On 4/26/2019 at 10:03 AM, transam said:

It is regarding the 3.2, but IF the new 2.0 has the same oiling system then I would pass...

It doesn't but you can pass anyway.

 

On 4/26/2019 at 10:33 AM, lucky2008 said:

I've heard its nothing to worry about IF the oil is changed within a 10 minute time-frame.

I have been a serial Ranger owner for over 9 years and as such, I am an active member of a few Ranger owner forums. I reckon I have a pretty firm handle on the common faults, service details, warranty recalls and other relevant info about the marque.

 

I think I have read about 2 instances where the oil pump prime was lost on the 5-cylinder, 3.2 l engine during a non-dealership oil change. I also read that no engines were destroyed either since the issue was noted and resolved albeit with some difficulty. Sort of 'close but no coconut.'

 

Since that very same 3.2 'Puma' is the same engine that has powered hundreds of thousands of Transit vans and maybe half-a-dozen British Rail Class 230 or D-trains more kilometers than you can stick 000's on, I do think the 'oil pump issue' is much ado about nothing. It is most often recycled by the inveterate 'Found On Roadside Dead' sort of fanboy, enthusiastically thinking that the 'oil pump issue' is as new and as relevant as he thinks the hackneyed old acronym is.

 

BTW, did you know that the top-of-the-line 1956 Standard Vanguard was powered by the same OHV straight-four engine that was used in Ferguson tractors?... and my dad STILL bought one?

 

Anyhoo... since this is a Raptor thread and the Raptor has an all-knew 2.2 bi-turbo mill, I hope the 'Found On Roadside Dead' fanboys will not be too disappointed by the low mileage on this non-issue.

A long time ago I worked for ParcelForce UK and we had scores of those 3.2L Transits at the depot, plus a few other brands.  Most were unmarked, proper white van man.

The transport manager at the time used to let you choose which vehicle.

I always took the Mercedes Sprinter lol.

Just now, phutoie2 said:

A long time ago I worked for ParcelForce UK and we had scores of those 3.2L Transits at the depot, plus a few other brands.  Most were unmarked, proper white van man.

The transport manager at the time used to let you choose which vehicle.

I always took the Mercedes Sprinter lol.

Ahhh...so you're the b@stard that would 'card' me without ringing the bell first!

 

????

 
I have been a serial Ranger owner for over 9 years and as such, I am an active member of a few Ranger owner forums. I reckon I have a pretty firm handle on the common faults, service details, warranty recalls and other relevant info about the marque.
 
I think I have read about 2 instances where the oil pump prime was lost on the 5-cylinder, 3.2 l engine during a non-dealership oil change. I also read that no engines were destroyed either since the issue was noted and resolved albeit with some difficulty. Sort of 'close but no coconut.'
 
Since that very same 3.2 'Puma' is the same engine that has powered hundreds of thousands of Transit vans and maybe half-a-dozen British Rail Class 230 or D-trains more kilometers than you can stick 000's on, I do think the 'oil pump issue' is much ado about nothing. It is most often recycled by the inveterate 'Found On Roadside Dead' sort of fanboy, enthusiastically thinking that the 'oil pump issue' is as new and as relevant as he thinks the hackneyed old acronym is.
 
BTW, did you know that the top-of-the-line 1956 Standard Vanguard was powered by the same OHV straight-four engine that was used in Ferguson tractors?... and my dad STILL bought one?
 
Anyhoo... since this is a Raptor thread and the Raptor has an all-knew 2.2 bi-turbo mill, I hope the 'Found On Roadside Dead' fanboys will not be too disappointed by the low mileage on this non-issue.

I thought it was “Fix Or Repair Daily”...

Saw a new red-tag Raptor in black the other day, nice.

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I thought it was “Fix Or Repair Daily”...

Saw a new red-tag Raptor in black the other day, nice.

I think their British Royal Navy battleship grey is rather fetching.

Saw a red-tagged one in white the other day, looked great...

On 4/29/2019 at 8:04 AM, mogandave said:

BTW, did you know that the top-of-the-line 1956 Standard Vanguard was powered by the same OHV straight-four engine that was used in Ferguson tractors?... and my dad STILL bought one?

OT but...

 

Many early Corvette's had the same engine as found in big yellow school buses. But people bought them as well.....

22 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

OT but...

 

Many early Corvette's had the same engine as found in big yellow school buses. But people bought them as well.....

The small and big block Chevy's went in everything, but the internals may have been a totally different thing....

The small and big block Chevy's went in everything, but the internals may have been a totally different thing....

Just looked at the SN Chevy on wiki, apparently the same platform from ‘55 to ‘03, from 262-400 cid and from 110 to 475 hp...

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Just looked at the SN Chevy on wiki, apparently the same platform from ‘55 to ‘03, from 262-400 cid and from 110 to 475 hp...
 

Yep, think I recall the 400 SB was a taller block..Folk would put a 400 crank in a 350 (5.7ltr) to end up with a 383...(6.3ltr)

Yep, think I recall the 400 SB was a taller block..Folk would put a 400 crank in a 350 (5.7ltr) to end up with a 383...(6.3ltr)

Might have been, but they did a lot with heads as well.

Had a sit in one , my first thought was only a 2.2 Engine for a big vehicle like this ????

 

 

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Might have been, but they did a lot with heads as well.

^{Absolutely, with the block design remaining basically the same...As I said, the internals maybe different.. 2 or 4 bolt mains, stronger block for performance, military and marine use. The SB Chevy is one of the best engines ever used over a very long period..}

^{There is even a 427 (7.0ltr) SB out there..}

20 minutes ago, MrScratch said:

Had a sit in one , my first thought was only a 2.2 Engine for a big vehicle like this ????

