The new 2018 Ranger Raptor with the Lawnmower engine

Don't forget the 10 speed auto box. It's not a van dragger, it is a production class desert racer and for that it should be just great. There's no surprises that the 'target demographic' of EO is largely unimpressed.
If you want a big cubic inch engine you'd better dig one out of the recycling bin and keep it because with the emissions standards they won't be coming back anytime soon.

gbc - haha, I'm under 50 so don't fit the EO target demographic according to another post! To me it looks great - I want tow a camper trailer so 2500kgs towing is fine. If you're going to drag a huge van around you don't need desert racer suspension 'cause the van isn't going to hold together at those speeds.

I'm not sold on a dual cab ute - my Prado is so much nicer than the BT50 I borrowed for a bit - but something like the Raptor might be better. It will be interesting to see how much it can carry - no doubt it will be reduced from the standard Ranger as well

No, Ford are saying it's a completely brand-new design engine.

157Kw (210HP for us old geezers) and 500Nm torque (368 ft lbf).

Not even a mention of fuel consumption in any of the reviews.
Obviously, if you desperately want a Raptor, fuel consumption is of no concern.

Nephew has a full-size F150 Raptor with the 6.2L V8.
Got to admit, the off-road performance is stunning - but the fuel consumption is not something you want to worry about.

Neither is the pricing, I seem to recall it cost him over $180,000 more than 2 years ago.
He loves it, reckons it's the best 4WD he's ever owned - and he uses it regularly on freshly-bulldozed firebreaks, chasing his dozers as they fight fires.

Myself, I cannot ever bring myself to owning a Ford ever again, after my Ford ownership experiences of poor backup, faulty assembly, outrageous parts prices, and poor resale values.

I love my Toyotas, and I think I'll be sticking with them for the foreseeable future.

Cheers, Ron.

Fuel consumption will be good or it won't pass emissions requirements. We've got a fleet of utes and the Toyotas are middle of the road. I'm no Ford fan either but my PX ranger will be 5 y.o. this year and is doing the business just fine. Hilux buyers can thank a Ranger owner for their prices and upgrades - it has made Toyota sit up. One of our subbies has an F150 Raptor as well - can't park them anywhere. And most importantly - I'm under 50 too - just haha.

Guess some have to hate something in their lives to be happy. So I think I might start hating my faultless 5 1/2 year old Ranger. Hang on I am happy so I cancel that last statement.

Didn't say I'd driven it, or know anyone that has.
Bit hard to do so, when the model hasn't even been delivered to our shores yet.

I'm reading the release news, and the reviews from the journos allowed to drive it.

Going for a drive in it, is nothing like owning a vehicle for an extended period of time and finding out the faults the journos reviews omitted to mention.

Never seen any 2.0L engine perform like a 3.0L or 4.0L engine, no matter how much the breathless hype tells us it's the equivalent.

A large number of us punters used to drive 1.5L and 2.0L 4 cyl engines in the 1950's and 1960's - and then we all realised that they were only good for Pommy roads and conditions, so we all wised up and bought 6 cyls and diesels.

I guess the true believers will still fork out $80K just for the ride, and keep telling themselves that engine size doesn't matter! LOL

Does size really matter?
In the early 1980s F1 cars were either 3.0 litre single turbo or 1.5 litre twin turbo, the 1.5s put out well over 1000bhp & consistently beat the 3.0 litre cars.
So, it might pay to wait & see what happens!

Comparing F1 engines and cars to 4WD’s is a bit pointless.

F1 is a development ground for vehicle technology of which some is incorporated in modern 4wds, anyway an engine is an engine!

Ron #888306

Not just Pommy roads but roads that they drive on in the “outside world”. Australia doesn’t loom large in their considerations with our crap roads.

I could say same thing about the maloo ute and ford eqivelents with the V8 engines low profile tyres - some couldn't even get over a gumnut.

Let alone as a tradies vehicle be parked on kerb of a road, I do accept watchign them as side show to v8 super cars was more excitign then main event cars

Dean

My neighbour's son had one of those utes, some sort of Holden that was lower than a snakes belly with rubber bands for tyres.

