Info on Ford Ranger

[Chicken Drumstick]

I know we have a nice varied and international user group here, so hoping you can help me with some questions.

I'm looking for some general info on the Ford Ranger, the U.K./Internatinal version, not the N. American version.

Specifically I'm interested in the older 2002-2011 models, not the current one.

As I understand it the Ranger is also a Mazda B-Series but seems to change to BT-50 at some point.

Anyone able to tell me what they are like, are they all the same in terms of chassis and suspension? What changes did the 2006 BT-50 bring in?

I've seen mention of a 82 and 86mm axle, but don't really know the difference.

I've struggle to find any real info out. Wikipedia has a little info, but no UK reviews, which there are few of, seem to offer any helpful detail either.

Thanks.

[Cynic-al]

I had a uk 52 plate double cab (mk1?) With the 2.5 tdi and a 2007 super cab (mk3?) 2.5tdi.

The mk1 was very commercial, very low geared, great for towing but a bit tiring at motorway speeds. It was also noisy and bouncy by modern standards. The service interval was painful at about 3000 miles, 2 small and a big. The fuel pump died and it took ford a long time to fix it as they lost it whilst getting it reconditioned but otherwise it was a solid enough workhorse. Probably averaged high 20s mpg wise.

The 2007 was more refined, more powerful, higher geared, drove very well, almost ca like. Too high geared for towing really. If I had a lot of weight on hills I would sometimes set off in low box get up to third then get it into first high otherwise the clutch would smell a bit eggy after a while. Had a few problems that I wouldn't expect on a vehicle that age and nothing was covered by the Ford warranty but I guess that won't matter to you. Probably averaged low 30s mpg wise. Think it had an lsd in the back.

Both were good value and sold well enough second hand. Plus they had a stick shift for the transfer box which is much better than the newer electronic rubbish. They both had thr same 4wd system. First time yy put it in 4wd you have to be stopped whilst it automatically engages the front hubs. You can then switch between 4wd and 2nd on the move so long as you leave the front hubs engaged at up to 60mph. If you go over 60 with the front hubs in a light on the dash flashes at you. Once you've finished with 4wd you press a button on the dash to disengage the front hubs.

I think there was a v6 petrol in the early ones and a 3.0 diesel in the wildtrak on the later ones. You also got the 3.0 with thr auto I believe.

I think they're all made by mazda but i could be wrong.

[CaMpylobacter]

07 went to a commonrail engine. my sister nad her husband have one of that model. goes well. look out fo rleaking egr coolers masquerading as a blown head gasket. often people over here replace cylidner heads and all sorts of stuff but never think to check the egr coolers for internal leaks! little less agricultural than the prior models. go a lot better, though, althuogh lots higher geared. theirs did a clutch before 100k. dual mass flywheel etc. I got them a single mass replacement.

my father has a 2002 doublecab 4x4. good ute. has about 340'000km on it. hasn't had many issues. over here in nz they tend to have gearbox and diff beaing issues. the best way to make them last the longest is to obviously run the correct trans fluid in them, but also don't tow/labour in too higher gear. dad doesn't really care too much about that advice though and runs a slightly thicker oil (he asbulk tanks with 80w-90 vs the recommened 75-80 or whatever it is) and tows heavy stuff quite frequently.

he puts around 700km on his a week over a daily commute which sees him drive over a very steep and windy road. lots of load carrying (he's a heavy diesel mechanic)

brother has a 2004 doublecab. he bought his at 180km. done about 220k now.

he's a mobile heavy diesel mechanic. has a flatdeck on the back with two big gullwing boxes full of gear. large compressor etc. running weight is just over 3000kg at all times.

goes really well. often tows our salvage trailer with extra gear etc amounting to about 2500kg total. no problem.

I'm pretty sure he's mucked with the fuel pump and boost etc as even at 3tonne it'll still keep up with my dad's one no sweat!

[Chicken Drumstick]

Thanks for the info. Good to hear some feedback.

Finding info on the net seems rather challenging for them.

