Ranger vs SXT-550

[Nic85]

From the other thread...

Originally Posted by 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.

Just because a car is quoted to tow a certain figure, certainly doesn't mean it should. I mean, by this train of thought, a Volkswagen Amarok with a 2L diesel with 420Nm that has 3.2 tonne towing capacity could out tow the Navara too? Unlikely at the very least. Not to mention the traction problem with Ford will also have.

Here is the V9X dyno graph...



The kW are slightly higher as it was a concept dyno for the original engine to go in the Renault Laguna, but the torque curve is the same.

As you can see, it makes 470Nm between 1200-4000rpm.

[trentski]

Thanks for the info in the other thread. Power is a lot easier to understand than torque that's for sure.

[RASER]

Originally Posted by trentski

Thanks for the info in the other thread. Power is a lot easier to understand than torque that's for sure.

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" tm. C.Shelby

[turbodewd]

power is a function of torque and revs.

A peak power figure can be very misleading if its only briefly attained at the top of a rev range.

The ultimate measure is really the 0-100kmh time for example.

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

power is a function of torque and revs.

A peak power figure can be very misleading if its only briefly attained at the top of a rev range.

The ultimate measure is really the 0-100kmh time for example.

ST-X 550 0-100km/h is 9.0s with top speed 195 km/h ,not sure about New Ranger - i think it shoud be around 10s.

[aquahead2001]

[QUOTE=Nic85]From the other thread...


I mean, by this train of thought, a Volkswagen Amarok with a 2L diesel with 420Nm that has 3.2 tonne towing capacity could out tow the Navara too? Unlikely at the very least. Not to mention the traction problem with Ford will also have.QUOTE]

Nic you have done well with getting the power/trque curve for the Navara, pretty impressive isnt it?

I promise I'll go easy on you, but did you know that the Ranger actually towed a 160 tonne Train (Steam Locomotive) as a publicity stunt during its development? With no mods and no more ballast other than its normal cargo load capability.?

And the VW Amarok will only get the 3,175kgs towing capacity on the top of the range 8 speed auto version of the TDi420 series motor, the rest of the range will be limited to 2,800kgs?

But at least the STX-550 still out torques them all! Not bad for a Renualt Engine hey!

[Nic85]

I wasn't aware the Ranger towed a train, lol. That's pretty impressive. Got a YouTube link or anything?

Don't get me wrong because I'm not here to rubbish the Rangers towing, I simply made a comment about its engine. I really don't think it's anywhere near in the same league as the Nissan engine, and I believe Ford could have done better. As for the rest of the car, I think it's superior to the Nissan in my own experience for refinement, comfort and space. Interior quality is also superior.

[aquahead2001]

Try this, I don't have access to Youtube where I am during the day, so am only going off the link's title:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifReYvzGzc

[SumoDog68]

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 towed a heavy loaded twin axle trailer from Melbourne to Wallget at average speed of 100 km/h using Navara 550 - those Hume Hwy long inclines were not felt as inclines - might as well of beeen flats as far as 550 is concerned - average fuel consumption was 18l/100...

VW V10 is the king of tow though - http://www.automotoportal.com/articl...s-a-boeing-747

[trentski]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

VW V10 is the king of tow though - http://www.automotoportal.com/articl...s-a-boeing-747

They did a lot of modifications to that toureg before they towed that plane.

It's not that big a deal when you consider that strongmen have been doing it for years

[mik]

Originally Posted by trentski

They did a lot of modifications to that toureg before they towed that plane.

It's not that big a deal when you consider that strongmen have been doing it for years

very true, you can pull huge objects with the right gearing and enough traction.

[wranger]

Isn't much between the 3.2 and V6 in real world figures.. Had a go with against an STX at the lights and I was a carlength in front at 60 before he pulled back.

Looks to be about half a second from 0-100 between them judging by these two videos..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQXnU4IuRzs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHOahbNA-Z0

[Nic85]

That's awesome really. Only word for it, lol.

[Nic85]

0-100km/h is fairly irrelevant, particularly for a diesel truck. 70-110km/h or 80-120km/h are far better guides of real world performance.

[SumoDog68]

I think both 0-100 are 80-120 are equally irrelevant for a diesel truck - in both rolling and standing test result would most likely correspond . We were just trying to compare the performance between the two...

[trentski]

Originally Posted by Nic85

0-100km/h is fairly irrelevant, particularly for a diesel truck. 70-110km/h or 80-120km/h are far better guides of real world performance.

I don't care how relevant the 0-100 times are, I just want to know them

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by trentski

I don't care how relevant the 0-100 times are, I just want to know them

I found this on YouTube:

Navara 550

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHOah...e_gdata_player

Amarok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?<br /> ...e_gdata_player



Focus Ecoboost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PoVP...e_gdata_player

And something genuinly fast


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZb9...e_gdata_player




So Navara is as quick as 180hp warmish hatch - pretty good for a truck. Not much i could find on new Ranger.

[PepeLePew]

I thought I read somewhere the STX does it in mid 7 seconds....could be wrong!

Regardless no one would say it isnt a great engine, its just a bit of a oddity in this vehicle class. I suspect it isn't a particularly cheap thing tho....wonder if Nissan is making anything on them.

Throw that engine in the Ranger and you'd have something beyond a world beating package, next gen Navara might be interesting if they retain it.

I do agree with Aqua tho, as a day to day drive it has more than enough grunt to do the things you'd expect of a above average dual cab

[excopau]

ranger goes over 200km/hr, been tested

[XR Martin]

End of the day the Navara is an average vehicle with a great engine, Ranger is a great vehicle with just a good engine.

Ranger just needs the Ecoboost 3.5 out of the F150 and it would be a monster.

[OwnTheRoad]

You make a good point 1TUFFUTE with regard to choice for off road .
i like the ranger because of its wheel size , its larger than the other dual cab 4x4 s out there , greater clearance under the diff and other suspension parts as well it can accomodate a larger wheel with out much trouble at all.Very good for offroad performance.

[1TUFFUTE]

Another thought worth checking is if you can live with the Navarra interior.....my mate loves navaras due to the power figures. I can't stand the interior of my mates 2013 navara. It's terrible. The ranger is far more car like.