I didn't need an alarm clock when he was starting work early in summer. It would rattle my windows at idle. But he was a good kid, never revved it hard in his own street.

Now he has gone the other way. Has an 80 series Landcruiser, lifted and on big muddies that he is putting drawers and stuff in the back.

Cheers

Builder I used to work for had a nicely modded SS ute that carried plenty of gear for the renos we did, inside the tray looked ordinary but the bling on the outside (lowered and nice wheels) and work done on the motor didn't hinder it being a work ute at all. I doubt the tyres legally stood up to the vehicles weight carrying rating, but I could be wrong.

"Buying one won't be compulsory"
Unless it comes with a pretty girl in the passenger seat. :)
Dave.

David

I will buy two

I am fairly sure the Puma motor was in the Ford Transit van.

Ranger has had a 2.2 since the px was released also. Just don’t hear about them too much. The 3.2 never made it to a lot of euro countries, they are mostly 2.2 over their. I drive one when mine gets serviced. They aren’t terrible.

Shaker,quote from the workshop manual. "SECTION 303-01C Engine — 3.2L Duratorq-TDCi (148kW/200PS) - Puma"

I'll bet they will.

Close, I bought a Ram

Buying Silverados and Rams and F150 Raptors is limited to those amongst us who rank in the multi-millionaire stakes - and that is less than 0.01% of the population.(According to official figures, there's just over 300,000 millionaires in our population of 24 million).

I don't think anyone who is contemplating purchasing a Ford Ranger Raptor at $75,000 to $80,000, is going to purchase a Silverado, Ram or F150 Raptor, at $160,000 to $180,000, as an alternative.

You can buy a good used yank tank for $80,000 and a new one for just over $130,000

Mick - Ha! Now we know exactly who the real oldies are, when they start reminiscing about the good ol' days of their first crappy 4WD! LOL

I'd need a couple of pages to relate the stories of my first 4WD - a 1960 Series II Landrover with the 2.25L petrol four cylinder engine!

But the greatest concern in the 21st century is how every new model has a smaller and smaller engine, producing more and more power!

I can't wait for the latest "engine improvements" of 2024, when they go to 1.2L engines producing 250HP!

But these 4WD's still weigh more each year, and the engines are still expected to haul around that weight, plus heavier and heavier trailers and 'vans!

Cheers, Ron.

Nice memories Mick.

Of course that engine, or a form of it, was the basis for a very successful rally car in the Datsun 180B. It seemed to lend itself to "souping up" and the platform must have had the right mix of size, weight and handling.

I reckon if you went to a car club rally today you might still see amateur enthusiasts punting 180Bs around the tracks. Or even its predecessor the Datsun 1600 from the 1960s.

Cheers

You got ripped off with the 720. Should have waited for the 94 king cab like mine with the Z22. 2.2lt out of the Skyline

Hey Mick

Wouldn't ya love to have that back again ?????
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm talkin' the physique not the Nissan King Cab lol


Cheers

Gazz

I had the lovely yellow coloured dual cab version of the 720. Bought it new at a Datsun dealer at Fawkner Vic in 1982. I had previously owned a 180B SSS, which was in a different class. It would blow most 253 V8's into the weeds. But it wasn't much good at carrying stuff, or in the sticks. The 720 did those very well.

Strewth, how to be diplomatic.....!

Rocco...know what you mean. Spent a little bit of time shitting myself around the edge of Lake Tyrell in the odd desert rally in a 180B driven by "The Bandit" Murray Stewart.

Outback Gazz...What do you mean... truly have my boyish good looks and charm not carried over into the new Millennium...How rude :-)

Pete C Nine (9) years to wait man. There was an urge to get out there and get it done if you know what I mean. The only thing that stumped us was our mid 80's crossing of the Simpson and it was rain that drove us out not the conditions. We spent 10 days marooned at Marie. Not so bad but for the fact that the beer ran out in a day and a half!

Kev... Mate that was "mustard", not yellow!. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. Yes you are right except for those god damn rotary mothers. They would blow a 15 foot flame across the straights as they put everything to shame but were buggered in the sand. That's where the 180B or a small V8 mounted into the back of a buggy would crucify them lol.

