Ford ranger diesel comparison: 2.0 ecoblue vs 3.2 – power, torque, and efficiency revealed
What To Know
- In this comprehensive guide, we will delve into the intricate details of each engine, comparing their specifications, performance, fuel efficiency, and overall value to help you make an informed decision about which powertrain is the perfect fit for your needs.
- The ground clearance of the Ford Ranger is the same regardless of the engine option, with a generous 237 mm of clearance.
- On the other hand, if you require maximum towing capacity, slightly better acceleration, and the added reassurance of a larger engine, the 3.
The Ford Ranger is a legendary pickup truck known for its ruggedness, versatility, and impressive capabilities. When it comes to powertrains, the Ranger offers two compelling options: the 2.0-liter EcoBlue diesel engine and the 3.2-liter Duratorq diesel engine. In this comprehensive guide, we will delve into the intricate details of each engine, comparing their specifications, performance, fuel efficiency, and overall value to help you make an informed decision about which powertrain is the perfect fit for your needs.
Engine Specifications
2.0-liter EcoBlue Diesel
- Type: Inline-4, turbocharged
- Displacement: 1996 cc
- Power Output: 180 hp @ 3750 rpm
- Torque: 420 Nm @ 1750-2500 rpm
3.2-liter Duratorq Diesel
- Type: Inline-5, turbocharged
- Displacement: 3198 cc
- Power Output: 200 hp @ 3000 rpm
- Torque: 470 Nm @ 1750-2500 rpm
Performance Comparison
Acceleration
The 3.2-liter Duratorq engine boasts a slight advantage in acceleration, with a 0-100 km/h time of approximately 10.5 seconds compared to the 2.0-liter EcoBlue’s 11.2 seconds. This difference is primarily due to the larger displacement and higher power output of the 3.2-liter engine.
Towing Capacity
Both the 2.0-liter EcoBlue and 3.2-liter Duratorq engines offer impressive towing capacities. However, the 3.2-liter engine has a slightly higher maximum towing capacity of 3500 kg compared to the 2.0-liter EcoBlue’s 3250 kg. This makes the 3.2-liter engine a more suitable choice for heavy-duty towing applications.
Fuel Efficiency
City Driving
The 2.0-liter EcoBlue engine shines in city driving conditions, delivering an impressive fuel economy of approximately 10 km/l. This is due to its smaller displacement and advanced fuel injection system, which optimizes fuel consumption.
Highway Driving
On the highway, both engines perform admirably, with the 2.0-liter EcoBlue achieving approximately 12 km/l and the 3.2-liter Duratorq reaching around 11 km/l.
Off-Road Capabilities
4WD System
Both the 2.0-liter EcoBlue and 3.2-liter Duratorq engines are available with Ford’s advanced 4WD system, which provides exceptional traction and control in challenging off-road conditions.
Ground Clearance
The ground clearance of the Ford Ranger is the same regardless of the engine option, with a generous 237 mm of clearance. This allows both engines to navigate rough terrain with confidence.
Technology and Features
Turbocharger
The 2.0-liter EcoBlue engine features a variable-geometry turbocharger, which optimizes boost pressure for improved performance and fuel efficiency. The 3.2-liter Duratorq engine, on the other hand, employs a fixed-geometry turbocharger.
Fuel Injection
The 2.0-liter EcoBlue engine uses a high-pressure common-rail fuel injection system, which delivers precise fuel delivery for optimal combustion and efficiency. The 3.2-liter Duratorq engine utilizes a conventional common-rail fuel injection system.
Value Proposition
Price
The 2.0-liter EcoBlue engine is typically offered at a lower price point compared to the 3.2-liter Duratorq engine. This makes it a more budget-friendly option for those who prioritize affordability.
Maintenance Costs
Both engines require regular maintenance, including oil changes, filter replacements, and occasional repairs. However, the 2.0-liter EcoBlue engine may have slightly lower maintenance costs due to its smaller size and fewer components.
Final Note: Choosing the Right Engine
The choice between the 2.0-liter EcoBlue and 3.2-liter Duratorq engines ultimately depends on your specific needs and preferences. If you prioritize fuel efficiency, affordability, and a balance of performance and towing capacity, the 2.0-liter EcoBlue is an excellent choice. On the other hand, if you require maximum towing capacity, slightly better acceleration, and the added reassurance of a larger engine, the 3.2-liter Duratorq is the ideal option.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Which engine is more powerful?
A: The 3.2-liter Duratorq engine produces more power at 200 hp compared to the 2.0-liter EcoBlue‘s 180 hp.
Q: Which engine has better fuel economy?
A: The 2.0-liter EcoBlue engine offers superior fuel efficiency, especially in city driving conditions.
Q: Which engine is better for towing?
A: The 3.2-liter Duratorq engine has a slightly higher towing capacity of 3500 kg compared to the 2.0-liter EcoBlue’s 3250 kg.