Printable View
The 2.2L is the same Puma engine that's in the last of the 'old' Defenders.
I get about 10L/100km in my Defender and about 8L/100km when I had a Ranger 6spd auto with the same engine.
So either you guys are lead footed, or I'm a bit 'driving miss daisy'.
Unless you're actually talking about the 2.0L Bi-turbo?
The one I drove had 18k kms on it and was the 'current' model in March. Corporate work truck. Probably new at the start of 2022............ the company do heaps of kms at that time of the year, I'm just a fill in, get things back on track person.Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselDan
Don't know if it was the 2.0 or 2.2. Had a noisy 6 speed auto and the magic speed sign thing on the dash under the speedo.
cheers, DL
I notice Mercedes Sprinter vans can be had with AWD and low range, which could be a useful combination.
There are some in Van Life blogs on YouTube which are impressive, including one with a suspension upgrade with 50mm lift and BFG AT tyres.
Clearance could be an issue and I'm not sure how they.might cope with really bad roads.
Saw one which a couple tried to drive up The Cape, but had to turn around because the corrugations were breaking things, but that can happen in a 4WD.
Some of these vans are really long. One turned up here recently delivering chook feed and it was so long it took several goes to turn around in our driveway.
The interiors in some of the vans people are living in are amazing. One couple spent $60k on their interior. It's a tiny home on wheels.
6speed auto will be the 2.2 Puma I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by 350RRC
The one I had was a dual cab with a pick up bed. The cab chassis ones have lower ratio (higher numerical number) rear diff, I think, which would make it rev high.
And, save for the odd load of firewood, mine was mostly empty, so probably not a typical example....!
We have a 2.2 Defender - it flies!Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselDan
I have used one of works Auto 2.2 Rangers - couldn’t pull skin off a custard - total pile of junk
Yep,and ours is loaded,all day,every day,no wonder the driver is complaining!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
The old Diesel van pulled better,but not as comfortable.I must admit,the loaded ute is very comfortable.
Ford didn’t have the option of the larger diesel engine,in 2WD,which is the only reason we went to the 2.2.
We also have the BT50 with the 3.2L,which is much better.
Ha yeah, I certainly think the 2.2 Puma has a much better tune in the Defender than in the 2wd Rangers.
And the BAS tunes are even better but I've only got the BAS 150 tune, not the 180. One day though, maybe I'll splash out on the BAS intercooler and the 180 tune.
The 2.2 Rangers used to have about 3 different performance tunes, but since they introduced the 2.0L Bi-turbo I reckon the higher performance ones must have been dropped.
The ranger I drove was 4wd and had a bit of gear in the back..........maybe 500kg. Boat that was sometimes towed was small, maybe 600kg to 800 including trailer.Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselDan
Point I've been trying to make is that the ****ant donk (2.0 or 2.2) revs its guts out and drinks fuel with a load on.
In comparison........... in my mate's Isuzu 3.0 you wouldn't really notice you had a load on and were towing a trailer and boat............doesn't need to rev its guts out and it uses less fuel. He certainly doesn't regret selling his rok for this very reason.
The 3.0 motor in the new ranger would be different I suspect, but I've never driven one.
DL
As it should being lighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck
I saw a new model Ranger today.
If one can get past the horrid American styled front end,with a bar or something,it might be a big seller[biggrin]
It makes the current model Low Lux front end look great.
Anyway,just my 2 cents worth.