Engine: 2.2 litre four cylinder common-rail turbo-diesel

Power: 110kW @ 3700rpm    Torque: 375Nm @ 1500-2500rpm

Trans: six-speed manual or six-speed automatic

Construction: Body-on-frame

Suspension: (F) coil-over strut/upper & lower wishbones (R) leaf springs & live axle

Payload: 1166 kgs max

Towing: 3.5 tonnes max (braked)

Economy: 8.1 litres/100 kms (manual)

Price: $47, 986

Overview

We like trucks with a simple and honest work ethic. Toyota’s 70 Series WorkMate is a good example. Just big, basic and strong with no frills. Designed to do a tough job and not afraid to get dirty doing it – on the outside and inside.

Ford’s Ranger XL is another hard worker in the 70 Series mould. Built with a back-to-basics approach with none of the bling found in its more glamorous and expensive XLT and WildTrak stable-mates.

And it’s that minimalist, no-frills persona that makes the entry level Ranger XL Double Cab a smart buy for a variety of potential customers. Beyond the obvious appeal for government and private fleet buyers, it’s also got plenty of appeal for farmers, tradies and even urban families that value low maintenance practicality.

Park the Ranger XL alongside the XLT and its lack of eye candy is immediately apparent. However, beyond such a simple visual comparison, there are a number of financial and performance reasons why the Ranger XL might well be a better buy depending on your intended usage.

Our test vehicle

Our typically plain white Ranger XL Double Cab 4×4 Pickup was fitted with the 2.2 litre Duratorq TDCi four cylinder turbo-diesel engine and six-speed manual gearbox.

The 16 valve, common rail, direct injection 2.2 is the smaller of the two turbo-diesels available for this model, with the other being the five-cylinder 3.2 litre Duratorq unit.

Both are from Ford’s ‘Puma’ engine family and according to Ford the 2.2 litre is the same engine fitted to the current Transit Van.

XL vs XLT

So what do you miss out on? Well, where there’s chrome on the XLT you get flat black and body-colour. Where there’s carpeting, you get vinyl flooring. Where there’s alloy wheels, you get painted steel rims. And where there’s a tubular chrome sports bar in the load bed you get a body-coloured load rack/window protector.

Have a look at the standard equipment lists for both models and the XL buyer also misses out on some of the more useful stuff like the XLT’s cooled console box, third power point in the rear of the console, rain-sensing windscreen wipers, tow bar (although our test truck was fitted with one), side steps, auto headlights and fog lights.

XL buyers also miss out on the XLT’s rear parking sensors, locking rear differential, protective bed-liner with 12 volt power socket, dual-zone climate control, larger 4.2-inch multi-function dashboard display monitor and four speaker sound system.

However, even with the 2.2 litre engine – which has one less cylinder and is 1.0 litre smaller in capacity than the XLT’s five cylinder version – you do get everything else that makes the Ranger XLT 4×4 such a formidable competitor in the one-tonne ute market.

These including air-conditioning, front, seat side and side curtain airbags, Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) incorporating ABS, Hill Launch Assist, Trailer Sway Control, Emergency Brake Assist and Hill Descent Control. And you get a bigger payload than XLT as well.

What will it carry?

The 2.2 litre XL with six-speed auto or manual transmission matches the 3.2 XLT’s peak towing capacity (at least on paper) of 3.5 tonnes of braked trailer, 750 kgs without trailer brakes, 6.0 tonne Gross Combination Mass (GCM) and 800mm fording ability.

However, because the XL is 125 kgs lighter in kerb weight (XL 2034 kgs vs XLT 2159 kgs) it’s rewarded with a corresponding 125 kgs greater payload (1166 kgs vs 1041 kgs). That’s about six bags of cement, so it’s a fair difference.

And in manual form, Ford claims that it also drinks less diesel than the XLT (8.1L/100 kms vs 9.4L/100 kms) but we always take these factory supplied figures (from any manufacturer) with more than a grain of salt.

We averaged 9.7L/100 kms during our time with the XL, which was a combination of stop-start city driving and sealed and unsealed rural roads, with and without loads. The best we saw was 8.4 after a long freeway run, so it shows how ‘ideal’ these quoted figures are.

