Outer Limits 4x4 Board

sddddddddd

Yes you should both are awesome. I loved driving both from Adelaide to Alice Springs last year. The engine/gearbox combo is awesome.

The few cons I thought were the rear leg room isn't as good as some of the other dual cabs. The intercoler front mount is a tad low and the interior is a bit dated but has everything you could want and need.

I prefered the Ranger marginally over the Mazda

Have a look on the 4WD Monthly forums as there are quite a few owners on there and some issues noted in a couple of threads.

BTW a few people are not getting close to the rated fuel economy, but others get excellent figures.

The inlaws have one (SDX auto dual cab) and are very happy apart from the amount of diesel it chews through.

yup
go the ranger very comfy, smooth to drive, decent pay load look real tough from factory & with a lift, bar work & some decent A/Ts or Muddies are brilliant

if I were to buy a duel cab ute the deisel ranger would be first on my list

Andrew if you're happy with the courier, you'll be happy with the ranger, but it's still just a updated courier with a good engine.
If you want better fuel economy i'd go the manual, my auto crew cab is as thirsty as your 4ltr V6, sometime worst, but i do like the auto off road though.
Jayde

buy the bt50 in manual if worried about fuel usage my
single cab returns 12l/100km

dulvari wrote:Andrew if you're happy with the courier, you'll be happy with the ranger, but it's still just a updated courier with a good engine.
If you want better fuel economy i'd go the manual, my auto crew cab is as thirsty as your 4ltr V6, sometime worst, but i do like the auto off road though.
Jayde

can you please post a list of parts that interchange.

brad-chevlux wrote:

dulvari wrote:Andrew if you're happy with the courier, you'll be happy with the ranger, but it's still just a updated courier with a good engine.
If you want better fuel economy i'd go the manual, my auto crew cab is as thirsty as your 4ltr V6, sometime worst, but i do like the auto off road though.
Jayde

can you please post a list of parts that interchange.

so they're not an 'upgrade' because nothing interchanges?

So that would make them a new product, not an upgraded model.

My wife has a 08 ranger turbo diesel auto and it is the worst new car i have ever driven utter C R A P. I have been a mechanic for 14 years so i have driven quite a few new cars. The car make my GU wagon look like a race car thru corners. It rides like it has a solid rear end. whats suspension
It uses more diesel than our 6L VE SSV ute uses petrol . In the wet the car is dangerous The auto is horrible and th eway they have the converter is woeful. at 60km/h you lift of the throttle the motor drops straight to idle speed as soon as you hit the throttle it goes straight to about 2500 rpm and make alot of power and the car just tries to break traction. I would hate to drive one offroad.

I would be looking at the DMAX or holden version. At least they drive well and handle.

Well I drive an '08 Mazda BT-50 dual cab manual and I'm ABSOLUTELY BLOODY THRILLED WITH IT. Towing capacity is 3000 Kg (Hilux, for example, is only 2200) and load carrying ability is 1.2 tonnes, that's a third more than Hilux. The rear suspension is a bit hard, but hey, it's a ute, right ? Can't carry that much weight on soft suspension can you.

Anyway, I love it, wouldn't change it for the world. You do have to be a bit carefull in the wet cause when you hit the loud pedal, it rocks!

We have BT50... Dual cab. Leg room is not too bad. Comfort is brilliant. 3.0ltr turbo diesel we get 7.1 ltrs per 100. We had mandrel bend exhaust done in beaudesert. Tows horses. Not the best off road as it has no travel but we love ours.

Only thing we have found that is bad....our speedo is out by 10%. We are actually doing less than speedo says...no probs with speeding tickets.

i use 1 for work and yes have a great carrying capacity great hwy 4x4 would be good for beach and such ...not too impressed by the gearing because they are capable of 160+kmh means the gearing is rather hight and even in low 4 in first is rather high and would not be real suited to climbing in my opinion but as a work ute great rig
Cheers

My old man bought a BT-50 single cab 4x4 a few weeks back (his first 4BY ) ,
traded up from a BF falcon ute 6cyl.

It uses 12L/100km for the weekly work duty as a paper delivery truck.
The falcon on the other hand used to use 18L/100km
For him its a saving of about $150 a month.

Not very happy with factory fitted dunlop tyres though, it doen't look like they will last even 20 000km, I must say, they must have got something right with the front end, the tyre wear is very even across the tread. Just a shitty soft compound tyre.

the only real complaint with the whole thing is the plastic vents in the rear of the cab are a bit noisy,

My customers get the best MPG if they keep the RPM below 2500rpm. The harder you drive they the more they use.

400 to 450 k's per tank can be streched to 650-700 by keeping the rev's down.

Eric

glad i read this
was wondering why fuel economy was so bad

brad-chevlux wrote:My old man bought a BT-50 single cab 4x4 a few weeks back (his first 4BY ) ,
traded up from a BF falcon ute 6cyl.

It uses 12L/100km for the weekly work duty as a paper delivery truck.
The falcon on the other hand used to use 18L/100km
For him its a saving of about $150 a month.

