2016 Ford Wildtrak 3.2 or 2.2? 100.000 difference.

[dagling]

Is 3.2L Wildtrak 4x4 6AT worth the extra 100,000 compared to 4x4 2.2L Wildtrak 4x4 6AT?

I mean YES, my friend thinks it's a waste of money?

3.2L Wildtrak 4x4 6AT comes with some extra Equipment (new 2016 model) which should be included on this assessment as, for example:

Adaptive Cruise Control - Forward Collision Warning System - Lane Keeping System - Driver Alert System and Front Parking Sensor.

Have considered this for a while now and is well concluded that 100,000 extra so you get a lot of equipment for money ... plus a powerful engine;-)))

What would your choice been?

https://www.ford.co.th/en/trucks/new-ranger/models?intcmp=vhp-module-model&itemid=1249158961874#step=2

[wooloomooloo]

I'd buy the best one and also consider that when spending over 1m baht on a motor, another 100k doesn't really touch the sides and you're safe in the knowledge that you won't regret it at a later date.

Edited April 18, 2016 by wooloomooloo

[IMHO]

If it was a question of of the WT 2.2L 2WD vs the 3.2L 4x4, where there's 200K gap, I wouldn't suggest anyone buy the 3.2L unless they actually need 4x4.

However, if you do actually need 4x4 I'd recommend the 3.2L version. Adaptive cruise is a great feature (it actually make cruise useful in TH), as are front parking sensors - especially if you have dogs. I haven't tried the frontal collision system, but I do have to say I'm not a fan of the lane keeping system.

[fredob43]

Haven't driven the 3.2 but I can tell you the 2.2 laden is at best a slug.

Had a drive last week in my friend new manual one, nice pickup if you just want to poodle around town.

But get it on hills with 4 peeps and a few bits like I did you'll be up and down the gearbox just to keep it going you'll regret it.

If you can afford the 3.2 go for it. Personally I would pay 200th bt just to have the 3.2 engine. All the extras would be an added bonus.

[DavisH]

If it was a question of of the WT 2.2L 2WD vs the 3.2L 4x4, where there's 200K gap, I wouldn't suggest anyone buy the 3.2L unless they actually need 4x4.

However, if you do actually need 4x4 I'd recommend the 3.2L version. Adaptive cruise is a great feature (it actually make cruise useful in TH), as are front parking sensors - especially if you have dogs. I haven't tried the frontal collision system, but I do have to say I'm not a fan of the lane keeping system.

I agree, the 4x4 2.2 is quite slow. I it's mainly for around town the 2wd 2.2 is adequate. Even the 3.2 4x4 is not all that 'fast' 0-100, and only a bit quicker than the 2.2 2wd. I'd go only for the 3.2 if 4wd is really needed.

Will the ranger ever get the 4wd system of the everest so it can be driven on hard roads in 4wd (like the superselect of the triton)?

[dagling]

If it was a question of of the WT 2.2L 2WD vs the 3.2L 4x4, where there's 200K gap, I wouldn't suggest anyone buy the 3.2L unless they actually need 4x4.

However, if you do actually need 4x4 I'd recommend the 3.2L version. Adaptive cruise is a great feature (it actually make cruise useful in TH), as are front parking sensors - especially if you have dogs. I haven't tried the frontal collision system, but I do have to say I'm not a fan of the lane keeping system.

I agree, the 4x4 2.2 is quite slow. I it's mainly for around town the 2wd 2.2 is adequate. Even the 3.2 4x4 is not all that 'fast' 0-100, and only a bit quicker than the 2.2 2wd. I'd go only for the 3.2 if 4wd is really needed.

Will the ranger ever get the 4wd system of the everest so it can be driven on hard roads in 4wd (like the superselect of the triton)?

But in the 2.2 2WD you dont get 6 airbags and all of the extra that I mention for the 3.2 4WD in my OP;-)

[fredob43]

My friend who has the 2.2 has just popped in he's off to Cha Am some 600km away in a couple of days. Is he going in the new 2.2, no he's taking the old Honda city he has said it's a dam site quicker.

Must tell you something.

[IMHO]

If it was a question of of the WT 2.2L 2WD vs the 3.2L 4x4, where there's 200K gap, I wouldn't suggest anyone buy the 3.2L unless they actually need 4x4.

However, if you do actually need 4x4 I'd recommend the 3.2L version. Adaptive cruise is a great feature (it actually make cruise useful in TH), as are front parking sensors - especially if you have dogs. I haven't tried the frontal collision system, but I do have to say I'm not a fan of the lane keeping system.

