Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...

The blog post: https://autoexpert.com.au/posts/shoul...

The magic castors: https://www.machineryhouse.com.au/W935

The 2.0 biturbo engine has to work a lot harder per unit capacity, and when you look at its power delivery, it’s fair to say that it’s delivering only slightly more power than the 3.2 up to 3000rpm (where the 3.2 peaks, at 147kW).

The 2.0 revs 25 per cent higher and delivers another 10kW when it gets there (157kW at 3750rpm), which is a significant increase, but not earth-shattering. It’s seven per cent more power.

So, when the 3.2 is making its peak power, it’s delivering about 45.9 kilowatts per litre. At full noise the 2.0 is delivering 78.5 kilowatts per litre. So, per litre, the little engine is working 70 per cent harder. They’re revving it higher and pumping more air in as well. Because that’s how you do it. Power is proportional to revs, if you can maintain the torque production, and more air equals more fuel, equals more torque.

There’s no evidence that this heavier workload is going to lead to premature wear or failure - because you can hedge against that in R&D. But it’s working hard, and if you go that way, keep the services up to it - and maybe change the oil more frequently than you need to if you drive it in harsh conditions - because turbos are very hard on oil.

Also, the 10-speed auto is likely to make for smoother delivery of tractive effort in most conditions. In a sense it’ll amplify the additional torque at the crank in the 2.0 at just about all the common driving speeds. The extra ratios really just allow the engine to be at the ‘Goldilocks’ revs for each permutation of load, demand and road speed. When I say ‘load’ I mean ‘driving uphill’ or overtaking against inertial resistance, and when I say ‘demand’ I really just mean how hard you’re pressing on the accelerator.

This greater availability of ratios will also be better for fuel economy when you’re not driving hard. That’s evident in the official fuel tests, which involve laboratory standardised very conservative driving: 7.4 for the 2.0 and 8.9 for the 3.2. If you drive them like you stole them, or sling something really heavy behind, and expect fuel economy to plummet, and the 2.0 will be line ball with the 3.2.

The 2.0 is slightly lighter overall, too - about 33 kilos. Not enough to make a real difference, but a bit less mass over the front axle.
The engines themselves are pretty closely matched up to about 3000rpm - but the 2.0TT does have a slight edge. You can tell that just by looking at the peak torque figures for each engine.

On the downside the 2.0-litre, 10-speed powertrain is relatively unproven because it has not been deployed in market long enough to draw long-term reliability conclusions. The 2.0 was released in July 2018. So at this point - 15 months in, on the 2.0 biturbo Ranger experiment - we don’t really have any data about the long-term viability of that powertrain. It hasn’t been a disaster yet, however.

The 3.2 five-cylinder/six-speed is, on the other hand, a low-stressed engine and it’s been a fairly problem-free package.

If it were my cash, I’d but the 3.2 right now - and the difference in price would go a long way to funding the hard cover and bullbar. But you should take them both for a drive and see if you think the 2.0TT is significantly better for you.

If you’re a ‘go with the flow’ kind of driver, the 2.0 is probably going to be overkill - in the sense that you won’t be exploiting the engine’s maximum performance very often, if at all. Certainly the towing assignment here is reasonably conservative in the context of the vehicle’s maximum tow capacity (but 2.7 tonnes is still a very heavy thing…).