very informative real world demo.

[@mthunzidube1423]

thank you, l think l will buy the 3.2 stll, in the padt the 2 litre versions received bad reviews especially regarding reliability

[@Mouse-mz5xx]

Thanks so much for great review. It was fantastic. I just purchased a bi-turbo yesterday and pick it up in few weeks and I was second guessing myself about the two litre for towing. Looks like I made the right decision!

[@wkdblue62]

Not sure it would be classed as a fair test or how much difference it makes but you tested the 3.2 in D and the 2ltr in S. Would this not change the way each vehicle goes up the gears.

[@BryanM63]

It would make a massive difference. In drive the transmission is trying to select the highest gear possible to maintain economy. In Sport mode the transmission is trying to maintain power. The owners manual tells you to tow in sport mode.

[@tlevans62]

Read the comments, they ran both tests in S mode. The B roll footage shows D, but that’s not how the test was run.

[@crispinswainstonharrison9042]

This was a great practical review.

[@blairirvin]

Very interesting. I wonder how each engines health would be after 200,000km of towing.

[@Ben-hi5lr]

B. Irvin doubt they would make it that far

[@johnciarla5646]

The 3.2 would outlast the 2L by a mile. The EGTs in the 2L would be REALLY HIGH resulting in cracked pistons and/or melted pistons over a long period. Im not saying that’s what’s going to happen, but for a grey nomad pulling a trailer like that almost everyday, my choice would be the 3.2. For occasional towing and weekends away I’d go with the 2L.

[@mungbean84]

@@johnciarla5646 what evidence do you have for any of your assertions?

[@raphael3873]

mungbean84 3.2 is just better in every way. And everyone knows that.

[@MeanguyElghxygh]

@@raphael3873 "everyone knows that" is not exactly providing any evidence whatsoever. Anyone can easily claim anything and insist it's true despite having no evidence to back up their claim

[@poidash1]

Great video. That is exactly the information I was looking for. Thank you 😁👍👍