Ford Ranger Towing

Submitted: Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:19
ThreadID: 96128 Views:21465 Replies:7 FollowUps:17
This Thread has been Archived
Friend towing van to Darwin and engine management light comes on at Wyclife Well. Diesel Ford Ranger auto 6000Km. Rings dealer who tells him to keep driving. Further light comes on and he eventually limps in in 3rd gear at 60km. Auto transmission is stuffed. Ford will replace for free. He thought the Ford? Mazda could handle the weight of his Near 3 tonne van.
Question--what are the State legal safe towing limits compared to the 3 tonne braked towing limits put out by manufacturers? Has anyone towing been stopped and put over a weighbridge?

If you tow in top in a Toyota do you void your warranty?



Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: olcoolone - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 11:27

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 11:27
Why do so many people blame the obvious with no real proof...... the trans could of failed for a number of reasons and towing a 3 ton van may of not been the cause of it.

The other issue is too many people buy a vehicle and expect it to perform effortlessly at maximum weight...... if your going to tow a 3 ton van by a Landcruiser or F truck.

In the car world they use a word called "extreme conditions" meaning if the vehicle is used at near maximum capacity for an extended amount of time other things come into play like lower service intervals.

State legal safe towing limits are governed by the manufacturer of the vehicle.... what ever the manufacturer says goes.

If it's an auto tow in what ever gear it will tow in..... that's why the call it an auto.

So lets not blame the towing until we have all the facts.
AnswerID: 488002

Reply By: Member - Wamuranman - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 12:45

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 12:45
If the vehicle is rated to tow with a braked capacity of 3350kg I can't see why its unreasonable to expext it to tow 3000kg comfortably.
Sure it will have slower acceleration and higher fuel consumption but it should not fail mechanically.
When towing with an automatic I always use sports mode - and NEVER tow in top year. This allows you to control engine breaking better and limit the gear you tow in.
In my case I tow in S4 80KPH as this is when the torque converter will lock up and keep the transmission at optimal temperature. I never tow in S6.
Cheers
AnswerID: 488007

Follow Up By: Member - Wamuranman - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 12:49

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 12:49
Because i used the greater than and less than symbols it has done something funny to my text. It should read:

In my case I tow in S4 at less than 80kph and in S5 at greater than 80KPH as this is when the torque converter will lock up and keep the transmission at optimal temperature. I never tow in S6.

0
FollowupID: 763222

Reply By: Ron N - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 13:03

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 13:03
The 2012 Ford Ranger uses the Ford 6R80 six-speed auto transmission. This is a Ford-built version of the ZF 6HP26 transmission. It is basically a troublesome POS of a transmission, typical of many Ford auto trannies.
This transmission is fitted to the U.S. F150, the Ford Expedition, the Lincoln Navigator, the Ford Explorer, the Mercury Mountaineer, the Ford Territory, and the Ford Mustang V6 GT.

The 2012 Ford Ranger has a factory maximum towed rating of 3.35 tonnes (braked). The 3.2L diesel in the Ford Ranger puts out 147Kw and 370Nm of torque.
It appears that it's quite possible, that the maximum factory tow rating is too much for this drivetrain combination, particularly under severe Australian Outback conditions.

Ford have a habit of taking a basically reasonable product and then finding much cheaper ways to manufacture it, thereby making it unreliable. I've heard stories about how cheap and nasty, many of the internal components of the 7.3L Ford V8 diesel are, as compared to its Navistar brother.
Even though they are supposed to be the same engine, the Navistar 7.3L engine is substantially better-built, and doesn't have the cheap substitute shortcut components that Ford installed to save a few $$'s.

This transmission spends a lot more time locked up than any other auto, to improve fuel efficiency. It looks as if, at the maximum loading being applied to this transmission, the lockup mechanism has possibly been slipping.

As with all transmissions that rely on pressurised oil to operate - once you get slippage, you get heat buildup, and related damage, that just keeps building until the transmission destroys itself.

I'd say part of the problem is that owner received wrong advice to just keep driving when the engine management light came on.
All these new drivetrains are extremely complex, but have inbuilt "protection" systems to prevent damage and failure.
Ignoring warning lights without finding out precisely what the problem is via the codes, is asking for trouble, with all the current high-tech, electronically controlled drivetrains. The ECU controls dozens and dozens of inputs from dozens of sensors.

