Thread: Ford Ranger

My experience is they’re pretty good - only the 3.2 not the 2.2.

we had one at our firestation.
i think it was a 3.2.

i thought it was a good vehicle.
one of our firefighters is a heavy diesel mechanic and doesnt like them due to the weak chassis. it's not a proper chassis or something.

I have a BT50 3.2 (I believe they are based on the ranger) in my Fleet at work.......it’s nearly 5 years old and we’ve had no issue.

It wallows around when loaded up and can sometimes have a bit of lag when you want to pull out in front or across traffic.

I prefer the hi-lux over the BT

The lads prefer the BT over the hi-lux

MAZDA service department are good to deal with.

We have a manual 3.2 bt50 at work with mainly the owner driving it just had the gear bag rebuilt at 150 ks as it was stuffed , Mechanic said something like cheap Chinese bearing`s
Apart from that it seems ok

My youngest daughter has had one for the past three years. It's been no trouble. She pulls three horses with it and loves it. Hers is manual. Our local mechanic says he's put several new gearboxes in Rangers. I don't know if manual or auto.
Don.

I looked really hard at both the Ranger and BT 50,as we need another work vehicle.

Not much difference in either,although service intervals for the ranger are 15k,while the BT 50 is 10K.

Ranger had an alarm,the Mazda didn't.

Toyota was out of the question as it doesn't have child seat harness points in the Extra cab.and they can't be fitted.

Didn't really look at other brands.

IN the end it was price that made the decision,the local Mazda dealer is owned by the local Toyota dealer,as we get a good fleet discount at Toyota,we were able to get the same at Mazda,saved thousands on the Ranger.And the ranger was 2017 built and plated,the Mazda was 2018 built.

Although Ranger was slightly more expensive anyway,before the fleet prices are factored in.

Yes the auto box in the BT 50/rangers did have a few issues a couple of years ago.

SO see how it goes over the next 5yrs,we get it next week.

I worked for a company that ran a mixed fleet of BT50's and Rangers. Mainly 3.2 machines but a couple of 2.2's snuck in.

Ford spares are much cheaper!

My ute had 80,000km on it when I left, I'd recently lost a turbo hose, and the injection system had been overhauled as the in tank pump had stated to fail sending shrapnel through the system.
This was picked up during a service after I'd said the car was stumbling occasionally at idle and not starting cleanly.
Another in our fleet had done the same, one of about four or five the dealer had picked up since its release.
The bum sag's badly with a constant load, all of our fleet had an extra leaf added to the spring pack.
I'm not a fan of the manual, it's really notchy but having six speeds is great, I'm in a Hilux for work atm and miss sixth gear, still occasionally go looking for it!

The base vehicle is better equipped than a Hilux, heated rear window, cruise control, stability control, TC, cloth weave seats, and shock horror, intermittent wipers, something the same model year Hilux doesn't possess!!!

Fuel economy is a world better than a petrol Hilux too.

I drove a brand new 2012 BT50 and then got it upgraded to a new 2016 BT50 at work, both the new shapes which are much the same car as the Rangers. These were dual cab 4x4 3.2L models.

I used to think they were great to drive around, nice ride and solid engines. Didn't have many problems, a few other guys at work didn't like dealing with Mazda when there were issues but they were probably grumpy anyway. Nice cars, just a bit big in the front I thought.

Then I changed jobs and got a brand new 2017 Hilux SR5. I could tell straight away that the engine was a tiny bit smaller but overall this was such a nicer car than the Mazdas. Just tighter on the road, everything inside the cabin was a bit nicer. Everything around the whole car I thought was a bit nicer actually, just felt like it was a higher quality. The drive felt like a higher quality too. I did lots of low range off roading on particular sites too (out surveying spots for new Telco towers in all sorts of rural areas and peoples farms) and the BT50 was great, but I thought the Hilux was just better and again, everything including the drive felt more solid.

I recently went back to my old job and hopped into the BT50 again, admittedly a couple of years older now but still much the same cars, and while they're really nice and you can't go wrong with either of them, I thought the Hilux was still a much better 4x4 ute. However I believe the price also can reflect this. We had a couple of new Rangers at work and they were really nice although I only got to drive one once I think, much the same as the BT50 but it seemed to take off quicker!

I believe the Rangers have a few differences to the BT50s that make them more desirable, but also more expensive. The bigger engine would maybe be nice towing really heavy stuff, but I towed stuff in the Hilux too, trailers full of soil and wood and all sorts and I hardly noticed it on the back.

We also have slightly older Hiluxes at work, the shape just before the new shape, and they seem to age better than the Mazdas but that could just be how people look after them.

BT50s are great cars, Rangers are probably a step up in my book and they seem to be very VERY popular for work vehicles and off roaders, but for me after having driven both flavours I can say hands down that the new Hilux SR5 is a seriously nice vehicle and I'd choose it any day over the Ranger/BT50 equivalent, for all reasons you might want one of these cars. I miss that Hilux, it was possibly one of the nicest and most capable cars I've ever driven.

I prefer my Disco to all of them!!!

EDIT: These were all diesel models and the Hilux, as noted, was an SR5 so had all the mod cons.