New <span class="highlight">BT50</span>

As they are NOT the same now, nor were they the same for the previous model, your reply isn't valid. Comes down to personal choice, what are standard fittings, who had what at the time of choosing and in my case choice of Dealer as buying from Interstate just wasn't an option.

It's just like I keep hearing BT50 owners justifying their choice on what they supposedly saved.

I'm with Phil. They are not anywhere near the same at all. The Mazda is more of a passenger car. If you tow identical 2 horse float with 2 x 450kg horses inside with the Mazda & Ford in factory spec, the Mazda wander more will be more difficult to drive long distance & will also chew out back tyres far more quickly than the Ford. Same goes for load carrying. The Mazda rear end sags more due to its softer suspension.

Also with Phil. Bought my new PX Ranger a year ago, and it was several thousand cheaper than the equivalent BT50. I keep hearing that BT's are cheaper than Rangers - ????

"I keep hearing that BT's are cheaper than Rangers - ????"

Mine was - a good $10k cheaper than the equivalent Ranger at the time (Feb 2015)

I've spent the difference (and then some) on goodies. Bar and winch, suspension, canopy and canopy fitout. That $10k head start was handy.

PS: I'm talking auto transmission by the way.

I like the way that the Ford owners justify their significant extra spend on the "differences" that don't exist.

Surprising that you go on about "differences" not existing when clearly there were and are. Many people didn't buy your BT purely on looks alone for a start and that seems to be shown by the sales figures for the supposedly better value vehicle. Our comparison's were done on specific models with the standard features and options that suited us and price wasn't the primary issue. For a start Satnav and leather seats were out as unwanted. First choice was actually another make that was significantly dearer without as many features but none available to even look at let alone drive and no Dealer follow-up did them out of a sale. Second choice also had none to look at, no Dealer follow-up and aftermarket lack of options killed it. Others were from Dealers that we didn't want to deal with or other issues. Just being a Ford wasn't the reason for choice but they did have them on the Showroom floor. There are reasons for our choice, not justifications. Chasing around Interstate wasn't an option worth the trouble. None of the possibilities had your claimed $16k price difference.

I don't know what the auto transmission issue is that you mention but I have no complaint with ours. As to the smart charge one I agree that it was a stupid idea but easily remedied and could be fixed for zero cost so not really an issue if you read enough about it to understand what it did and how to change it. We have had one problem but it was one that both the Ranger and BT of that time are capable of developing but so far I've only read of one other that has had it happen to.

That more than half the market pays the extras for a ford shows just how poorly the Mazda product is put together and how far away from general opinion your remarks are. It never ONCE got next to the ford in any comparison test. It was always ford, vw, hilux then maybe the Mazda or a triton.
You can thank all of us ford owners for the 'improvements' in your car - they are all nicked from a team who did a better job.
The latest ones look nowhere near as horrendous as the first ones, but time will tell if they listened at all about getting rid of the zoom zoom in a commercial ute.
They were given a bloody good platform and made it worse than a 15 year old hilux. You only had to sit in one to work that out in 2 seconds.

Dealerships are franchise businesses which Ford cannot dictate pricing to. Eg I bought a new XR-6 Turbo $6k cheaper than the another dealer quoted and $9k under rrp, so your comment about Ford promoting discounting is redundant. It's an individual dealership thing. Secondly, the Mazda & Ford share the same 3.2lt 5cyl Diesel engine transmissions & running gear. Mazda have set their vehicle up like a passenger car, Ford has gone down the work/play route. The fact you are so adament about your Mazda's ability to "easily" get 70,000km from factory fit tyres speaks volumes about your use, because both Ford & Mazda fit rubbish tyres at the factory. One of my pre delivery list items for the Ranger is for the dealer to fit Bridgestone Dueller 697 A/T tyres, which are far better in the wet & far superior off bitumen. If you can get 70,000 km out of factory tyres (which I doubt) you aren't using the vehicle the way most people do or for what it's designed for.