I guess he can take some comfort in the fact that Ford are replacing the transmission without question. The question remains as to whether the transmission is up to the job of towing the factory 3.35 tonnes rating in Outback conditions.

I'd have to pass judgement that it's not. The problem is that we have unique combinations of road conditions (long grades), long distances, heat, and other unique conditions in Australia, that do not happen in many other countries (not even the U.S.).
If the manufacturer hasn't done the required extensive testing of new products under actual conditions, then the buyer is used as the test bed.

Re the State safe towing limits - the State limits are the manufacturers factory rated limits. The rego authorities take their cue from the manufacturer. It's only when you try to exceed the manufacturers limits that you will be jumped on.

I personally believe that a number of manufacturers factory towing limits are not realistic for long-term drivetrain life. Ford are top of the list.
The current Falcon V8 ute is rated at 3850kg GCM, with a towing capacity of 2300kg, and I wouldn't like to try towing 2300kg at speed for long distances in Outback conditions with a Falcon V8 ute.

Many towing limits in the distant past were very conservative. My old WB Holden 1-tonner is limited to 2880kg GCM, which gives me around 1.5T towing capacity, which is well below what it can actually handle.
I'd rather tow 2300kg with my old Holden 1-tonner, with it's substantial full length chassis, than with a current Falcon ute.

The general "rule of thumb", which used to be applied in the era before GCM figures were supplied by manufacturers, was 1.5 times the weight of the towing vehicle. Thus, a vehicle that weighed 1500kg could tow 2250kg. I believe that this guide was a very realistic limit to towing capabilities, and should still be applied.

The final "big question" is just WHAT is the total ACTUAL GCM of the Ford Ranger and caravan in question?
The manufacturers point out that the GCM must not be exceeded. However, many people are unaware of what their rig actually weighs in total, all-up, ON THE ROAD.

They load the tow vehicle up - add passengers - fill the van with every item of equipment that they think they MIGHT need - then all of a sudden, the TOTAL weight of the vehicle and van has exceeded the manufacturers GCM by a serious amount!

People have to remember, that ANY weight added to the tow vehicle, REDUCES the towing capacity accordingly.

Thus, the gent with the Ranger would be well-advised to put his entire LOADED rig over a weighbridge, to determine just what his ACTUAL, on-the-road, total vehicle + caravan weight is. He may get a shock.
AnswerID: 488009

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 15:05

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 15:05
Ron well said, I think people get mixed up with the meaning of maximum and constant.

The current model Hilux before the recent facelift had a maximum towing rate of 2250Kg and in the UK the same Hilux had a rating of 2850Kg..... same vehicle same specs.

As you said manufactures don't always understand the environment or culture of a country.

Toyota seem to be very conservative with there specs..... maybe that's why the are reliable and don't break as much as the others.

I think most of the specs for new utes are over rated to try and compete with one and other.

Look at the Amarok, it has a towing capacity and after driving one I think it would be very painful to tow at maximum weight; let alone what it is doing to the trans and engine.

Be interesting to see how the new Range goes's... we have placed an order for one for delivery in July.
0
FollowupID: 763226

Follow Up By: racinrob - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 17:21

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 17:21
Ron, is this the same transmission as in the Mazda BT-50 ?
I'm looking at a Mazda XTR diesel to replace my ageing HZ75 Toyota and tow a 2 tonne van but may have to reconsider.

rr VKE237 Sel 6678
0
FollowupID: 763240

Follow Up By: Ron N - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 18:49

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 18:49
Racinrob - The Ranger and the BT-50 are essentially the same vehicle, with the same drivetrain components.
This is badge engineering at its finest. Change a few minor panel details, lights and trim, and call it a different vehicle.

I think you're looking at a vehicle that is a far cry from a HJ75. The BT-50 gets more power from less cubes (compared to the Tojo), greatly increased complexity, and quite a few bugs to iron out yet, IMO (as is common with all brand-new models).

At the very least, a manual tranny offers a greatly reduced complexity over the auto, with just a bit more leg effort.

