Scam on Ford Ranger 3.2 l diesel

[mark131v]

The main reason I bought the 3.2 is nothing to do with engine size it is about safety and you quite simply cannot get the same safety features on the 2.2, it is not an option and there is no after market way to change that, couple that with the other extras in the 3.2 package and for me it was a way better option

I was lucky to order right at the beginning but still had to wait, that said we did visit Chonburi Ford and offer them 30k if they got us what we wanted first but as it happened Pattaya got delivery first of the colour we wanted though Chonburi had offered us other colours of 3.2 prior to this. When I buy another car from Ford I will 100% not use Pattaya Ford as their customer service is complete <deleted> and Chonburi were much easier to deal with

[muchogra]

At a stop at a 7-11 shop in Chinag Mai, I was surveyed by a company. Being soft -hearted and not exacrly fluent in Thai, I did oblige to answer a few questions.

One question was: which brand would you not buy?

My answer: Ford!

If Ford can't deliver a car as promised, why pushing to sell one?

I bought my Mazda instead of the Ford that I originally wanted. Screw them!

Edited December 2, 2013 by muchogra

[Wong!]

A story as old as the 3.2 l Ford pickup as such.

Told times and times again in the forum.

Most people gave up after a year or so.

Basically all production output of the top model goes to Australia (where the model has been developed).

Profit margins being much better than in Thailand.

I think that explains it all.

80000 tea money: if you really want it that is a bargain.

Minor correction... chassis was developed by Mazda Japan, not FoA. Cheers.

Sent from my HTC One using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

We're talking about the new Ranger, not the old one, which had no Mazda involvement in its development.

[Wong!]

At a stop at a 7-11 shop in Chinag Mai, I was surveyed by a company. Being soft -hearted and not exacrly fluent in Thai, I did oblige to answer a few questions.

One question was: which brand would you not buy?

My answer: Ford!

If Ford can't deliver a car as promised, why pushing to sell one?

I bought my Mazda instead of the Ford that I originally wanted. Screw them!

As long as you don't have to look at it, then I'm sure you're very happy.

[IMHO]

A story as old as the 3.2 l Ford pickup as such.

Told times and times again in the forum.

Most people gave up after a year or so.

Basically all production output of the top model goes to Australia (where the model has been developed).

Profit margins being much better than in Thailand.

I think that explains it all.

80000 tea money: if you really want it that is a bargain.

Minor correction... chassis was developed by Mazda Japan, not FoA. Cheers.

Sent from my HTC One using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

We're talking about the new Ranger, not the old one, which had no Mazda involvement in its development.

chonburimaster is correct, Mazda developed the chassis in the T6 Ranger - Ford Australia developed the bits that go on top, and tuned the suspension.

Edited December 2, 2013 by IMHO

[IMHO]

My FIL's old 120HP Dmax has more than enough power for him and whatever he carries - which can sometimes be heavy enough to almost collapse the rear leaf springs. Plenty of 90'ish HP pickups still getting around carting 1000+KG of pineapples or whatever. Suggesting 150HP (Ford 2.2L) isn't enough power makes me wonder what you're expecting from a pickup, hehe

[transam]

At a stop at a 7-11 shop in Chinag Mai, I was surveyed by a company. Being soft -hearted and not exacrly fluent in Thai, I did oblige to answer a few questions.

One question was: which brand would you not buy?

My answer: Ford!

If Ford can't deliver a car as promised, why pushing to sell one?

I bought my Mazda instead of the Ford that I originally wanted. Screw them!

As long as you don't have to look at it, then I'm sure you're very happy.

Must admit, when one is coming towards me on the road, it does make me smile.

[mgjackson69]

In USA engines are rated by horsepower and torque output as well.

Many of us older 'gearheads' have long been accustomed to a very direct correlation between engine displacement and power ("There is no substitute for cubic inches"). With the advancements that have been made over the years it is common for the 'smaller' engine to make more usable power, more efficiently, than its 'larger' counterpart of years past.