Even so, with one less cylinder and one litre less cubic capacity than the 3.2, it has to be more economical which is another plus.

The Double Cab’s load floor length is 1549mm and the width between the wheel housings is 1139mm, meaning standard 900mm-wide builder’s sheets of plywood, gyprock etc will lay flat between them with the gate down, but the wider 1200mm sheets and up won’t.

The standard 1100 x 1100mm Asian pallet, which is increasingly common in this part of the world, will slot neatly between them. There’s also plenty of stout tie-down points in the box to secure your load.

What we found particularly useful at the front of the pick-up bed was the painted frame that serves as both a load frame and rear window protector.

Sure, it doesn’t look as sexy as the XLT chrome tubular roll bar but it’s a lot more useful if you’ve got long lengths of wood, electrical conduit, concrete reinforcing mesh or PVC pipes you need to carry. The pivoting brackets mounted on each side swing up and lock into position to stop these long items from falling off the sides after you’ve strapped them in place.

What’s it like to drive?

You may be thinking that being smaller in engine capacity, the 2.2 litre four-pot XL would feel a bit sluggish compared to its more powerful 3.2 litre five-pot sibling. We can happily report that’s not the case.

The 2.2 produces 110kW @ 3700 rpm compared to the 3.2’s 147 kW @ 3000 rpm – a deficit of 37 kW. Of more importance to us though are the torque figures; 375 Nm  @ 1500-2500 rpm for the 2.2 compared to 470 Nm @ 1500-2750 rpm for the 3.2 – a difference of 95 Nm.

37 kW less power and 95 Nm less torque seems like a lot on paper, but as we discovered with our recent test of the Isuzu D-Max Crew Cab one-tonner, power to weight ratio makes a big difference to a truck’s throttle response and overall agility despite having less cubic engine capacity and torque than some of its competitors.

When Ford confirmed that the Transit Van and XL 2.2 turbo-diesels were the same, it put an instant smile on our dials because having driven the latest Transit Van we were already aware of the excellence of this 2.2 litre four as a light truck engine.

It not only has an abundance of low down torque and pulling power, but it’s the way the torque is delivered that is impressive. The response is instant whenever you get back on the throttle pedal. It’s a smooth and unrelenting surge with none of the turbo lag or comparatively sluggish response we have experienced in other small bore turbo-diesels.

We didn’t get a chance to do any heavy towing during our brief time with this truck, so we can’t comment on how the 2.2 performed with a big load hanging off the tow-ball. We suspect that the 95 Nm difference between the 2.2 and 3.2 would be more noticeable when towing, so we would appreciate any feedback from people that have towed big loads with the 2.2.

You don’t need to rev the 2.2 beyond 2500 rpm between shifts, because when you pick up the next cog it’s generally in that 1500-2500 rpm maximum torque band.

The six-speed manual gearbox is light and precise to use, well matched to the engine’s torque characteristics with a useful selection of ratios for everything this truck needs to do. The overdriven top gear is handy on the highway too, where you can sit at 110 km/h with only 2000 rpm on the tacho.

We didn’t venture too far off road in the XL, largely due to the road tyres fitted to our test vehicle. They don’t tend to grip very well, particular when you strike mud and the shallow treads quickly clog up. Given the amount of rain at the time, we decided not to get too adventurous.

The fact that the XL doesn’t come with the XLT’s Locking Rear Differential (which is not available as an option) shows where Ford is aiming this workhorse and what its typical buyer needs.

Conclusion

If you want a hard working Ford Ranger that can do pretty much everything the XLT can do without all the bells and whistles, the 2.2 litre manual XL Double Cab Pickup represents a massive saving of around $10,000 in purchase price over the 3.2 XLT version (XL $47,986 vs XLT $57,768 based on Ford drive-away estimates).

Even if you fitted an aftermarket tow bar and replaced the ‘poverty pack’ appearance of those steel wheels with a nice set of Ford Accessory or aftermarket alloys and chunkier off road tyres, you’d still be way ahead.

