Ranger Wildtrak Enhances Tough Truck Lineup

[trentski]

$64k will get you in an auto Wildtrack, XLTs on carsales are high $50s but that's due to poor supply. I know a few guys that ordered a long time ago that got $58k for Wildtracks through Fleet deals.

[PepeLePew]

Originally Posted by Nic85

The magazines in question were Overlander and 4x4 magazine when the new Ranger and BT50 first came out. Both magazines reported the engine to not feel like it had the advertised power or torque, and felt gutless after 3,000rpm. Newer reviews of both cars don't seem to report any of this, though.

Modern diesel engines do like to rev. The 2L unit from Hyunda, 1.8L from Mitsubishi and 3L V6 from Nissan all come to mind immediately as ones I've personally driven on a constant basis. All will happily rev to 4,500rpm, and the Mitsubishi unit will rev to 5,000rpm.

Dyno graphs are significant for the way a car drives. It might make 147kW/470Nm, but if it only does so for a brief moment in the rev range, it's wasted IMO. I'd much rather and engine that has a big flat torque curve, with power that builds quickly and holds well over a large RPM range.

If you're happy with the car, that's all that matters. Don't let a cynic like me spoil your fun. ;)

Yeah I can agree a tad with a manual, as I shift endlessly But with a well matched auto I don't reckon the 'rev range in a diesel matters much at all.

The Navara 550's engine is a sweetheart but the Ranger does what it needs to do in its class and does it very well, and surrounds it with a better package though I'm sure the Navara update won't be too far away.

It does raise the question of why it peaks so low? Interesting bit of tuning.....

[Nic85]

Yeah, not sure why is peaks like that. The Ranger does drive as a car better than the Navara. It's more refined, better insulated and has a slightly better ride. The Navara has a better engine and gearbox, so it's horses for courses.

We can both definitely agree that both of the cars we're mentioning, both **** all over the Hilux.

[mac_man_luke]

Originally Posted by Gallifrey

The BT50 has a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' top end model in the GT. pity it's so ******* ugly.

BT50 isn't too bad if you put an alloy tray and bull bar on it

[trentski]

Originally Posted by Nic85

We can both definitely agree that both of the cars we're mentioning, both **** all over the Hilux.

All new HIlux due in 2014, it will be interesting to see fi they raise the bar or if they just match it, Toyota typically don't lead but they do what they do really well.

[IDT]

Originally Posted by IceValk85

that is carmichael ford..... the service dept is like the new car dept... shonky. the used car mob seem alright, bought 3 cars there now. new cars wanted 55k plus onroads for a BF mk2 XR8 in octane back in 2007 lol. bit rich.

Ice

I used to live in Townsville in the late 80's to mid 90's. Good to see some things never change. They were a rort back then. You will be pleased to know they aren't the only ones, Sinclair Ford in Western Sydney hold the badge there and NuFord in WA (20k north of Perth) holds the prize on this side of the world. They hit us up for the best part of $700 for a 20K service early this week. Unfortunately one of the guys who booked the service thought we had some fixed deal because we have bought 6 Rangers through them (2 previous models and 4 current) Thats what we get for our loyalty. Last time they see our business though. Sadly we are moving to Amaroks, better price, much better after sales even though the car is not as good. Goes to show what crap pricing, servicing can do. The current Ford fleet will go to Ultratune from now on. They priced the same service for $420 all inclusive.

[aquahead2001]

On the matter of the 3.2L torque band, I have now put 5,000km on my Wildtrak and have found that there is absolutely no need to rev it higher than 3,000rpm unless you just want to hear the engine rev. The 3.2 has a torque curve that as fat as a yak and is there from 1,400 to 3,000rpm. Just did a trip up and down the Hume to Canberra with a caravan loaded to the hilt, some of those big long hills meant I had to drop down to 5th but it never once dropped below 100km/h and just put its back into it and kept pulling. I was suitably impressed.

I have been scrounging the web and everything I can see from Nissan and others shows the torque curves all point to one thing. Every diesel engine in the D40 Navara series has a peak torque and not a flat torque curve like the 3.2L in the Ranger. The V9X 3.0L has a peak of 550nm at 1,750rpm, after which I reckon you could ski on the slope on the torque curve. The 2.5L are the same but with thier peak torque coming at 2,000rpm. Peak power is not there until 3,750rpm for the V6 or 4,000 for the 4cyl.

From a heavy vehicle and load perspective, you want to hold max torque for as long as possible and with these engines, having torque drop off so early and having peak power so late, means you are driving into a hole in power/torque curves. You either drive as close as you can to peak torque or go for broke and head for peak power.

That explains why the Navara's like to rev, the torque band is not wide so you have to rev the ring out of them to get them to work. The Ranger on the other hand, you drive in the torque band pretty well always. Change up at 2,000rpm and the next gear is in the torque band, do it as 2,500rpm or even 3,000rpm same thing.

Oh and one final point, there's a bloke up in the deep north who does performance chips, his standard dyno readout for the 3.2L was over 500nm at the rear wheels. Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y25Q50YfwUw

[naddis01]

Do you happen to have a copy or a link to the Navara torque curve Aqua?

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by aquahead2001

On the matter of the 3.2L torque band, I have now put 5,000km on my Wildtrak and have found that there is absolutely no need to rev it higher than 3,000rpm unless you just want to hear the engine rev. The 3.2 has a torque curve that as fat as a yak and is there from 1,400 to 3,000rpm. Just did a trip up and down the Hume to Canberra with a caravan loaded to the hilt, some of those big long hills meant I had to drop down to 5th but it never once dropped below 100km/h and just put its back into it and kept pulling. I was suitably impressed.