In 1979 I bought a new Chevrolet K10 pickup truck. It was equipped with the venerable 350 cubic inch V8 (5.7 L in modern-speak) . That engine was rated at 175 HP/275 ft/lbs torque. It was not a powerhouse exactly but it did pretty well, handling farm duty well as well as commuting.

Fast forward to current times. I now have a 2004 Chevrolet Silverado 1500. It is equipped with the 5.3 L V8 rated at 295 HP/330 ft/lbs torque.

It is a smaller displacement engine, with much greater power output, and it uses significantly less fuel.

The more interesting comparison is to look at the 4.3 L V6 that was available for my truck in 2004. It was rated at 195 HP/260 ft/lbs torque...nearly the same numbers as the old V8. It is giving up some torque, but that would come into play more for load hauling than daily driving.

Some would say a V6 is "not enough engine" for that truck. The numbers say otherwise.

But, if someone said that to me, I would say, "Buy what you like."

What is "enough engine" is a subjective measurement for each buyer to make. But, logic says it should be based on a bit of research and test driving experience, not simply looking at a displacement number.

Does it have to do with penis size? Who knows?

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[transam]

When I bought my 1976 Transam it had a 6.6 ltr lump. It was advertised at 166 hp. . But I found out that they came to quote that figure as hp at the wheels, not what the engine was actually producing. Something to do with the fuel crisis, emission thing at the time, l believe.

[IMHO]

When I bought my 1976 Transam it had a 6.6 ltr lump. It was advertised at 166 hp. . But I found out that they came to quote that figure as hp at the wheels, not what the engine was actually producing. Something to do with the fuel crisis, emission thing at the time, l believe.

Yeah, nothing to do with the state of technology at the time - I'm sure that old 60's designed lump really made 500+

[transam]

When I bought my 1976 Transam it had a 6.6 ltr lump. It was advertised at 166 hp. . But I found out that they came to quote that figure as hp at the wheels, not what the engine was actually producing. Something to do with the fuel crisis, emission thing at the time, l believe.

Yeah, nothing to do with the state of technology at the time - I'm sure that old 60's designed lump really made 500+

Actually, l made around 500hp from an earlier 6.6 block, head, cam combo. Around 700hp with gas.............

[mgjackson69]

Those engines were so choked down with smog equipment that it is a wonder fhey made any power at all. Late 60s and early 70s 300+ HP engines were everywhere. By the mid-70s, the same engines were detuned to the mid-100s for horsepower, and still got crappy mileage.

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[transam]

Lets not forget that the quickest rides on the planet are still using push-rod engine tech from a basic design of the 1960's.........

[mgjackson69]

The point of all this is, smaller engines are producing better output, more efficiently, than larger engines of the past. As it relates to spec'ing a new vehicle, one needs to look further than the engine displacement to determine if said engine is "big enough".

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[IMHO]

This conversation reminds me of this: http://youtu.be/LLD-ibf7l6k?t=2m29s

But don't forget this: http://youtu.be/LLD-ibf7l6k?t=4m28s

Edited December 3, 2013 by IMHO

[transam]

The point of all this is, smaller engines are producing better output, more efficiently, than larger engines of the past. As it relates to spec'ing a new vehicle, one needs to look further than the engine displacement to determine if said engine is "big enough".

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sure, for production stuff things have moved on. If a smaller ci is built to withstand the forces then fine.

[Spoonman]

Lets not forget that the quickest rides on the planet are still using push-rod engine tech from a basic design of the 1960's.........

Yeah but an 8000hp top fuel engine is neither street or user friendly...... not to mention ABS is gunna do <deleted> all at trying to slow it down.

[IMHO]

Lets not forget that the quickest rides on the planet are still using push-rod engine tech from a basic design of the 1960's.........

Yeah but an 8000hp top fuel engine is neither street or user friendly...... not to mention ABS is gunna do <deleted> all at trying to slow it down.

I hear it's hard to get cruise control dialled in properly on these things too

Edited December 3, 2013 by IMHO

[transam]

Lets not forget that the quickest rides on the planet are still using push-rod engine tech from a basic design of the 1960's.........