And you never have to worry about scratches on your premium metallic paint. Or muddy boots, beach sand or sticky kids’ stuff ruining your carpet. There’s a lot be said for back-to-basics in this market segment. TJ

24 Responses to Review & Road Test: Ford Ranger XL (2.2L) Double Cab 4×4 Ute

  • Robert Anthony Apin says:

    I like very much this Ford Ranger 2.2 XL (M) 4×4 series. Please send me more about the vehicle. tq

    • Mark Oastler says:

      Everything you want to know about this Ranger and all other Ranger models can be found at Ford Australia’s official website at www.ford.com.au If you click ‘Links’ on Truck Jungle’s menu bar, you’ll find Ford’s website address at the top of the Links page and it will take you directly to its website.

  • Alan Ryrie says:

    I suspect that the current LR Defender models also use the same Puma 2.2 ltr engine ( which replaced the previous Puma 2.4 ltr one) and they also perform excellently re power to weight so it must be regarded as a very suitable engine.

  • Walt Huber says:

    The company just bought a Mazda BT 50 Hi-Rider Automatic with the 2.2 litre engine – same running gear as the Ford Ranger. We tow a tandem trailer with a Dingo loader weighing total 2000kg and it tows really well and not bad on fuel. The consumption increased by 0.8 litre per 100km. overall very happy with the unit – very luxurious for a standard work ute.

    • Mark Oastler says:

      That’s really useful feedback, Walt. Much appreciated. We know the 2.2 is a great performer in the Transit van, so to hear that you’re also happy with its performance in the BT50 towing two tonnes of Dingo loader with a minimal increase in fuel consumption proves its excellent versatility as a light truck engine. We’d welcome more feedback on the 2.2 in towing applications.

    • Phill says:

      The company I work for just bought eight 2.2 litre Hi Rider Rangers to test on the road before committing to buy for the rest of the fleet. All have serious lag during take off, very dangerous when you need to avoid accidents.
      They do tow loads well and they look good too. But seriously, Ford won’t help the hand that feeds them. Fix this common problem and the Ranger would be the perfect ute.

      • Mark Oastler says:

        Interesting feedback Phill. We are surprised to hear of this lag on take off because one of the characteristics we really liked about the 2.2 in the Ranger we tested was the lack of turbo lag and the surge of torque that was immediately on tap. If any readers agree with Phil’s comments please let us know. The more ‘field intelligence’ we can gather on these vehicles, the better.

        • Andrew Woolner says:

          Just taken the new work ute for a run and agree with Phil. It has some serious lag problems, extremely dangerous. I will be asking for it to be returned to find the problem. This will cause accidents, especially at intersections.

  • Patrick says:

    Mark, I assume the previous sender might be referring to the auto. I live in Thailand and have the 2.2 auto and the initial lag from start is terrible. Anything from 2-3 seconds if you put your foot down firmly. Initially nothing happens and it then launches itself because by the time it takes off you have your foot to the floor. Very dangerous if you have to get out of the way in a hurry.

  • David says:

    Hey guys. Have been a Ford diesel man for 22 years. I have just retired and yes I can hear you from here – Land Rover !!!!! Anyway we are going on an extended two year trip around Australia. Can any of you Ford Transit and Ranger guys tell me about the ford 2.2 CRD? Thank you very much. Dave.

  • Chris says:

    Just bought a 2nd hand 2013 PX Ranger 4×4 2.2 6 speed auto with 15000km on the clock. I have a bad left leg so had to get rid of my manual Hi-Lux 4×4 1999 2.7 petrol (loved that car). Can’t say a bad word about my Hi-Lux but the Ranger is more comfortable, drives more like a car, has more grunt, is bigger everywhere, uses less fuel. I have experienced no lag at all. I find it very responsive. Cheers Chris.

  • mitch says:

    I picked up my 2014 2.2L auto dual cab ford ranger XL a month ago to be my new work ute. I love the truck but the lag is horrible especially with full tool boxes. Makes it difficult to enter a round about in peak traffic or getting a quick take off at an intersection (unless its down hill) does anyone know a way to fix it or has anyone tried anything? Eg. Chip or straight through exhaust etc.. any help would be appreciated. Thanks

  • Paul says:

    Yes, have to agree that the lag is terrible on the 2.2 auto. Nearly been T-boned a few times as it just won’t take off, apart from that it’s a great ute. Cheers.