I agree, the 4x4 2.2 is quite slow. I it's mainly for around town the 2wd 2.2 is adequate. Even the 3.2 4x4 is not all that 'fast' 0-100, and only a bit quicker than the 2.2 2wd. I'd go only for the 3.2 if 4wd is really needed.

Will the ranger ever get the 4wd system of the everest so it can be driven on hard roads in 4wd (like the superselect of the triton)?

But in the 2.2 2WD you dont get 6 airbags and all of the extra that I mention for the 3.2 4WD in my OP;-)

The 2.2L Wildtrak 2WD has full airbags, reversing cam, traction control, rollover control etc, and all the other wildtrak bits. All it misses out on is: 4WD, Bigger Engine, Front parking sensors, Hill descent control and those other top-spec safety aids you already mentioned.

[IMHO]

My friend who has the 2.2 has just popped in he's off to Cha Am some 600km away in a couple of days. Is he going in the new 2.2, no he's taking the old Honda city he has said it's a dam site quicker.

Must tell you something.

The 2.2L has the same basic performance as the Toyota 3.0L engine, but with 25% better FE. Yes, an unladen City will take them both.

[IMHO]

If it was a question of of the WT 2.2L 2WD vs the 3.2L 4x4, where there's 200K gap, I wouldn't suggest anyone buy the 3.2L unless they actually need 4x4.

However, if you do actually need 4x4 I'd recommend the 3.2L version. Adaptive cruise is a great feature (it actually make cruise useful in TH), as are front parking sensors - especially if you have dogs. I haven't tried the frontal collision system, but I do have to say I'm not a fan of the lane keeping system.

I agree, the 4x4 2.2 is quite slow. I it's mainly for around town the 2wd 2.2 is adequate. Even the 3.2 4x4 is not all that 'fast' 0-100, and only a bit quicker than the 2.2 2wd. I'd go only for the 3.2 if 4wd is really needed.

Will the ranger ever get the 4wd system of the everest so it can be driven on hard roads in 4wd (like the superselect of the triton)?

Right, the added weight and drag of 4x4 on the 2.2L makes it feel like a Vigo 2.5L rather than a Vigo 3.0L. For some not a worry, for us motor heads, too much on the wrong side of acceptable

The TMS system is already available in the short wheel base Ranger models, if you can find one available. But sadly, not available on any normal wheelbase models, and not available with decent infotainment either.

Will they make a special model in the future with TMS? I'd say the obvious answer is yes, but it probably won't be until 2018 with the next major change and the new Panther donks, and will be used to keep the Ranger making competitor's spec sheets look pretty barren

Edited April 19, 2016 by IMHO

[IMHO]

Back to the OP: if you want 4x4, buy the 3.2L and don't look back. No buyer's remorse possible if you buy the top spec - unless what you really wanted was an Everest or a PJS

[fredob43]

My friend who has the 2.2 has just popped in he's off to Cha Am some 600km away in a couple of days. Is he going in the new 2.2, no he's taking the old Honda city he has said it's a dam site quicker.

Must tell you something.

The 2.2L has the same basic performance as the Toyota 3.0L engine, but with 25% better FE. Yes, an unladen City will take them both.

Having owned a 3lt 4x4 Vigo manual and driven a 2.2 F.W I can tell you there's no comparison speed/power wise have also driven a friends 2.5lt Vigo manual that was similar to the 2.2 F.W as I said before loaded and on hills both are slugs.

N/B the city will be loaded with 4 peeps + 2 children + luggage. Only hope he doesn't have to overtake to many things.

[NanLaew]

Haven't driven the 3.2 but I can tell you the 2.2 laden is at best a slug.

Had a drive last week in my friend new manual one, nice pickup if you just want to poodle around town.

But get it on hills with 4 peeps and a few bits like I did you'll be up and down the gearbox just to keep it going you'll regret it.

If you can afford the 3.2 go for it. Personally I would pay 200th bt just to have the 3.2 engine. All the extras would be an added bonus.

Yes, some people do have issues with stick shifts and leaving gear changes too late.

My friend who has the 2.2 has just popped in he's off to Cha Am some 600km away in a couple of days. Is he going in the new 2.2, no he's taking the old Honda city he has said it's a dam site quicker.

Must tell you something.

...or his old lady significant other is going with him... or told him what to drive.

[JaseTheBass]

I definitely wouldn't get the 2.2 AT 4x4. Get the 3.2.

My dilema was that I wanted a proper gearbox, so I only had the choice of the 2.2 MT 2x4. Performace is adequate as it doesn't have to lug 4WD gubbins about and a neutering auto gearbox.