 

I'm sure the owner of EMMA MAERSK had the same thought. The answer of course is turbo charging

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

I'm sure the owner of EMMA MAERSK had the same thought. The answer of course is turbo charging

Yes, but if you get a prob with the bi-turbo you are stuffed...

^{Absolutely, with the block design remaining basically the same...As I said, the internals maybe different.. 2 or 4 bolt mains, stronger block for performance, military and marine use. The SB Chevy is one of the best engines ever used over a very long period..
There is even a 427 (7.0ltr) SB out there..}

And given the low cost and wide selection of aftermarket parts a hot-rodder’s dream.

On 5/4/2019 at 11:12 AM, transam said:

^{Absolutely, with the block design remaining basically the same...As I said, the internals maybe different.. 2 or 4 bolt mains, stronger block for performance, military and marine use. The SB Chevy is one of the best engines ever used over a very long period..}

^{There is even a 427 (7.0ltr) SB out there..}

Not to change the subject but the thread was on the Raptor. ????

I find its getting much more interesting than the original topic.

On 5/4/2019 at 11:34 AM, VocalNeal said:

I'm sure the owner of EMMA MAERSK had the same thought. The answer of course is turbo charging

Its a 2.0 to be precise - and as noted comes with twin turbos

I bought a last gen 2.2 6AT in a 2018 XLT - that 2.2 single turbo with the Livonia 6AT is a great combination.

Not sure how the twin T 2.0 10AT will fare, time will tell.

DId see the local dealer with a raptor racing a new hilux 2.8 the other day on the 3493, hilux won the day, but was a curve in the road, perhaps the raptor lifted the foot - not sure.

Its a 2.0 to be precise - and as noted comes with twin turbos
I bought a last gen 2.2 6AT in a 2018 XLT - that 2.2 single turbo with the Livonia 6AT is a great combination.
Not sure how the twin T 2.0 10AT will fare, time will tell.
DId see the local dealer with a raptor racing a new hilux 2.8 the other day on the 3493, hilux won the day, but was a curve in the road, perhaps the raptor lifted the foot - not sure.

I know the 2.8 Fortuner power is nothing special. It is a fuel hog though...

On 5/23/2019 at 2:23 PM, mogandave said:

 

I know the 2.8 Fortuner power is nothing special. It is a fuel hog though...

 

Yea I bet it is.

Ford has its problems for sure, selling the focus n others with substandard trannies being but one. But they have been punished for that in this market.

The 2.2 is really a great powertrain, and sips fuel as far as I can tell.

These days no rush to get anywhere, so a light foot does wonders.

Cruising the backroads all over Thailand, maybe 20% of time spent over 90 or under 40, and I get a range reading of between 1100-1200 after a fill.

Not sure average fuel economy, but almost always in the low 6's...say 6.4l/100, even into the 5s at times. Fantastic range. That is with two persons abd gear for 6 day trips on average.

Yea I bet it is.
Ford has its problems for sure, selling the focus n others with substandard trannies being but one. But they have been punished for that in this market.
The 2.2 is really a great powertrain, and sips fuel as far as I can tell.
These days no rush to get anywhere, so a light foot does wonders.
Cruising the backroads all over Thailand, maybe 20% of time spent over 90 or under 40, and I get a range reading of between 1100-1200 after a fill.
Not sure average fuel economy, but almost always in the low 6's...say 6.4l/100, even into the 5s at times. Fantastic range. That is with two persons abd gear for 6 day trips on average.

Not calling you a liar, but I’d have to see 16-17km/l, that seems pretty strong.

My 3l Isuzu averaged 12.3 over the almost five years I drove it, and the 2.8 ‘tuna has averaged something less than 9 for the year and a half I’ve been driving it.

4 hours ago, kuma said:

Yea I bet it is.

Ford has its problems for sure, selling the focus n others with substandard trannies being but one. But they have been punished for that in this market.

The 2.2 is really a great powertrain, and sips fuel as far as I can tell.

These days no rush to get anywhere, so a light foot does wonders.

Cruising the backroads all over Thailand, maybe 20% of time spent over 90 or under 40, and I get a range reading of between 1100-1200 after a fill.

Not sure average fuel economy, but almost always in the low 6's...say 6.4l/100, even into the 5s at times. Fantastic range. That is with two persons abd gear for 6 day trips on average.

You sure its not a vw?

11 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Not calling you a liar, but I’d have to see 16-17km/l, that seems pretty strong.

My 3l Isuzu averaged 12.3 over the almost five years I drove it, and the 2.8 ‘tuna has averaged something less than 9 for the year and a half I’ve been driving it.

 

I am sure the idiot display is in l/100 but i grew up on mpg so hey let me recheck. I will post a photo, that will help.

I am sure the idiot display is in l/100 but i grew up on mpg so hey let me recheck. I will post a photo, that will help.

6l/100 ~ 16.66km/l

I would have designed this car with a smaller boot and more room for the rear passengers.

I would have designed this car with a smaller boot and more room for the rear passengers.

The Fortuner blows for second row room as well.

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

The Fortuner blows for second row room as well.

 

The pjs is squishy also. My crv has more space there, and it's wider too. I'm 6'3 and can easily sit behind my drivers position. Not much in the 3rd row unless you move the second row forward. 

The pjs is squishy also. My crv has more space there, and it's wider too. I'm 6'3 and can easily sit behind my drivers position. Not much in the 3rd row unless you move the second row forward. 

My wife liked the Fortuner. I would have just bought a new D-Max.