I loved the 1980's. Sooooo much fun!.

@ PeteC - "You got ripped off with the 720. Should have waited for the 94 king cab like mine with the Z22. 2.2lt out of the Skyline"

Your loosin it - getting old maybe - it was an 84 not a 94.

Yep 1984

You can imagine the exhilaration when my f50 towing a boat broke 90kph once a week :)

Yes I wish my gut was that big again - and I had that hair haha.

Shorts and shades pretty sharp too, pal

;)

Daihatsu F50 was 4wd of the year around 1980.

I really did like that thing. Nothing much stopped it off-road apart from landcruiser tracks in sand and mud haha. I was always in one of them but never two. Long runs were usually done tucked up some semi trailer’s behind.

Sorry, RMD, I fail to see any link between new 4WD Ford Rangers and Triumph motorcycles??

I wonder how long before the 2.2L and 3.2L Duratorq engines are deleted from the Ranger range, and new, smaller "high performance" engines takes their place??

No doubt, some Ford bean counter will soon point out that it makes more "economic sense" (read more profit) to ditch the "old technology" 2.2L and 3.2L engines and install the "latest technology" 2.0L engine right through the entire Ford Ranger range.

Personally, I suspect the behind-the-scenes scenario is that we are constantly being softened up to expect 2.0L engines as the new "norm" - and that this is leading to all-hybrid drive rigs, with primary electric motive power, with a small engine driving a generator, for electricity storage replacement, as well as additional power.

All the new Rangers will be 2Lt twin turbo .

Ron N posted:

"and that this is leading to all-hybrid drive rigs, with primary electric motive power, with a small engine driving a generator, for electricity storage replacement, as well as additional power."

Not a bad idea IMO. High startup torque from electric motors, gets rid of the range anxiety of pure electric and means the diesel can run at optimum revs all the time as it is not directly connected to the driveline.

The Mastercard Ford Ranger Raptor ...

1. 2018 - Buys new Ford Ranger Raptor = $80,000

2. 2019 - Gets advised by Ford Dealer, vehicle needs new shockies = $10,000

3. 2020 - Gets advised by Ford Dealer, 2.0L engine is at the end of its design life, and needs replacement.
Dealer advises, "the good part is, the new engine won't cost any more than 4 shock absorbers" ...
"The bad part is, the labour bill to find the engine, and pull it out and re-install it, is more than the engine cost ..."

4. Look on owners face - Priceless ...

They aren't likely to die after 30,000kms - that's why they are so expensive

Well looks like we have some reliability engineers on EO.

1. Statement. 2020 2 years old and engine needs replacing because it is at the end of it's design life. Guess the 5 year warranty will have to be thrown out the window. Verdict: Rubbish.

2. Statement. Shockies shot at 30000K. Really, that is probably very true if the vehicle has done the Dakar. Verdict: Rubbish.

3. Statement Fox racing shockies $10000. Don't know about this one as I haven't been able to get a price on them as the vehicle is not available yet. PX2 for Fox racing 2 front assemblies $3000. Fox racing 2 rear shocks $570. Total $3570. Just a wee bit short of the $10000. Verdict. More substantiation required.

4. Keyboard warriors: Rubbish.

1. Seen more Ford engines that needed replacement, at 2 years old, than any other brand (apart from Kia).

2. Seen plenty of original shockies thrown in the bin, not long after the owner purchased the new vehicle - because the originals were supplied by the cheapest tenderer.

3. Take a BIG jar of Vaseline with you when it comes time to replace those Fox shockies on the Raptor.
These are "special" Raptor Fox shockies, that "cost the same as a small engine" - remember? - and you will only be able to buy them through Ford - at eye-watering prices.

4. "Keyboard warrior" - standard putdown for anyone who feels aggrieved - when they don't even know the poster, or his level of experience and knowledge .

