BROADCASTS.com

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

The 2.0 biturbo engine has to work a lot harder per unit capacity, and when you look at its power delivery, it\u2019s fair to say that it\u2019s 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\u2019s seven per cent more power.

So, when the 3.2 is making its peak power, it\u2019s 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\u2019re revving it higher and pumping more air in as well. Because that\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019ll 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 \u2018Goldilocks\u2019 revs for each permutation of load, demand and road speed. When I say \u2018load\u2019 I mean \u2018driving uphill\u2019 or overtaking against inertial resistance, and when I say \u2018demand\u2019 I really just mean how hard you\u2019re pressing on the accelerator.

This greater availability of ratios will also be better for fuel economy when you\u2019re not driving hard. That\u2019s 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\u2019t really have any data about the long-term viability of that powertrain. It hasn\u2019t been a disaster yet, however.

The 3.2 five-cylinder/six-speed is, on the other hand, a low-stressed engine and it\u2019s been a fairly problem-free package.

If it were my cash, I\u2019d 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\u2019re a \u2018go with the flow\u2019 kind of driver, the 2.0 is probably going to be overkill - in the sense that you won\u2019t be exploiting the engine\u2019s maximum performance very often, if at all. Certainly the towing assignment here is reasonably conservative in the context of the vehicle\u2019s maximum tow capacity (but 2.7 tonnes is still a very heavy thing\u2026).