[honitonhobbit]

I read my first post back and even I couldn't understand it. So lets try again

I've used Mk1, 2 and 3 Rangers - so from pre 96 up to the 06 to 09 model

The Mk 1 is crude, underpowered, low geared and eats it's own T box. It's a Direct Injection lump of under 80bhp (made by Isuzu). Great off road

The Mk2 has the Mazda direct injection donk - about 108bhp. Not bad but thirsty at speed. Pretty reliable. My personal favourite as I'm simple. There's a 2.8 that is much like Hen's teeth - never seen one. Rumour has it that its the Powerstroke 2.8

The M3 is the peach though. 2.5 Duratorq Common Rail simple yet modern, Fuel economic, nails hard if serviced, 144bhp; 333Nm of torque. It has all the little luxuries but doesn't look like a hair dressers car (too much). There's a 3.0 litre that's very nice - auto option available

Excellent barge all round. Cheap, reliable, simple. Good off road - limited slip diff thingy in the back. Too much plastic and chrome - but it all comes off

Parts are easy/. Milner's has all the service bits (it's really a Mazda B2500/BT50). Eibach and Bilstein do the bouncy bits or you can go cheap.

Mark 4's and 4's have the crappy 2.2 Tdci so loathed by most working folk. Although the 3.2 isn't bad

Best look at Grey Import B2500 or BT50's as they are cheaper with less bling

[honitonhobbit]

Bit more stuff from my notes:

Mk 1 engine is an Isuzu 4JA1

Mk2 Engine is a 2.5 WLT

Mk3 2.5 Engine is a WLC (141bhp/240ft/lbs)

Mk3 3.0 Engine is a WEC (154bhp/280ft/lbs

Mk4 started with the above then went downhill to the 2.2Tdci and the 3.2Tdci

The WLC/WEC started life in the vehicle with 8 valves, then got 8 more. It runs a Bosch Common Rail and a Variable Geometry Turbo in it's final form

I rang a mate who runs a commercials only garage and asked him about the Mk3... He went all dewy eyed on the phone. It was pathetic

[Chicken Drumstick]

Very useful thank you.

So am I right in assuming the "Mk3" was introduced in the UK for 2006? Looks very similar to the MK2 on the outside, but with a different dash and slightly different looking headlights?

The model year changes listed on Wikipedia don't tally up with the models we had in the UK I think, which is where I think I'm going wrong... or at least getting confused.

Parkers say there was a Ranger with a 2.5 turbo diesel from 1999 to 2006. I assume this is what you are referring too as a Mk2? -- Or is this the MK1 99-02 and the MK 02-06??

http://www.parkers.co.uk/vans/reviews/ford/ranger/1999/

And they then list a Ranger with either a 2.5 or 3.0 TD from 2006 to 2011, which I'm assuming is the MK3? With a facelift maybe around 2009?

http://www.parkers.co.uk/vans/reviews/ford/ranger/2006/

Wikipedia seems to split them into 4 models for this time period:

1998-2002 (B-Series)

2002-2006 (B-Series)

2006-2009 (BT-50)

2009-2011 (BT-50)

Are the pre 2002 models in the UK a "Mk1"?

Thanks.

PS.

I 'think' I would be looking at 2002 through 2009 most likely based on current prices.

[CaMpylobacter]

FWIW: NZ and Australia called the ford badged ones 'Courier' up until the commonrail versions came out.

Mazda were a 'bounty' or 'b2200/2500' until the same time, then moved onto the BT50 name.

May help you find more info for this side of the equator.

[Cynic-al]

Im happy to be corrected but;

This was my 07 which I've always called a mk3

The supercab was good as you had a better sized bed with somewhere to put coats etc

This is the only photo I can find of my 52 plate but ive always called that a mk1?

There was a facelift version came between my two in maybe 2004? It had different headlights and grill to my red one but I don't know what other changes. There was also a facelift version of my black one, not sure what year that came out. Then they went onto an all new model with the 2.2 and 3.2 which got a facelift itself this year.

[Chicken Drumstick]

Many thanks again.

Just one more question, your 07 plate. Did that have a rear LSD? I was reading up on an Australian forum last night and seemed to hint that they should.

If so, do you know if it was a viscous or ATB unit?

[honitonhobbit]

Mk 2 (also B2500 Mk8) is 99 to 06, Mk 3 (also Mazda BT50) is 06 to 11, then there's two more Mk's since then

As far as I am able to tell ALL Mk3's have an LSD - but only the specced up Mk2's. It's not a viscous unit, it's a biased clutch type

[honitonhobbit]

Al's Mk1 is actually a Mk2

You think this is complicated - just try Hi-Lux, there's that many of those in every different shape or form AND Grey Imports

If I was selling the Disco, I would look for a M3 Ranger, 2.8 Turbo (Pre D4D) Hi-Lux or a 56/06 Dmax

[Cynic-al]

Mk2 would make sense based on what was said above, it was a 100 hp engine.

