Used ford ranger - 2.2 or 3.2?

[Celt83]

We’ve recently bought a 3.2 auto and I’m really impressed with it. Every day driving and she will average just shy of 36mpg on the computer and towing a fully loaded 12ft ifor of cattle she will average 29mpg.

Really strong pick up and lovely to drive, I guess it comes down to how hard you press the loud pedal.

 

[Gav]

I’ve had both a 2.2 and a 3.2 manual and the difference in fuel use is negligible however the difference in the amount of adblue used is very noticeable. The 3.2 used a lot less of it. The Ranger is a heavy truck so the larger engine doesn’t have to work as hard. It was after driving the 3.2 I realised just how gutless the 2.2 was in comparison. Both will still tow loads better than a 1.9 Isuzu manual though

 

[Cowabunga]

We’ve recently bought a 3.2 auto and I’m really impressed with it. Every day driving and she will average just shy of 36mpg on the computer and towing a fully loaded 12ft ifor of cattle she will average 29mpg.

Really strong pick up and lovely to drive, I guess it comes down to how hard you press the loud pedal.

That really is miraculous. My 2.2 auto only does 30mpg downhill with a following wind and when towing a fully loaded 14ft IW only manages 18mpg on roads that are quite hilly but as much downhills as uphills. Overall my pickup very seldom betters 22mpg between every 1000 miles or so. That’s about par for the course for every pickup I’ve had and each is more powerful than the last. It’s even very near the figures I got from the Land Cruiser 4.2 which admittedly did far more long distance road work. That averaged about 22 with a best of 24mpg.

I believe that the new 2.0 engine currently fitted to the Ranger will better the performance of the 3.2, never mind my 150hp 2.2, while achieving 5 to 7mpg better economy. Things will probably level out somewhat when towing 3 tons plus.

 

[bluepower]

That really is miraculous. My 2.2 auto only does 30mpg downhill with a following wind and when towing a fully loaded 14ft IW only manages 18mpg on roads that are quite hilly but as much downhills as uphills. Overall my pickup very seldom betters 22mpg between every 1000 miles or so. That’s about par for the course for every pickup I’ve had and each is more powerful than the last. It’s even very near the figures I got from the Land Cruiser 4.2 which admittedly did far more long distance road work. That averaged about 22 with a best of 24mpg.

I believe that the new 2.0 engine currently fitted to the Ranger will better the performance of the 3.2, never mind my 150hp 2.2, while achieving 5 to 7mpg better economy. Things will probably level out somewhat when towing 3 tons plus.

I don't think anyone buys a pickup for fuel economy!
I have a 2.0 ltr bi-turbo ranger which is now just over a year old. It has done 14000 miles which isn't that much but I never fail to be disappointed with its' capability.
It pulls like a train and tows fantastically, flat bed or triple axle 14ft livestock trailer and is quiet and comfortable.
I can never get it to average more than 25mpg but that is mostly towing up and down hills on B roads etc. I did however get 32mpg out of it on a long run to mid wales and back, not hanging about but no trailer on.
The truck is brilliant, the local Ford dealer not very good!
My advice would be to go for a 2.0ltr Bi-turbo, good truck. Mine is auto by the way.
I do agree that smaller engines are not necessarily more economical.

 

[Celt83]

That really is miraculous. My 2.2 auto only does 30mpg downhill with a following wind and when towing a fully loaded 14ft IW only manages 18mpg on roads that are quite hilly but as much downhills as uphills. Overall my pickup very seldom betters 22mpg between every 1000 miles or so. That’s about par for the course for every pickup I’ve had and each is more powerful than the last. It’s even very near the figures I got from the Land Cruiser 4.2 which admittedly did far more long distance road work. That averaged about 22 with a best of 24mpg.

I believe that the new 2.0 engine currently fitted to the Ranger will better the performance of the 3.2, never mind my 150hp 2.2, while achieving 5 to 7mpg better economy. Things will probably level out somewhat when towing 3 tons plus.

Just come back from Whitland mart with the trailer, all flat roads and trailer was empty both ways.

 

[Cowabunga]

The new generation engines are far superior to the older 2.2 and 3.2 engines in performance and fuel economy.