Yeah but an 8000hp top fuel engine is neither street or user friendly...... not to mention ABS is gunna do <deleted> all at trying to slow it down.

There are very quick street Hemi's out there too....

Who cares about slowing it down............

[transam]

Manual eh...............

[Wong!]

When I bought my 1976 Transam it had a 6.6 ltr lump. It was advertised at 166 hp. . But I found out that they came to quote that figure as hp at the wheels, not what the engine was actually producing. Something to do with the fuel crisis, emission thing at the time, l believe.

Yeah, nothing to do with the state of technology at the time - I'm sure that old 60's designed lump really made 500+

Actually, l made around 500hp from an earlier 6.6 block, head, cam combo. Around 700hp with gas.............

About the same as a Cosworth 2.0L in the 1980s

[mogandave]

The point of all this is, smaller engines are producing better output, more efficiently, than larger engines of the past. As it relates to spec'ing a new vehicle, one needs to look further than the engine displacement to determine if said engine is "big enough".

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And a big new engine uses the same technology as the new small engines and generates even more power.

You want power, there's no replacement for displacement.

Oh, and why would anyone sell a vehicle for 80K less than they could get for it?

[mgjackson69]

The point of all this is, smaller engines are producing better output, more efficiently, than larger engines of the past. As it relates to spec'ing a new vehicle, one needs to look further than the engine displacement to determine if said engine is "big enough".

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And a big new engine uses the same technology as the new small engines and generates even more power.

You want power, there's no replacement for displacement.

Oh, and why would anyone sell a vehicle for 80K less than they could get for it?

Of course the big new engine will make more power than the smaller new engine...it is not a difficult concept.

My point was, simply looking at displacement is not a good indicator if a particular engine has "enough power".

What constitutes "enough power" is very subjective. If a person decides that 150 HP is enough for them, and a 2.5 L engine provides that, many people would not want to spend the extra money for a larger-displacement engine.

There are also the situations where a particular engine size is required to get other options that the buyer wants.

Surely we can agree, if you want the *most* power, in most situations, specify the largest-displacement engine that you can.

[thailoht]

The point of all this is, smaller engines are producing better output, more efficiently, than larger engines of the past. As it relates to spec'ing a new vehicle, one needs to look further than the engine displacement to determine if said engine is "big enough".

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And a big new engine uses the same technology as the new small engines and generates even more power.

You want power, there's no replacement for displacement.

Oh, and why would anyone sell a vehicle for 80K less than they could get for it?

Of course the big new engine will make more power than the smaller new engine...it is not a difficult concept.

My point was, simply looking at displacement is not a good indicator if a particular engine has "enough power".

What constitutes "enough power" is very subjective. If a person decides that 150 HP is enough for them, and a 2.5 L engine provides that, many people would not want to spend the extra money for a larger-displacement engine.

There are also the situations where a particular engine size is required to get other options that the buyer wants.

Surely we can agree, if you want the *most* power, in most situations, specify the largest-displacement engine that you can.

That's a very good overall observation that touches on some of the pertinent factors that go into one's engine-size selection decision.

Though, I think everyone understands about 'displacement' in that we only use it here as this is the terminology used here in LOS but we are actually referring to the 'horsepower' (and 'torque') associated with that particular engine

[KittenKong]

I wonder if the OP has tried contacting dealers in Bangkok?

As another posted mentioned, Pattaya dealers are totally useless; no stock, no desire to negotiate, no manners, no sense of customer service and no brains. A complete dead loss all round.

My truck was a 2 month wait in Pattaya or available the next day in Bangkok, and the Bangkok price was much lower (after negotiation) and with more extras.

[mgjackson69]

The point of all this is, smaller engines are producing better output, more efficiently, than larger engines of the past. As it relates to spec'ing a new vehicle, one needs to look further than the engine displacement to determine if said engine is "big enough".

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And a big new engine uses the same technology as the new small engines and generates even more power.