Sorry 9900 Eagle, I wish I was an Automotive Engineer like you. Sadly I'm only a mere Fitter Machinist. We await your next informative post. Michael

Micheal, check my post it doesn't say anything about me being an automotive engineer. My post was about the comments where it has been decided that the shocks are only going to last 30000K, the engine is US after 2 years and a price for the shockies. Where did the price come from Ron.
This is on a vehicle that has never been owned, driven or is available to anyone here.

Ron, I like to put the other side of the story to get some balance instead of speculation and miss information. If that is a put down then good.

BTW. Have had two of your loved C15 cat engines let go, one with 2 hours on it and the other 4 days old, turbo's let go and electronic injectors fail, does that mean cat engines blow up NO. I have seen plenty of all brand engines that needed replacement, I guess they are all no good by your standards.

Tony - Unfortunately, Ford have a major problem with a constant drive for cheapness, led by their beancounters.
As soon as Ford produce a reasonable product, the beancounters are driving down the cost of every single component ruthlessly, thereby making the product unreliable.

If you ever get the chance, compare a stripped-down Ford 7.3L Powerstroke V8 diesel against the original product - the Navistar 7.3L V8 diesel.
The Navistar engine is the original design, the Powerstroke is the Navistar built under licence by Ford.

The difference in build quality with the components is eye-opening. Typical of the differences, Navistar use cast rocker arms, Ford use stamped sheet metal rocker arms. The differences are too large to go into detail here, but they are extensive, and everywhere on the Powerstroke, you can see Ford beancounters at work shaving 50c off here and 20c off there.

The St John Ambulance in W.A. gave up on using F250's with Powerstroke engines due to their poor levels of reliability and their horrendous maintenance and parts costs.
Mercedes now provide all of W.A.'s ambulances - at far lower cost, both in purchase cost and maintenance costs.

This constant chiselling to produce parts and components at ever-cheaper levels, eventually leads to lower levels of reliability.
Typical is the EA Falcon Ghia wagon I bought new in 1990 - for over $40,000.
Beautiful car to drive - but typically, the power windows stopped working after 18 mths.
Ripping them apart, I found Ford had cheapened the window regulator gearbox by utilising plastic gears instead of metal ones.

But you couldn't buy the stripped plastic gears, you couldn't even buy the gearbox, you had to buy the WHOLE window regulator mechanism, including the electric motor - at around $200, from memory. That was serious money for parts in 1992.

Then when I came to trade the Ghia in 1992, at 70,000kms and in mint condition - I got offered $16,500 for it!!
I eventually sold it privately for $18,000 - but that was a major depreciation from the $40,000 I paid for it just 2 years previously.

Another example is comparing the original ZF automatic transmissions, with the ZF transmissions built under licence by Ford.
Ford brag about "ZF transmissions fitted" to their products - but they aren't original German ZF's - they're cheap copies, built by Ford, at far lower cost than the original ZF's.

My Ford experiences go back to the first Ford 4WD I bought in 1977 - a new F100 4WD that cost me $11,000 - nearly twice the cost of a Statesman or Fairlane at that time.

The F100 gave me constant grief - from the dangerous non-power-assist steering that meant the F100 was all over the road - through to the crappy crossply 10.00 x 15 Goodyear tyres - and right through to the lousy assembly where even major suspension components regularly came loose where they bolted to the chassis.

The last problem was found to be oversize holes fitted with undersize bolts. Redrilling the holes and refitting the correct, snug-fitting larger size bolts eventually cured the problem.

The long front axle radius-rod design of the F100, where the radius rods were bolted to the chassis under the centre of the cab, meant that F100 was a real handful in the handling stakes on gravel, when empty.

It wasn't the first time I would be travelling along a gravel road, empty, and hitting a series of wide corrugations, and finding the F100 going sideways instantly at 110kmh - due to that poor front end design, that exerted extensive leverage on the chassis.
This poor design was purely a lack of testing and engineering on Fords behalf - yet they were happy to ask outrageous prices for F-series trucks and F-series parts. $600 just for a grille in 1980 was typical of the F100 pricing.