The fact that Ford have offered to replace this nearly-new destroyed tranny shows either of two things.
They know they have problems with the auto, and are out to limit the customer unhappiness damage - or they recognise that the advice given was wrong, and are taking the rap for it.

Either way, it appears that Ford are offering better customer service than Mazda. I find that most people are generally happy overall with the new Ranger and the new BT-50, with a only few complaints - turbo lag, and a lack of some features that should have been standard - but Mazda customer service appears to be lagging, and not up to customers expectations.

Error correction: I just noticed a typo in my post above, for the torque figure for the 3.2L diesel - it should read 470Nm, not 370Nm.

Cheers - Ron.
0
FollowupID: 763252

Follow Up By: Tony M8 - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 19:59

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 19:59
Yes the replacement transmission is coming from the USA, not Thailand.
0
FollowupID: 763257

Follow Up By: Isuzumu - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 20:12

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 20:12
Ron, the HJ 75 has a braked towing capacity of 3500 Kg, power 96KWs and 271NMs and your saying that it is a better tow vehicle than the new CRD 4WD around at the moment. Mate it would be ok if you want to sit on 70 Ks every where you go. My old 18 year old MU standard had more power and there would be no way I would be towing any more than 1500 kg. What do you drive and what do you tow?
Cheers Bruce
D.Max and Jayco Outback

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 763259

Follow Up By: Rockape - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 21:49

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 21:49
Bruce,
The HJ75 had a 2500kg braked towing capacity. The HZJ is the start of the 3500kg capacity.

RA.
0
FollowupID: 763264

Follow Up By: Ron N - Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:28

Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:28
Whoa up, Isuzumu - did I say the HJ75 was a better tow vehicle? What I said, and what you interpreted my statement as, are two different things.

I just said, the Ranger/BT-50 is a far cry from the HJ75. What I meant by that, is that there's vast difference in the two vehicles.
The HJ75 is a low-tech old plugger that is built like a tank - and most are still going, even after 500,000 or 600,000kms.

The Ranger/BT-50 is the latest high-tech alternative offering in the 4WD range, and it's producing a vast amount of power from a whole lot less cubes.
It's chock-a-block full of electronic sensors, switches, controls, and ECU's.
It's got a mind-boggling array of safety features and vehicle control systems designed to stop idiots from killing themselves - at a quick glance:

Reinforced passenger cell utilising high-strength steel
Dynamic Stability Control (DSC)
Hill Descent Control
Hill Launch Assist
Trailer Sway Control
Adaptive Load Control
Roll-Over Mitigation
Traction Control System
Emergency Brake Assist
Emergency Brake Light feature
Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS)
Gravel Road Logic
Airbags: driver and front passenger (all models)
Airbags: side curtain airbags (all models except XL Single Cab Chassis where these are optionally available)
Airbags: side thorax airbags (all models except XL Single Cab Chassis where these are optionally available when fitted with bucket seats)
Seatbelt pretensioners and load limiters
Thatcham Category 1 volumetric alarm system
Pedestrian protection features

Now, I've no doubt, jumping into a new Ranger or new BT-50 from a HJ75 is like jumping into the cockpit of a Boeing Dreamliner after you've been fluttering around in a Tiger Moth.

I've no doubt the new Ranger/BT-50 is a pretty impressive piece of equipment, and serious numbers of people are shelling out the big bickies, to get the feel of being behind the wheel of the latest and greatest in technology that Ford/Mazda can offer.

However, my question is simply this. Virtually all vehicle manufacturers are extracing vast amounts of power from much smaller engines. They're rating up their towing capacities substantially to beat the "opposition".
They're adding mind-boggling amounts of electronic technology to create supposedly safer vehicles.

The bottom line is; are they asking too much of too little in the power and towing depts? We've already seen Nissan drop from a bulletproof 4.2 6 cyl back to a 3L 4 cyl that produces more power than the 6.
The result has been a serious shortening of engine lifespan and an increase in catastrophic (and very expensive) engine failures.

The question has to be asked; with a vehicle chock-full of delicate electronic devices that are prone to failure once a few connectors get corroded - is this really the vehicle you want tp plow though window-deep rivers in? - or take into the remotest areas of Australia, where the dust is choking, the heat makes you gasp? - and the only fixes available, are the old fallback positions of a roll of wire, some electrical tape, binder twine, and a pair of lockjaw pliers?

