BT50 3.2 diesel

Can't comment on the manual in the BT50 but I can comment about it in the Ranger.

Originally we were going to buy the Ranger in the manual and had a demonstrator for 4 days to see what we thought of it...... first thing we noticed was the rubbery feel of the gear selector especially putting it in first, the second thing we noticed was the short first gear....... the short first gear to Ford and Mazda's credit is low for a reason unlike the other 4x4 utes that have a longer first gear making lift off on hills harder when loaded or when bigger tyres are fitted.

We could not get our hands on an auto from the our dealer..... however we took a VW Amarok for a drive just for curiosity (hated it) and down the road from them was another Ford dealer who had an auto demo.

Bear in mind we preferred a manual but after taking the auto for a drive we were raped and changed our order for an auto instead of the manual.

The six speed auto is a fantastic gearbox and made driving the Ranger easier as it will spend 80% of it's time in metro areas and the other 20% country and in paddocks.

We have a current 200 series with the six speed auto for serious travelling and towing and I find the Ranger auto a bit harsher but better as it is more decisive in it's changers and holds gear better.

I would now go auto anyday over a manual.

DZ,

I have a BT50 3.2 diesel 6 spd manual, 12 months now and with 16,000kms on clock.
No issues with any of the mechanicals at this stage. As others have said the Auto is the ducks guts, but the Fresstyle cab chassis I bought didnt have that option. First is not over appparantly low however with 6 speeds there is generally a quick shift through 4th, which it doesnt seem to need. Has lots of torque and pulls hard through the gears without leaning too much on the gas. The manual doesnt seem to need any revs to take off unlike other models i.e. Navara which requires a lot of revs otherwise it stalls, so I woundnt really have any issues towing anything heavey with the manual either. Jury is still out on the reliability and long term off road effectiveness of both the new BT and the Ranger, however I am not aware of any major issues 12 months down the track., so they tick a few boxes so far..........

DZ,
I drove a few 2012 Rangers at work before I retired and I didn't like the clutches. The boxes were a bit vague but it that didn't worry me.

They have had the Rangers working for about 6 months with no problems showing up yet. The BT50's should be the same as there is bugger all difference between them.

The 6 speed auto works well and the 3.2 is a good engine. I have found my 3.2l auto Ranger excellent off road and in a bit over a week I am going to try it towing the van for around 1000k to see all is well.

DZ, i have a BT50 Twin cab 3.2 Manual work vehicle here in the Pilbara and so far so good. 46,500 km in 10 months and the only thing to go wrong is the dip stick bracket broke. 110 km/hr = 9=10lts per 100. if you up about 15% more = 13/14 per 100
Regularly does 750 to a tank.
Great on fuel and very comfortable.
We moved away from Toyota for the simple fact of fuel economy and cabin size.
From my experiences you should have a problem as mine gets driven pretty hard and has carried some loads right to the limit of compliance.


Cheers, Washo

Hi Oz,

We've had our 6 Speed manual BT50 space cab for about 16 months done about 42K with no Mechanical problems. (Be aware that accessory sockets remain on all the time which can lead to a flat battery)

Second gear is a bit notchy but you soon get used to it.

Performance wise the car has been used on sand, dirt tracks, everywhere but water crossings, and has done a brilliant job.

Have no problem recommending them.

Godo Luck.

K