Ranger Fuel Economy - Commonrail Vs. Not

[wimpy]

So, I have found a very clean 2004 Ranger 2.5 Turbo 4wd that I am considering buying.

I have been warned by my mechanic that I will be getting very poor fuel economy with this motor. He highly recommends getting a 2006 or newer, for the commonrail motor. They are nearly 100,000 baht more. This is more than I care to spend.

Anyone know where I can get comparison fuel economy figures for these motors?

Any non commonrail Ranger owners that would care to comment on this motor?

TIA.

[Gary A]

He is indeed telling you the truth, Rangers had a well deserved reputation for being fuel guzzlers. Some Thais still believe that even with the new generation common rail engines. The fact is that now Ford and Isuzu are about neck and neck for the number one most efficient diesel engines.

[wimpy]

I found an Australian website with some figures...

2004 Courier (Ranger) 2.5 Turbo Diesel 4wd crew cab = 9.43 kilometres to the liter.

2007 Ranger 3.0 Turbo Diesel commonrail 4wd crew cab = 10.86 kilometres to the liter.

[MikeyIdea]

Good to show test figures, thanks. I think we should expect real life to show slightly bigger difference between the two

[thaicbr]

I have a 2004 non turbo 4 door which i've had for a year and done 35thou km. fuel consumption isnt excessive but its certainly not as good as the newer ones. The 2004 uses older technology, it vibrates at tickover and is very low geared so you get fairly high revs for a given speed (its about 400-500rpm higher at 90kmh compared to my friends vigo). I find that if i cruise around at 90 its not to bad on fuel. But even with all this i love the truck, its comfortable to drive and i like the looks.

Oh and it was sooooo cheap compared to Izuza/toyotas. Cos the Thais dont like them lol

(They dont even know its pretty much the same as the Mazda)