I posted above, around $15k-$16k without a Ford discount..... because I don't know how much they discount. Some suggest not at all, but I'm happy to be advised otherwise. If you align the appropriate models in terms of accessories, there's quite a difference.

Depends on how you buy the vehicle. I've always had dealers tender for vehicles. The Ranger & BT50 are very close on price, but the factory suspension on the Mazda is too soft, negating the price difference by the $2k needed to up spec it to Ranger level.

What kind of towball weight are we talking for the increased tyre wear and what payload in the rear? The factory tyres will easily do 70,000 under normal driving conditions without towing.

Seems the price difference now is astronomical compared to what it used to be. No longer as we talking a few thousand here or there.

I tow an off road van with my BT50, never had any issues with the factory suspension. Done nearly 60,000, mainly towing including recent round Aus, no sag, a bit rough when not carry a load!

Certainly seems to be gramps. I'm pretty sure it's just that people love their Fords. Perhaps they think that there is some kind of Aussie connection to the brand or something. The comments around how car magazines don't actively compare the two models aren't really relevant as 99% of them compare the Ford to the Hilux, but then mention that the BT50 is pretty much the same, but cheaper. Hell they even come out of the same AAT factory in Thailand. I've noticed that the Mazda has a superior chassis with extra strengthening components at the rear, but you'd only see this with the bucket off, so most would have never noticed. Just for fun I'll drive a new Ranger and report back on my findings.

Hi Boatman,

Yeah, people tend to get defensive if there's even a hint of criticism of their choice of vehicle. Lots of threads on here concerning Toyota vs Nissan, Landrover (chuckle, chuckle) etc. Looks like we may have the new wave Mazda vs Ford starting.

ps I got 98k out of my original Dunlop Road Grippers but that is probably politically incorrect these days hahaha.

Regards

A mate who owns an airport bus company was telling me on the weekend that he's been dropping off quite a few blokes lately who have been flying in to pick up used ex-Army Land Rovers. Prices are amazing, towing capacity is excellent and many of them have very low kms, some less than 20,000 and one he heard of was an instructional unit used for training soldiers on servicing vehicles. He said that they bought them from Grays Online auctions and were mostly looking to tow caravans with them. Maybe they are the new "thing" !

Gramps, you're defending the person who started the slanging match when it really looks like he's the one trying (without luck) to defend his own choice. He's the one claiming there were no differences but in truth there were some significant differences (electrical, suspension & bodywork) in the previous PX1/BT50 model and from all descriptions I've read so far there's even more now. Now even more difficult to make exact comparisons.
Brand loyalty didn't come in to our choice but I will have to admit that there was one significant difference that tossed out the BT50 option from the start and it was much the same with the Triton. If we had bought the BT then every time I had to look at it I would have regretted not spending what was at our time not a real significant price difference. Not even a bullbar to change the appearance would have had me give it a second thought. I believe that the sales figures are testimony to that or the supposed price difference would have given it real boost.

Personally I would have gone for the twin cab Landcruiser, aftermarket auto conversion, rear suspension drastic update to fix track width and a heap of accessories.

Boatman, you're the first person I've seen mention a possible chassis difference in favour of the BT. As to you road testing a Ranger, give us a break, you've already demonstrated a dislike of Rangers and their owners so do you really want people to believe that you would be unbiased. Pointless exercise.

Taken out of context there PhilD from NT, I've driven different Rangers plenty of times and had one as a work vehicle for over a year, so I know my way around them, I just haven't driven the latest MY16 2015 build one. If the host of improvements are as good as you say, I'll happily do a comparison and write about it on here.

As for the differences, perhaps you can detail what they all are, given that you've said "significant?" What are the electrical and bodywork differences that add to the driving pleasure, durability and functionality of the Ford? Suspension? having driven the two extensively, you'd be hard pressed to be concerned by any difference unless you are driving the Bungles daily.