 

[Dman2]

was more than happy with my 2.2 till the sump started leaking where it had rusted through 2016 model
Never been coated in sh!t or anything
WTF

 

[Hampton]

My 2019 3.2 auto, not towing will average 30 on computer, has done 35 on a run, 33 easily. I’ve towed very little with it but sub 20 mpg when I have.
Good strong truck, available next spring are you in a hurry ?

My workman has a 2016 3.2 auto and struggles to get above 26, so you must be doing well, or you drive like a nun!

 

[Timbo]

3.2 Automatic of with that milage you could justify a new 2.0 twin turbo with ten speed auto. This is in a different league to even the 3.2 older version.

My workman has a 2016 3.2 auto and struggles to get above 26, so you must be doing well, or you drive like a nun!

He'll be doing largely short runs in it though.

 

[vantage]

Thanks everyone. Was always planning on getting a 3.2 wildtrack, however, with current fuel prices should we be sticking with a 2.2.
@Lincs Lass It will be used, low mileage I think but we’d rather stay with ford which we’ve had 4 or 5 rangers now and they’ve been great trucks really.

3.2 Automatic of with that milage you could justify a new 2.0 twin turbo with ten speed auto. This is in a different league to even the 3.2 older version. An altogether superior drive.

I had a new machine delivered a couple of months ago, by a guy running a new 2.2 and 10 speed auto, he’d had it 10 months and it had clocked 65k miles! He said it towed very well, averaging mid to high 20’s depending on load and roads.

 

[Henery]

My workman has a 2016 3.2 auto and struggles to get above 26, so you must be doing well, or you drive like a nun!

not like a complete Nun ….. but conscious of using excessive juice….. yes lots short runs and giving it plenty and mid twenties is about right …… I’ve tried ! Generally they are pretty good for a biggish engine with some grunt when required….

 

[Drillman]

3.2 auto every time. Big lazy lump of a motor that seems to thrive on pulling heavy trailers. Yes it likes a drink mine has averaged 21.9mpg according to the computer from new. but I live in a hilly place and it rarely leaves the yard without a trailer attached.

Oh don’t bother with the manual make work stick version. We live on a small island with congested roads, besides the auto is far superior in every way.

 

[Timbo]

3.2 auto every time. Big lazy lump of a motor that seems to thrive on pulling heavy trailers. Yes it likes a drink mine has averaged 21.9mpg according to the computer from new. but I live in a hilly place and it rarely leaves the yard without a trailer attached.

Oh don’t bother with the manual make work stick version. We live on a small island with congested roads, besides the auto is far superior in every way.

About as good a sum up as is the truth.

 

[Drillman]

Oh one more thing

the 3.2 actually makes a nice growl when you give it the beans

most other pickups sound like forklift trucks or vacuum cleaners by comparison.

 

[Neil MP]

Just looked at my jeep, not bad for an average run with short journeys included.

 

[ridger]

Should of said, doing about 40000 miles/year mostly towing a 14ft stock trailer.

Lorry needed

 

[Cowabunga]

I had a new machine delivered a couple of months ago, by a guy running a new 2.2 and 10 speed auto, he’d had it 10 months and it had clocked 65k miles! He said it towed very well, averaging mid to high 20’s depending on load and roads.

If a 10 speed auto, it would be a 2.0 not a 2.2, as I’m sure you know.
Easy mistake to make.

 

[hally]

Whatever you choose don’t bother with fords extended warranty, just found out today it’s not worth the paper it’s written on

I have to withdraw that statement as it turns out it was the Ford garage that was useless. When the ford warranty were approached by us they paid for a turbo, cat and labour no problem. Garage told us claim would be rejected

 

[kiwi pom]

Lorry needed

I can't figure out what everyone's so busy towing around all the time? It does sound like a truck is required though

Just come back from Whitland mart with the trailer, all flat roads and trailer was empty both ways.
View attachment 1046615

Did you just take the trailer for a ride out?

 

[Richard Smyth]

I can't figure out what everyone's so busy towing around all the time? It does sound like a truck is required though

Did you just take the trailer for a ride out?

Why do you keep pushing the idea of a truck. The op hasn’t mentioned load size or frequency of load to same destination or a different one. Not much point taking a truck with 30 sheep in it when trailer is plenty.