The black one had an lsd I believe but i don't know how it functioned.

[BogMonster]

I had what I thought was a Mk2 - 2005 model. Export with the 2.9 NA diesel, lovely motor as long as you were not in a hurry

My current one is a 2011 which is basically a Mk3 (2006-2010) with teardrop headlights, I don't know if that makes it a Mk4 or a Series 3A (!) but it is not the current model. Mine has the 2.5 indirect injection Mazda mechanical injection engine in (again an export model - about 110hp IIRC) which is a lovely engine - imagine a refined 300Tdi. Goes well, tows well, decent fuel economy, starts in an ice age as long as the heater plugs work. Front suspension seems weaker though, have needed some bushes for that.

I wish I could get a new version of the one that I've got, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Less impressed with the new ones having driven a 2.2L but I know a fleet user who seems to like them.

I think HOG has just bought one so maybe see what he thinks too? There was a recent thread about it.

[BogMonster]

http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=98406

[Happyoldgit]

<snip>

I think HOG has just bought one so maybe see what he thinks too? There was a recent thread about it.

Had it a month tomorrow. 3.2 auto Limited 1, now with SMMR steel & glass canopy. So far so good.

[BogMonster]

No Simex?

[Happyoldgit]

Nope, I can't see any either

[BogMonster]

I can't decide whether the new model looks rugged or fugly at the moment. The front grille looks like it wants to headbutt somebody for spilling its pint. Thinking about changing mine now, either a new one or an L200 Titan. The Titan L200 comes with the Shogun's 4x4 system which allows you to use 4H on the road without any issues. I presume the current Ranger still has a medieval 4x4 system similar to a LR Series 3, i.e. no centre diff? It isn't clear from the brochures.

[Happyoldgit]

Medieval it is, the book of hands says not to use 4wd high range for normal road driving. Selecting 2H, 4H & 4L is now done via a rotary knob on the transmission tunnel, engagement looks to be motor driven.

Switching from 2H to 4H can be done at speeds up to 68mph.

Shifting to 4L deactivates engine traction control and trailer stability control but hill start assist and brake traction control remain active.

Shifting between 4H & 4L as above.

I've got friends who like the L200. My own history of Mitsubishi [shogun] ownership was not an entirely happy one and while the warranty and some of the specs are good the same cannot be said of the attention I received when I walked into the only local main dealership where not one salesperson or member if staff acknowledged my presence despite my being there and waiting a good ten minutes and obviously examining the L200 on display in the showroom. I'm also undecided about the styling too.

I recently rediscovered some old newspaper cuttings describing the treatment received by relatives as "guests" of the empire of the rising sun during the last big one which rightly or wrongly had an impact on my view / decision too.

[Cynic-al]

The L200 has the option of 4wd on road as well as 2wd and 4wd diff locked. For some reason the blerb says 4wd on road at upto 60mph only, I don't know why, but it would be nice to have especially if you can go between 2 and 4 without stopping.

I went and looked at the L200, lovely inside, but I didn't go as far as driving one as they're just sooo ugly I couldn't own one, I'm in no way stylish but I'd have to park it around the corner. The warranty beats Fords offering (3 years 60,000miles) at 5 years 60,000 miles but falls short of Isuzu at 5 years 125,000 miles. I was doing to get another Isuzu but I'm waiting for the new VW which is due by the end of the year, 3.0 V6 tdi and permanent 4 motion. I'm just nervous of reliability, my boss had an Audi A6 with the 3.0 v6 tdi and it was less reliable than an Alfa 166 that he had years ago. That said the vehicle is made in a different country and the engine is put in the pickup in a lower form of tune so you never know your luck!

[BogMonster]

Ta. I have a Shogun and the 4x4 system is very good - you have 2WD high, permanent 4WD high with the centre diff open, 4WD with the centre diff locked, or 4WD low with the centre diff locked. It would be a huge improvement on slippy surfaces where my current Ranger tends to spin the back end when empty.

The only gap is not having 4wd low with the centre diff open, which is so good for reversing trailers in tight spaces without tearing the ground up. Still, I have a Defender

I feel much the same way about the external look of the L200 which is why it's disappointing that it appears to be technically the best option