You want power, there's no replacement for displacement.

Oh, and why would anyone sell a vehicle for 80K less than they could get for it?

Of course the big new engine will make more power than the smaller new engine...it is not a difficult concept.

My point was, simply looking at displacement is not a good indicator if a particular engine has "enough power".

What constitutes "enough power" is very subjective. If a person decides that 150 HP is enough for them, and a 2.5 L engine provides that, many people would not want to spend the extra money for a larger-displacement engine.

There are also the situations where a particular engine size is required to get other options that the buyer wants.

Surely we can agree, if you want the *most* power, in most situations, specify the largest-displacement engine that you can.

That's a very good overall observation that touches on some of the pertinent factors that go into one's engine-size selection decision.

Though, I think everyone understands about 'displacement' in that we only use it here as this is the terminology used here in LOS but we are actually referring to the 'horsepower' (and 'torque') associated with that particular engine

When I bought my PreRunner (2008) the 'engine to buy' for that model was the 3.0 L diesel, which is what I have.

I was in the local Toyota shop the other day for a bit of service, and was looking at the new models while waiting. I see now the 'standard' or common engine that is spec'ed is the 2.5 L. I have not done any comparisons on this to see how the 2.5 L of today stacks up against the 3.0 L of 5 years ago.

But I would surely do the research before making a blanket statement that "the 2.5 L is not enough engine".

[thailoht]

The point of all this is, smaller engines are producing better output, more efficiently, than larger engines of the past. As it relates to spec'ing a new vehicle, one needs to look further than the engine displacement to determine if said engine is "big enough".

Sent from my Xoom using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Of course the big new engine will make more power than the smaller new engine...it is not a difficult concept.

My point was, simply looking at displacement is not a good indicator if a particular engine has "enough power".

What constitutes "enough power" is very subjective. If a person decides that 150 HP is enough for them, and a 2.5 L engine provides that, many people would not want to spend the extra money for a larger-displacement engine.

There are also the situations where a particular engine size is required to get other options that the buyer wants.

Surely we can agree, if you want the *most* power, in most situations, specify the largest-displacement engine that you can.

That's a very good overall observation that touches on some of the pertinent factors that go into one's engine-size selection decision.

Though, I think everyone understands about 'displacement' in that we only use it here as this is the terminology used here in LOS but we are actually referring to the 'horsepower' (and 'torque') associated with that particular engine

When I bought my PreRunner (2008) the 'engine to buy' for that model was the 3.0 L diesel, which is what I have.

I was in the local Toyota shop the other day for a bit of service, and was looking at the new models while waiting. I see now the 'standard' or common engine that is spec'ed is the 2.5 L. I have not done any comparisons on this to see how the 2.5 L of today stacks up against the 3.0 L of 5 years ago.

But I would surely do the research before making a blanket statement that "the 2.5 L is not enough engine".

Geez!

Selecting the size engine that a person wants to buy and pay his money for is purely and solely that person's decision to make. The buyer knows what aspects of said engine satisfies his personal tastes and what is and isn't 'enough engine' for him.

It's a subjective choice!!

That aside, a quick review of vehicle sales will surely show that people buy all sizes of engines ..... some happen to be in higher demand than others and have long lists of customers just waiting to buy them.

[Spoonman]

Anyone with the lowly 2.2 Ranger I reckon the Bluefin/superchips ecu re-map is a good deal for the money and one that I will look into with more interest if mine ever gains the status of being drivable again.

http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/search?make=9&fueltype=2&model=486&variant=2766

[thailoht]

Anyone with the lowly 2.2 Ranger I reckon the Bluefin/superchips ecu re-map is a good deal for the money and one that I will look into with more interest if mine ever gains the status of being drivable again.

http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/search?make=9&fueltype=2&model=486&variant=2766

It looks like a good solution .... this company is literally thinking 'out of the box' with the re-programming of the ECU.

If only ECU re-programming could be affordably done for more LOS engine models!

[Maestro]

Removed a troll post and the replies to it,