You've made it clear that you don't like the BT, so that's fine, I'm sure you're happy with the purchase of your Ford Ranger which is great for what you want. All I see is a ute that the visual designers unsuccessfully styled to look like an F150 so people would buy it.

One of the points of my thread is the now ridiculous price gap. The RRP of the XLT which appears to be as good as equivalent as the BT50 XTR comes in at $55-$56k list 4x2 ($62k 4x4!!). I am not aware of discounting by Ford, but as I said I'm happy to be advised on discounts offered from RRP, however the "equivalent" BT50 XTR is drive away for around $39k at the moment.

As for a "dislike of Ranger owners" you might like to calm down a little there, I don't recall ever saying or thinking that. Maybe take a chill pill and calm down a bit. For some reason the exceptional value of the BT50 has struck a chord with you.

Hi Phil,

No, I'm not defending either side of the argument, sorry if i came across that way. Just found it amusing (but then again, I am a twisted soul).

I liked both vehicles, amongst others, during my search for a replacement for my unbreakable '04 Lux. Never had an ounce of trouble with it since new, but times change.

I'm hot on the trail of a new LC dual cab with heaps of fruit. Not worried about the track width and the auto conversion would probably push SWMBO over the edge (maybe she'd push me LOL).

I agree with Landy, whatever suits you best is the best choice.

Regards

Hey Gramps...

Happy to discuss the LC Dual Cab, but crikey, don't tell Mrs Landy, she'll be on to Mrs Gramps in a flash...

As a matter of interest we've corrected the rear-wheel track with an engineered solution, but contact directly, don't want to hijack this thread...


Cheers, Baz (The Landy)

Boatman, it was you who stated that it's a waste of money getting the Ranger over the BT and the BT is better value for money. You also think that people buying the Ranger is somehow due to brand loyalty, but that can apply to all makes just as brand and Dealer dislike plays a part. Strangely though the sales figures don't line up with your beliefs. I was looking at a recent months figures and the BT was beaten by the Hilux, Ranger, Colorado, D-Max and most surprisingly by the Triton as well. Surely you can't believe that all these buyers don't recognise value for money, or where they don't think it is for their use.

As to differences, for the PX1 and the same model BT there were differences in suspension, body (obviously) and electrics. Seating, dash and such things are also obviously different. While I don't like the PX1 electrics for the Smart Charge and needing a converter harness for use with LED trailer lights it can be easily worked around with. Suspension for me isn't an issue anyway as there was always the intention of making it more suitable for our use. Reading across many Forums though shows that there's a wide variety of opinions on these differences, but they are there. For the current PX2 and latest BT the differences have widened with Mazda not taking on the significant driver aids that Ford included as one large difference that I noted. Personally there's nothing there to entice me to upgrade and my opinion of some of these driving aids, especially with the Everest, is a whole other subject.

Our Ranger XLT was bought for a purpose, model chosen with standard features that best suited us, Dealer choice above brand choice and what was available in time frame required which meant my choice of colour not available but told by wife that I could have options/accessories of my choice if she got her colour choice. To me I could not get better value for money than all that.

I do have one complaint about most of the twin cab utes and that's the inability to buy almost anything other than base models as a cab-chassis. The tub should be a deletable option and that would probably be the single thing that may have altered our choice.

I have had two other Fords and still have a Falcon RTV ute with a tipper tray, then there's been Holden's, Toyota's and 35 years of a Range Rover. Not really much Brand loyalty there but all have given enjoyment and grief. All bought for a purpose and used accordingly.

If you really like your choice then just praise it and get on with enjoying it, mostly quietly.

Sounds like it's great for what you and your wife want PhilD and I'm sure glad you are happy with your purchase.

hope that those Merc and Beamer owners take care of the Suzi and don't damage it in the car park (jealousy on their part probably), much more fuseful and fun than the other two brands you mentioned
bb

Tony you are right on the mark
But then again most of the punters who buy soft roaders don't get of the tarmac , so I suppose these vehiclesare fine for there needs.
Cheers