I have been scrounging the web and everything I can see from Nissan and others shows the torque curves all point to one thing. Every diesel engine in the D40 Navara series has a peak torque and not a flat torque curve like the 3.2L in the Ranger. The V9X 3.0L has a peak of 550nm at 1,750rpm, after which I reckon you could ski on the slope on the torque curve. The 2.5L are the same but with thier peak torque coming at 2,000rpm. Peak power is not there until 3,750rpm for the V6 or 4,000 for the 4cyl.

From a heavy vehicle and load perspective, you want to hold max torque for as long as possible and with these engines, having torque drop off so early and having peak power so late, means you are driving into a hole in power/torque curves. You either drive as close as you can to peak torque or go for broke and head for peak power.

That explains why the Navara's like to rev, the torque band is not wide so you have to rev the ring out of them to get them to work. The Ranger on the other hand, you drive in the torque band pretty well always. Change up at 2,000rpm and the next gear is in the torque band, do it as 2,500rpm or even 3,000rpm same thing.

Oh and one final point, there's a bloke up in the deep north who does performance chips, his standard dyno readout for the 3.2L was over 500nm at the rear wheels. Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y25Q50YfwUw

Wrong. The V6 diesel in the Navara makes more torque between 1500-4000rpm than the Ranger makes at its peak. My old man just towed a 2.5 tonne caravan with his STX-550 from Brisbane to Eumundi (130km) and he said he locked it in 6th gear on the highway at about 100km/h, ticking over at 1,900rpm with the torque convertor locked up and averaged 12L/100km.

Torque at the wheels has nothing to do with torque at the engine.

[trentski]

Originally Posted by Nic85

Torque at the wheels has nothing to do with torque at the engine.

Any chance you could go into more detail there? I would have thought there was a fairly direct relationship between them.

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by trentski

Any chance you could go into more detail there? I would have thought there was a fairly direct relationship between them.

To get torque at the engine from a torque at the wheels measurement off a dyno, you need to know the gear ratios, final drive ratio, tyre size, rolling diameter and a few other things I seem to remember. It's out there on google how to figure it out.

http://www.fjr1300.info/misc/torque-power.html

I'll get a photo of the V9X engine dyno in the next couple days. My old man has it printed out at home, and for the life of me I can't find it on the net.

[aquahead2001]

I can see the only way to solve this is by brutal means.... Lets have a tug of war!!!!!

Unfortunately, the Nissan looses this straight off, doesn't have the towing capacity to tow a fully loaded Ranger.... Ranger - 2,200kgs plus 1,000kgs of load = 3,200kgs. Navara only has 3,000kgs capability.... Ranger on the other hand has 3,350kgs towing capacity and the combined weight of the Navara of 1,920kgs and a load of 910kgs for 2,830kgs means it can do it easily.

[PepeLePew]

Guys this is a good conversation but there may be some merit in steering back to the topic. A Ranger vs STX550 thread may have its own merit elsewhere.

On topic...the thread is regarding the Wildtrak 'launch'.

[Gallifrey]

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Guys this is a good conversation but there may be some merit in steering back to the topic. A Ranger vs STX550 thread may have its own merit elsewhere.

On topic...the thread is regarding the Wildtrak 'launch'.

Yeah but it's still a great read! I'm loving this thread!

[PepeLePew]

See the new thread in the Pub mate..and I agree, a interesting comparo even if its just engine/driveline

[trentski]

Originally Posted by Nic85

To get torque at the engine from a torque at the wheels measurement off a dyno, you need to know the gear ratios, final drive ratio, tyre size, rolling diameter and a few other things I seem to remember. It's out there on google how to figure it out.

http://www.fjr1300.info/misc/torque-power.html

I'll get a photo of the V9X engine dyno in the next couple days. My old man has it printed out at home, and for the life of me I can't find it on the net.

So my understanding is correct then, there is a direct relationship between between torque at the engine and torque at the wheels. Which is contrary to what you were saying earlier.

A Ranger giving 500nm at the wheels on a dyno must have more than the stated 470nm at the flywheel, and even with only 10% drivetrain losses, it could have the same 550nm that the Navara is quoting.

[Bossxr8]

Torque is multiplied by gearing, so the torque reading at the wheels differs from what the engine is making.

[trentski]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Torque is multiplied by gearing, so the torque reading at the wheels differs from what the engine is making.

So unlike power which at the wheels is a percentage of what it is at the flywheel. Torque can be more due to the multiplication effect of teh gearing. Is that correct?

all too complicated for me

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by trentski

So unlike power which at the wheels is a percentage of what it is at the flywheel. Torque can be more due to the multiplication effect of teh gearing. Is that correct?

all too complicated for me

Basically, yes. It's all in the link I posted.

Torque at the wheels is related to torque at the engine, so I was incorrect in a way saying that, but it's semantics at best.

Basically, if you have a torque figure produced at the wheels from a rolling dyno, ie. 500Nm, this figure is multiplied (in the past tense) by tyre size, rolling diameter and gear ratios. For example, if you had two cars identical that made 470Nm at the flywheel, but had 2 different transmissions, the torque output at the wheels on a rolling dyno would be different for each car due to the different transmissions, but the engine torque remains the same.

Hope that didn't confuse the whole issue more. Refer to the other thread I made which includes a dyno graph for the V9X engine.