I've always been a lover of the KISS principle. The less you have to go wrong, the less there is to let you down, when you're 983kms NNW of the Black Stump.

We forget that people used to belt through the backblocks on roads that we now describes as "tracks" - in Model T's, Ford A's, old WW2 Chevies, FJ Holdens, Vanguards, gutless old Pommy chariots, and God knows what else - and they were nearly all 2WD!

The Redex rallies of the 1950's saw every road-going 2WD vehicle on the market pounded around Australia in record time - on roads you'd now consider to be mostly 4WD-only.
We've come a long way - but I often look at todays offerings, and wonder how much more reliable are they than the stuff of the 1940's and 1950's?
We've been conditioned to believe that we NEED all this electronic technology, when I believe that only a fraction of it is needed - and most of what is installed in todays vehicles needs beefing up anyway, because it's not as robust as it should be.

And yes, I do have substantial vehicle and towing experience, from my first 4WD, a secondhand 1963 Series II tray top petrol 4cyl Landrover in 1967 - with which I regularly towed a 2.75T, 30' caravan.
Since that time, I have owned Landcruisers of nearly every model (traytop, troopy and wagon from, 1977 to current) - and I've owned and towed a substantial number of vans from 18' to 30' - plus heavy duty tandem car and traytop trailers, and plant trailers up to 3.5 tonnes.
I've covered well over 2,000,000kms in the 46 yrs I've had a licence, and I possess every class of licence up to road train. I think I've had a bit of experience.

Cheers - Ron.
1
FollowupID: 763283

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 18:50

Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 18:50
Ron... The electronics wont be a big issue..... every model of vehicle that has come out over the last 25 years has been more electronically advanced then it's predecessors'.

The problems that we see are few and far between except for some known issues with some models.

Yes the BT50/Ranger are very advanced in there electronics and by far the most advanced out of the newish range of 4x4 utes.

Most of the technology has been used in other passenger, 4x4 and heavy vehicles (trucks and earthmoving) for a number of years.

Case tractors have had for the last 6 years one of the most advanced electronics systems in any automotive application, the system control implements, hydraulic pressures, load control, power transfer control, GPS, one of the biggest things is it can recognised what implement is connected, configure the controls and adjust the hydraulic pressure to different parts of the implement automatically..... like all a few have big problems but the majority are fine.

With the BT50/Ranger at least they didn't opt for a small capacity high pressure turbo engine like so many are doing.... Amarok!
0
FollowupID: 763306

Follow Up By: Ron N - Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 13:30

Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 13:30
olcoolone - Unfortunately, electronics ARE the big issue. They are now the primary cause of complaint amongst owners of modern vehicles, and they are the weakest link in todays drivetrain control systems.

No electronic component in any modern vehicle is properly protected from corrosion, dust or moisture ingress. Many of these components are located in engine bays where heat, water & mud splash is frequent - and connectors aren't sealed properly.

Modern vehicle electronics are not designed to be immersed in water under any circumstances. How does this jell with someone who wants to splash his 4WD through the 700mm or 800mm deep water of the Pentecost River on the Gibb River Rd?

In addition, little information is provided by manufacturers as to how the electronics work or are set up.
The manufacturers claim commercial sensitivity, and that patent and registered design protection, prevents them from releasing information about electronics - but in the U.S., many repair companies have taken the manufacturers to court to get them to release design and operation information, to enable independent repairers (outside the dealership chain) to do repair work on these modern vehicles.

In the case of say, an independent smash repair shop, they need to know how the electronic systems operate, so they can repair the vehicle properly and without causing damage.

We all know about the bloke who welded brackets on his vehicle and fried his ECU - but few people know about airbag wiring, sensors, or dangers, or things you can accidentally do when installing or repairing, that affect the (multiple) electronics systems, to your serious detriment (cost).

The current fiasco with the Ranger wiring harness system and the attachment of trailer wiring and electric braking is a classic. Ford stipulated the cheap option in the wiring harness, whereas Mazda hasn't. As a result, the Mazda doesn't have the problems of the Ranger in this area.
The serious differences in current draw between old-style globes and festoons, and LED lighting is raising another host of problems.