    • Mark Oastler says:

      Thanks for your feedback on the 2.2 auto guys. I’ve heard this complaint from several owners now, so this is clearly a major shortcoming given the potential danger it can cause in typical traffic situations. It appears to be a lack of torque as the 3.2 auto doesn’t suffer the same lag problem, which leaves me doubting the 2.2′s ability to tow what Ford says it can tow.

  • Julisjahet says:

    Just bought the 2.2xl. Amazing power and agility. The 6th gear is unbelievable.

  • Peter Walker says:

    Hi Mark, I have a 2.2 Auto 4×4 PX ranger dual cab chassis. While I agree that there can be a lag on take off I find that you can definitely drive around this issue. I find that if you just feed on the throttle progressively the take off is fine, it seems that if you just floor the throttle the lag appears much worse. Maybe because I own this vehicle my driving style is different, what I mean is that many of the complaints seem to be “my company has just bought x amount of 2.2 auto rangers and the lag etc etc”. I also tow a 17 foot Coromal caravan and find the performance and economy very good. Previously I towed with a PK 3.0 lit ranger and the PX is definitely a better tow vehicle. Cheers Peter

  • Adam says:

    I have a 2012 PX Hi Rider 2.2 4×4 6 speed auto. It has lag at take-off as well, then at times finds it hard to select 6th even at 90 km/h. I have to change manually sometimes to get 6th gear. Very sluggish In soft sand as well. Taking it to Gibb River next year, so will give it a good test in all conditions.

    • Mark Oastler says:

      Thanks Adam. Make sure you let us know how your 2.2 auto performs on the Gibb River trip. Certainly there is enough anecdotal evidence here from 2.2 auto Ranger owners to know that there are question marks over certain aspects of this vehicle’s performance. Ford Australia does not have a 2.2 auto available on its media test fleet, so Truck Jungle is not able to analyse what the problem is for ourselves. The fact that there is no 2.2 auto Ranger available for media evaluation, though, raises some interesting questions in this context. We will try to get some answers.

  • Adam says:

    David, if you are looking to travel as I am, the fuel economy is pretty good. I regularly get over 800 kms from the standard tank and it is a comfortable ute to drive on the road. You can easily cruise at 110 km/h with the cruise control on and will pull up most hills without changing down from sixth gear. I test-drove the Isuzu D-Max before the Ranger and I found the D-Max too sluggish, even as a manual. The Ranger gets up to the speed limit with ease. So I would recommend this vehicle to anyone.

    • Mark Oastler says:

      Thanks for your input Adam. Any driving info about the 2.2 litre auto PX Ranger is greatly appreciated.

    • Shane mcfillan says:

      The 3.2 Ranger feels more sluggish than the 3.0 D-Max when I tried them both. On paper the Ranger does have more power but when it comes to real world performance it’s a different story. And there are some reviews which have tested 0-100 km/h acceleration of the D-Max and 3.2 Ranger and the D-Max is faster, maybe because its lighter by maybe 150-200 kgs.

  • PUREFOODS says:

    The D-Max was faster than the 3.2 Ranger when I tested them.

    • Mark Oastler says:

      Have you guys also driven the 2.2 auto Ranger during your testing? That’s the model we’re specifically chasing driver feedback on here.

  • Pete Mal says:

    Hi all. I have a 2.2 Auto and I have turbo laaaaag. Ford says that’s just how they are. Also mentioned above, doesn’t select 6th gear often and sluggish in sand. Great car, but get a manual because autos don’t work with this motor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

HTML tags are not allowed.

Get Truck Jungle updates direct to your mailbox!

Email Address

Security code:
captcha

7 THINGS YOU MUST KNOW BEFORE YOU BUY A TRUCKFREE! Subscribe now
to download our
32-page buyers’ guide

Follow Truck Jungle

Truck Jungle is proudly supported by