Should have bought a Ranger...

Isn't Andrew Leimroth from Berrima Diesel service? If so he tends to have a lot to say about a lot of things, most of which is disputed by a lot of other mechanics

Should have bought an Isuzu. Far less problems than all of them.

Reckon i'll ask the 2 people i know who's Rangers have split the rear chassis rails open, and the person i know who's Ranger spun a main bearing in the motor and had the auto box crap itself and need replacing what they think of owning a Ranger....lol.

HI
The difference between Toyota and Ford is Toyota actually fixes stuff .
Ford runs away while laughing at u . If u look into Rangers history its not great .

We have both in the fleet, and amaroks and dmax and Colorado. The rangers have been by far the most reliable. I’m still driving my 2013 and will continue to do so because I’d just swap it for another white ranger and theres nothing gone wrong with this one. Credit where it is due because I am no ford fan. We are still trying to get the 2015/16 hiluxs sorted and have started our own legal action - first time ever against any manufacturer. Should give you an idea of just how far we have been pushed and how much downtime/expense they have cost - 5 utes. The big fleet guys must be having a ball.

Currently the 'problem' with the Hilux /Fortuna /Prado is not the only one Toyota execs are tearing their hair out over , the 'new' Corolla and Rav 4 Hybrids , all 019 builds are on 'stop all movements' until the braking system is replaced .....

It seems no-one has mentioned the DPF fires problem, that has engulfed and totally destroyed quite a few 4WD's - Rangers and Toyotas included.

This class-action suit is needed, because, IMO, the whole DPF deal is a totally flawed and failed technology.

DPF's are a major cost burden, they are a constant source of problems, a constant source of fires, a constant complaint area for increased fuel consumption - and the market for removing them has been a burgeoning one for years.

In America, fires from DPF's fitted to trucks have run into multiple thousands of fire events. One fire from a truck DPF in Washington State burnt 5000 acres and 49 homes.

The failure rate of U.S. truck DPF's reached 40% in 2007. The failure rate was reduced to around 11% by 2012, but that is still too high, and still doesn't address the additional costs of a DPF and the poorer fuel economy.

The simple fact remains that with a DPF, you have to use extra fuel (via additional fuel injection) to burn off DPF deposits.

Interestingly, the main researcher who came up with the "diesel particulate matter level is dangerous" claim (that brought about the requirement for DPF's in California), was found to have faked his PhD.

I have seen just as many late model, DPF-fitted, European and Japanese high-range diesel vehicles, spewing out just as much volume of black smoke, as early model diesels - thus proving to me that many of the DPF's are not working as designed - or not being maintained.

DPF's linked to U.S. truck fires and explosions, but EPA officials won't budge

Cheers, Ron.

and people bag jeeps for reliability .

I deliberately set out to buy a Prado without a DPF, after trading in my Kia Sportage whose DPF replacement costs $3000.00, bugger that, my 2012 Prado is tops with no more worries over a DPF