Get a look at the engine ECU design on a D-Max and compare it to a Colorado, and you'll see where Holden chose the cheap design option.
Ford always seem to manage to cheapen a design, to the point where the cost-cutting shows.

When Ford take a ZF transmission design and rework it with FoMoCo stamped on everything, you know that they haven't improved the design - they've merely set about seeing how they can produce it for one-half the cost of buying the transmission from ZF.
That usually involves replacing a reliable (but costly to Ford), mechanical control system, with an electronic module that costs only 1/5th the cost of the former design - but which introduces a host of new reliability problems for owners.

In the old days, if an auto transmission overheated, the worst you could expect was that you fried a few seals and gaskets and some leaks developed. Today, you overheat an auto transmission, and the electronic modules and sensors melt.
That throws out the drivetrains electronic controls - and at the very least, leaves you with a major electronics repair cost (if outside warranty) - if the transmission actually didn't destroy itself totally, as the case is above.

Todays vehicles no longer wear out. They die an electronic death. A major failure of electronic components can mean a repair cost, that runs to more than the value of the vehicle. That's the major reason we see so many fairly-good condition vehicles, totally abandoned by the roadside today.

Try losing the Master key of your current 200 series Landcruiser and see what the cost is. The entire dashboard has to be removed, to replace the ignition lock, a substantial section of the wiring harness, plus the vehicle security electronic module. Somewhere in the region of a $4000 minimum (dealer) repair cost, I'm reliably informed.
I've seen where some British Toyota dealers have quoted £12,000 (!) to Landcruiser owners, to fix the lost Master key problem.

No, unfortunately, we have progressed in many areas of vehicle and engine design and materials, but gone backwards in many other areas.
That main area of retrograde design is in the electronic complexity, the fragility, the cost, the refusal to release repair information - and the NEED to return your vehicle, for even minor repair, to a dealership - where they then make you drop your trousers and bend over, while you hand them a very large jar of Vaseline.

Cheers - Ron.
0
FollowupID: 763373

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:37

Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:37
Ron it's not as bad as one believes.

As Toyota, it about $370 for a new key/transmitter and you don't have to replace everything.

With the BT50/Ranger it's about the same unless you loose both keys then it's big money...... you could claim under insurance.

We are members of 3 vehicle data bases and don't have much of a problem obtaining information and air bag stuff is old hat.

As for vehicle manufactures withholding classified information, you will find it's not the vehicle manufactures who stipulates this..... it's the patent holder... The BT50/Ranger uses mostly Bosch systems under license from Bosch.

When all this new technology came out years ago there was so much don't do this and don't do that or it will go BANG.... it never happened.
0
FollowupID: 763471

Reply By: Ross M - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 18:15

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 18:15
No matter what the CLAIMED towing cap is, anyone who constantly tows more than half the rated tow in Orstraya is really just asking for short life of something in their vehicles. Just because it has the power and will move it forward doesn't mean it can do it forever or last very long.

The Landrover company derates the towing load by 50% when use off road, off smooth stuff, others/owners of most brands seem to think theirs can tow the full load under all conditions, not so.
AnswerID: 488034

Follow Up By: Member - mechpete - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 18:32

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 18:32
the other thing people never take into count ,
is how much extra load on the drive train does the wind drag facta adds ,
my guess is hundreds of Kilos
mechpete
0
FollowupID: 763248

Reply By: snowman - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 18:52

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 18:52
With so little information provided, how can anyone make an appropriate response to the possible cause for the auto to fail.

AnswerID: 488038

Reply By: Ron N - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 20:52

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 20:52
After doing some more research on the 6R80 transmission, I find that Ford had to rework the ECU for the 6R80 transmission, in the last 2 or 3 years, on the American vehicles, due to jerky changes.

Ford also manufacture a similar transmission, the 6R60.

It appears the only difference between the 6R60 and the 6R80 Ford trannies is a heavier torque converter in the 6R80.
Ford are very coy on transmission torque capacities, but the actual transmission section of the 6R60 and 6R80, appears to have the same torque capacity as the ZF 6HP26 tranny - 600Nm.