Not very happy with factory fitted dunlop tyres though, it doen't look like they will last even 20 000km, I must say, they must have got something right with the front end, the tyre wear is very even across the tread. Just a shitty soft compound tyre.

the only real complaint with the whole thing is the plastic vents in the rear of the cab are a bit noisy,

just to update this. the tires will be replaced at the 20 000km service.
A shame really as he would like to buy some M/Ts to go on the spare set of rims. But now that money has to buy new road tires.

now that its done 15 000km he's getting and extra 50km to a tank. economy is excellent, i can't understand why so many people are using so much fuel. When you consider the BT-50 is doing the exact same route and start and finish times are them same. The 12/100 compared the falcons 18/100 is damn good.
Yet some people are getting 14/100 with the bt-50 normal driving where i would expect the falcon to be getting 13/100 or better.

btdav wrote:buy the bt50 in manual if worried about fuel usage my
single cab returns 12l/100km

I have the freestyle cab, auto, c/w ARB canopy, roof rack, roller drawers chocka block full and I still get 12ltr/100km.

ihave steel bullbar brushbars and steps plus a steel tray and get 12l/100kms around town

Only had mine for a couple of months but i get about 10L/100 with bigger tyres and not actually driving economically.

Have a BT 50 which runs great but had an issue with a cracked chassis.Both sides in front of the rear spring front hanger.Only 55,000kms and Mazda didn't want to know about it cause I had Suspension air bags fitted.Not happy with their decision but had to wear it.Keep an eye out if towing or carrying a load.

I was told about that problem from ARB at Cabolture when i first brought the car and got support brakets fitted. Have never had a problem.

turbo gu wrote:My wife has a 08 ranger turbo diesel auto and it is the worst new car i have ever driven utter C R A P. I have been a mechanic for 14 years so i have driven quite a few new cars. The car make my GU wagon look like a race car thru corners. It rides like it has a solid rear end. whats suspension
It uses more diesel than our 6L VE SSV ute uses petrol . In the wet the car is dangerous The auto is horrible and th eway they have the converter is woeful. at 60km/h you lift of the throttle the motor drops straight to idle speed as soon as you hit the throttle it goes straight to about 2500 rpm and make alot of power and the car just tries to break traction. I would hate to drive one offroad.

I would be looking at the DMAX or holden version. At least they drive well and handle.

so reading between the lines... your a throttle jocky

my opinion would be go the ranger, we have them as work vehicles and take a flogging with no dramas, and also have colardos/dmax utes which are under powered use more fuel drive like a boat and rattle like a train and have all gone back under warranty for rooted rear springs. Rangers , no probs

Patchy wrote:

turbo gu wrote:My wife has a 08 ranger turbo diesel auto and it is the worst new car i have ever driven utter C R A P. I have been a mechanic for 14 years so i have driven quite a few new cars. The car make my GU wagon look like a race car thru corners. It rides like it has a solid rear end. whats suspension
It uses more diesel than our 6L VE SSV ute uses petrol . In the wet the car is dangerous The auto is horrible and th eway they have the converter is woeful. at 60km/h you lift of the throttle the motor drops straight to idle speed as soon as you hit the throttle it goes straight to about 2500 rpm and make alot of power and the car just tries to break traction. I would hate to drive one offroad.

I would be looking at the DMAX or holden version. At least they drive well and handle.

so reading between the lines... your a throttle jocky

Considering I only drive the s##t box as a last resort and that is only to and from the shops or the odd run to the tip if i have too. The fuel consumption is what my wife gets driving around sydney day to day for her job. She used the SSV for a period of time and got better fuel economy in that than Ranger.
The Ranger with any sort of load on its doesn't go, it just burns at s##t load of fuel!!!!

she isn't a throttle jokey and in this s##t box I certain ain't as I have no faith in its handling, braking etc so the last thing I want to do is drive fast in it!!!

The SSV different story

I cannot see how people rate these cars Give me a Hilux or Rodeo/Dmax etc. any day

I regularly get 10lt - 10.5lt / 100km, day in/day out around Melbourne, with a Flexiglass canopy & roof bars fitted.... A little less on the hwy..... A few things are not great, but the biggest problem has been Ford's customer service. A great truck, otherwise.....

brad-chevlux wrote: so they're not an 'upgrade' because nothing interchanges?

So that would make them a new product, not an upgraded model.

The current Ranger is pretty much the old PE/PF Courier chassis & floor pan with a mostly new body & new mechanicals. Not a new design.

turbo gu wrote:My wife has a 08 ranger turbo diesel auto and it is the worst new car i have ever driven utter C R A P. I have been a mechanic for 14 years so i have driven quite a few new cars. The car make my GU wagon look like a race car thru corners. It rides like it has a solid rear end. whats suspension
It uses more diesel than our 6L VE SSV ute uses petrol . In the wet the car is dangerous The auto is horrible and th eway they have the converter is woeful. at 60km/h you lift of the throttle the motor drops straight to idle speed as soon as you hit the throttle it goes straight to about 2500 rpm and make alot of power and the car just tries to break traction. I would hate to drive one offroad.

I would be looking at the DMAX or holden version. At least they drive well and handle.

gus are quality, these rangers are heaps of junk, people that like them have never driven a decent 4wd. cant beat the patrols, everything in 1

All they need for half decent power and a big improvement in fuel economy is an intercooler upgrade.

Anyone getting less than 10l/100 on a standard vehicle has a well built motor in theirs. The average customer coming to me is complaining of 14-16l/100+ and lack of power to boot. Average improvement with an intercooler is 2-3L/100 and about 20kw at the wheels. Probably why its our biggest sell across Australia and overseas.