So, you may be happy with your Ranger - but I can tell you it will be a cold day in hell before I buy another Ford.
I bought a Landcruiser HDJ80 (turbo auto diesel) new in 1990 for $50,000, did a faultless and highly enjoyable 170,000kms with it in three years - and sold it in 1995 for $40,000 - and I was knocking back buyers with a stick.

That's the difference between vehicle makes with a reputation for solid build quality and high resale values - and those with varying build quality, varying reliability, and lower resale values. I know what I prefer.

Ron, the biggest problem here is you don't seem able to move into this century. The most modern vehicle you had from Ford was 48 years ago.

Just letting you know that I don't give a rats about fords or any of the other makes. I have only owned one other ford, a 1976 xc falcon which never gave me any problems.

What I will do, is question information about a vehicle that can't be substantiated, especially when the claims are about a vehicle no one has OWNED, TESTED or DRIVEN and that is not even available yet.

You may hate fords but it would be far better to keep an open mind and not speculate.

Quote "Ron, the biggest problem here is you don't seem able to move into this century..............You may hate fords but it would be far better to keep an open mind and not speculate."

And not write "War and Peace" posts.

Tony, I trust your vehicle assessment skills are better than your maths?

Where did you come up with 48 years ago?

I don't have any trouble with moving into this century, all the vehicles I own are under 5 years old.

But I'm very wary of buying the "latest technology" which involves products half their size, trying to do the work of the previous larger models.

Every model I've ever owned has always produced a new model with an equivalent or a larger engine.

You should know the old saying amongst truckies - "You don't employ a boy to do a man's work".

Ron, I was out by 10 years with the 1980 F truck at 38 years.

Well I am off on a midnight run to Melbourne tonight for a mate, guess this old truck driver is just a boy.

No Ron, you made a statement about the SPECULATED life and COSTS of this new vehicles components. I couldn't give a rats about the engine size and never mentioned it, you posted that about the sewing machine engine but were quick to give your learned knowledge about how long the engine would last and the costs of the parts. Fess up and give some proof.

I have to say it again, Those statements you made about the above are RUBBISH.

I have been called many names but never Tony, Antony, Antoine, Anton, Antun, Ante, Antonio, Anto. So I guess that is not my name.

It depends on how the smaller engine is engineered Swampy.

I know that chainsaws & cars are chalk & cheese, but an engine, is an engine - Stihl used to make a little 35.2cc chainsaw named a 200T. It was the benchmark for all small to medium sized chainsaws. In fact, it still is, even though Stihl stopped making them several years ago, because of emissions regs. That little saw would rev harder & cut harder than most other professional model saws up to 70cc. Forget the homeowner stuff!

That makes most saws between a 200T & a 70cc saw redundant, and there are LOTS of them!

And they lasted! I have a colleague who has an old 200T that has been taking down big trees every work day for over 10 years. It's seen several 70-92cc saws come & go, and he doesn't baby his gear!

Hi
KevinE
Talkin 4 Stroke not 2 stroke

Re chain saws typically 2 stroke and can have piston and liner coatings plus being specially shaped . All in 2 stroke helps performance and longevity.

"Talkin 4 Stroke not 2 stroke"

We're actually talking diesels in this thread, but as I said, an engine is an engine.

"All in 2 stroke helps performance and longevity"

I'd strongly disagree, but that wasn't the point I was making.

The point that I was making is that a small 2 stroke/4 stroke engine properly engineered will out perform & outlast a poorly engineered larger cousin.

The 200T I mentioned out performs & out lasts other, much larger 2 stroke chainsaws by a HUGE margin. That's 2 stroke vs 2 stroke & it wins hands down in every test ever done (and there have been many)

"typically 2 stroke and can have piston and liner coatings plus being specially shaped"

Yup! as can well engineered 4 strokes & diesels!

Hi


The design of 2 strokes can be very very different to other 2 strokes & almost completely different to 4 strokes

As it stands the Ranger will have 2 turbos in series . JUST BOOOOOSTing the sh.t out of it for both low end and high end eng speed .

Expectations are 99% parts will be worn out at rebuild time . + 2 turbo rebuilds
$$$$$$$$$

Yes there is a fair bit being reported about it Gazz. Have a read of this article.