With the 3.2L diesel putting out 470Nm, there appears to be adequate torque capacity in the transmission.
However, I notice that the Yanks are producing an aftermarket, cast aluminium transmission oil pan for the 6R80.
This enlarged oil pan holds another 3 quarts (2.8L) of oil.

The reputed benefit of the cast aluminium oil pan is increased heat dissipation, via the aluminium, and via the increased oil capacity.

It's well known that manufacturers always skimp on the amount of oil required in transmissions. They put just enough in to provide modest durability under average conditions.

Put an auto through a torture test of high ambient temperatures, heavy towing, and high speed, and you will immediately have an excessively high transmission oil temperature problem.
Excessively high oil temperature leads to boundary lubrication breakdown (resulting in metal galling), loss of viscosity, clutch slippage, "cooked" seals and fried electronic switches and sender units.
That's why oil coolers are pretty much a necessity when towing with automatics.

If I was considering a new Ranger with an automatic for towing a 3 ton van, I would almost certainly be looking at the installation of the aftermarket cast aluminium oil pan - or a large transmission oil cooler - plus a transmission temperature gauge - to give me a great deal of assurance that the tranny wasn't frying itself to death, under what is effectively, a heavy duty application.
AnswerID: 488048

Follow Up By: racinrob - Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:24

Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:24
Ron N and others, thank you. A lot of valuable information and comment to digest. That Mazda/Ford are wringing so much power out of their 5 cylinder diesels makes you wonder about their longevity.
My HZJ75 has 350k on the clock and runs like new however I have just rebuilt the transfer case for the third time, seems this is their achilles heel, a good mate with a Troopy the same age ('94) who transports boats Oz wide on a big tri-axle trailer has the transfer box done every 100k to save having trouble on long distance trips, sorry getting off the thread.
I just wonder how long a Mazda engine and transmission will last towing up near its rated capacity ?

rr VKE237 6678
0
FollowupID: 763281

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 19:25

Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 19:25
Truck engines 20 years ago were making around the 425Hp mark using big capacity..... now 600 to nearly 800Hp in highway trim and they are reliable.

Volvo trucks in the 90's were behind the eight ball with Hp compared to the yanky Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit..... now the make one of the most powerful highway engines

Years ago a 4.5Lt petrol engine was lucky to make 65Hp.... and now 280Hp

Non have be affected by reliability and in most case they have become more reliable.

How things have changed.
0
FollowupID: 763312

Follow Up By: Rockape - Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 19:51

Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 19:51
Yep,
they are making big horsepower now and I have seen the explosions.

Cummins signatures BANG. Not once but 4 times

CAT C16's Bang. Not once but 3 times.

All pushing the big horsepower. We will see how far the Scanias and volvos go when they are out to their max. When you consider these truck engines come from Europe where they pull a single trailer at 100 kph why would you need 730 HP. to do that.

Detroits are good as long as you don't over rev them and have the best electronics going.

Every time there is heavy rain and flooding. Bullbars down and cabs up.

Yes there are still problems with electronics and plugs.

0
FollowupID: 763314

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:00

Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:00
They all have problems and I don't know if it's any worse then 20 years ago...... it might seen it is but with communications and the world wide web problems get communicated quicker and to more people.

Sure Cummins had big issues with there Signature series that turned many off, Cat in the 90's had there big end bearing failures and Detroit Series 60's breaking and rattling auxiliaries apart (with Detroit not every engine did it but ones that did kept doing it).

In the 90's many heavy applications went from the K19 and QSK19 Cumminis engines to N14 525E Redheads with good results.... like anything you can't beat cubes.

Back in the late 80's Mack had glazed bore issues when they went to 500Hp in the V8.

I think most of us forget common problems that were around 10 to 20 years ago.



0
FollowupID: 763357

Follow Up By: Rockape - Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 15:03

Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 15:03
olcoolone,

you are right about the forgetting thing. I must admit we do seem no to remember the problems.

One thing for sure I bet they derate those 730hp Scanias in road train configuration.

0
FollowupID: 763391

Reply By: Member - Outback Gazz - Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 21:19

Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 21:19
Tony

For the good people on this site that are thinking of buying or perhaps just purchased - could you please clarify whether the Ranger you are talking about is the old PK Ranger or the new model PX Ranger ??

Could make a lot of difference to some people !


Cheers

Gazz
AnswerID: 488050

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)