Petrol and diesel bans

Things are changing fairly quickly with the likes of Cummins producing an electric truck by 2019, Tesla also in 2019 and Nikola fuel cell trucks in 2020. Volkswagen with there Scanias,Man's and navistar affiliation are also into it with some commercial vehicles being electric by 19/2012. Walmart have ordered 15 Tesla semi's with 5 being tested in the U.S. and 10 in Canada. Guess they would run them local out of their d.c's and see how they go.

Bob Dylan. The times they are a changin.

Especially if you are selling lawn mowers...

HI
Ford get good advertising on a poor product .


THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY FORD B4 !!!!

There is going to an awfull lot of suckers out there

What you have just said is 90% crap - 2 litre diesels have worked ok in the Amorak and they dont spin at 4000rpm, 2.2l diesels work ok in Defenders and they dont spin at 4000rpm.

My 2.7 TDV6 pulls a 2.5t vehicle and rarely gets above 2000rpm in normal driving.

Make your point based on real facts not make up stuff.

Bit of a difference between a 2.0L 4 cyl diesel, and a 2.7L V6!

Like, 35% bigger capacity, and 2 extra firing strokes per revolution!

All small displacement engines are the same, you've got to "pedal them" to get any decent performance out of them.

They do not have the reciprocating mass that bigger engines have, that gives better torque and lugging ability.

Yes ignore the other aspects of my post - So the VW spins out over 4000rpm in normal driving - I dont think so.

My previous 2 litre turbo diesel never saw 4000rpm in normal driving, and really never over 3000rpm unless overtaking.

Facts Ron, show us the Facts.

My 2.2 rarely gets anywhere near 4000, there's a red line up there somewhere. It operates really well between 1500 and 2500 and lots of grunt down low. Maximum torque on the 2 litre Amarok is between 1500 and 2000 and is above a 3 litre Hilux everywhere except 3600 revs.

Yeah, we all know how the Amarok, with its massive engine size, and great performance, is just making a killing in the ute market!

"The Amarok only accounted for 5.7 per cent of the 4x4 ute market in 2015 which left it at the bottom of the sales charts."

Amarok sales were down .02% on that figure in 2016 - and then they bragged about a .6% upturn in Amarok sales in 2017!

Amarok annual sales - around 7,500 to 7,700 units
Ranger - around 31,000 units sold annually
Hilux - around 32,000 units sold annually.

I thought we were discussing engine size and whether a small engine has to rev too high to produce the power and torque, I think 4000 rpm was mentioned elsewhere. This is clearly wrong because the figures say otherwise. Whether a car sells well or not is influenced by many other factors, mainly brand reputation.

They did some acceleration tests on 2.0L Amarok vs 3.0L Hilux. One test was with a 500kg load and the other was towing a trailer (can’t remember the weight, maybe 1.5T?). The Amarok beat the Hilux each time. This shows nothing about longevity but that smaller displacement can easily compete on power and torque. Doing the test in 10yrs time with 300,000km on the odometer might bring different results!

Nick, in "ancient times" of the 60's and '70's when we were young, and 6 cyl (red) Holdens and 6 cyl Falcons were put up against V8 Holdens and V8 Falcons - the zippier 6 cyl powered units with adequate horsepower, could always beat the V8's off the mark - and often beat them up to 80 or 90kmh.

After that, the V8's won with superior power and increased top speed, as the smaller 6's ran out of puff.
The 6cyl rigs always had lower gearing, too, as the V8's were higher geared to try and improve their fuel economy.

The 6 cyl engines were usually shot by 160,000 - 200,000kms, while the V8's would do well over 300,000 kms before they needed a teardown.

So a short sprint test really does nothing for a good all-round comparison - as fuel economy when fully loaded is one of the other important measures to be taken into account - and engine life and replacement cost can only be measured after a considerable period of ownership.

I, like many others, find motoring journalists reviews not worth a cupful of cold water, as they report according to their personal bias - report only on short test runs - report nothing on parts and maintenance costs - report nothing on dealership or manufacturers handling of clients - and rarely report with full-load/full towing load tests, over an extended period.