Ford Ranger

[bce]

Polecat.

I just had my 40,000kms service and have now done a tick under 42,000kms. Over 50% of my kms are highway kms, 5% is towing a 1200kg Jayco camper and the rest is stop-start city traffic driving and I have not had any such problems as you described your mate has.

On my 40,000km service the inspection report showed one of my front shockers had a leak and they are going to replace under warranty this Friday.

I reckon your mate needs to find a different place to get his car serviced.

Cheers,
BCE.

[rogie from WA]

have just got my long range tank from brown davis 126litre but have had my tdc-technologies power box for about 5 days it will spin my 255 st coopers in third gear on wet bitumin and its only on tthe setting of 3 should be good for setting 3 to 9, at 9 145kw 450nm, had a bit of a race the other day up the mad mile 1x multi valve turbo 80 series landcruiser, 1xbravo 2.5litre, 1x 4.0litre rangerover & my ranger after 150km/h the ranger was shitting it in, needless to say the ranger came out on top, but if it didnt i would have been pissed off, i know the rangie give it away at 140

shit who wants better than that?
yeah i have the steinbauer module and can sit in 140km,r and accerate too 160 fairly quickly,i love the tourqe between 1800 and 3000 rpm pulls like a train

[Aquahead2001]

Talk about Torque! On the weekend, I did a bit of fire wood cutting for the local Scout's Group who are raising money for the 2010 Jamboree Trip. Had my alloy flat tray trailer loaded with probably 800kg of wood, the tub with nothing more than the chainsaw box, fuel, a box full of tie downs and that's all.

The Ranger towed the load with ease, it had no problems on the hills or with acceleration after stopping (Wheel spin on the damp roads was a small issue) and it didn't guzzle the precious diesel fuel either. With only 2,500kms on the clock, I'm very impressed in the Ranger and know when it's fully run in, will be a great tow vehicle.

[Jess4x4]

i'm running airbags in the rear of my Ranger and i think it completes the package, i reckon i could throw a cruiser in the tray and tow a patrol behind me 24/7 hahaha

[polecat]

If Polecat's experience with the TDC proves positive, would anyone be interested in organising a group buy?

Also, why is this product under $500 whereas all other piggy back modules seem to be over a grand? Is it a case of "you get what you pay for"?


Boys

Dose anyone know how to reset the check engine light??

Ive played with the Power box & man did it make the Ranger goooooooooo.

But it also must have over fueled it and the check engine light came on and the motor shut down.

I put the power box back to the standard setting & it starts & runs as before but the check engine light is still on

It was worth trying just to see how much better these engines can go because the power differance was very very noticable.

So how do i reset the check engine light, any ideas?

Cheers
Polecat

[dulvari]

Polecat,
you need to find someone with a scan tool(i think that's what it's called), plugs into your OBD and clears any faults.
Any good diesel tech shop will have one.
Also sometime the light can go out after a number of ignition on and offs, around 15 i was told.

If you get a better exhaust you might not have that problem again as your EGT's won't be getting as high, which could've been the reason why it shut down in the first place, i can run mine on 9 and never have a problem.

Jayde

[GeoffMBT50]

Most mechanics will have a OBD scan tool that can access the engine fault codes.
Another approach is to buy a scangauge which plugs into your ODB connector and you can access & clear the codes yourself. The scangauge retails for approx $180 - just search for scangauge on Ebay. The advantage of scangauge is all the other stuff such as fuel used and economy rates etc that you get with it. I have one and its great.

Geoff

[polecat]

All good I got the light to go out.
Will start to play with the numbers again this weekend to see how high I can get it before the light comes on.

cheers
polecat

[Aquahead2001]

Forgive me for asking but can you advise the definition of "ODB" I figure its the engine diagnostic port but the acronym has me?

Also I fitted a Nokia Bluetooth Handfree Kit on the weekend and with my head stuck under the dash I noted a plug that is located under the handbrake mechanism pointing down. Is this the ODB or is it something else?

Reason for question, I struggled to find any plugs or connections that I could get permanent and ignition power from and also hoped that there might be a hook up to the radio ala BA/BF Falcon SX/SF Territory for speakers and radio mute.

[GeoffMBT50]

The OBD-II connector is the connection for the engine diagnostics and is located under the handbrake mechanism on the BT50/Ranger.

The following information may be of assistance:

All cars and light trucks built for sale in the United States after 1996 are required to be OBD-II compliant.
An OBD-II compliant vehicle can use any of the five communication protocols: J1850 PWM, J1850 VPW, ISO9141-2, ISO14230-4 (also known as Keyword Protocol 2000), and more recently, ISO15765-4/SAE J2480 (a "flavor" of CAN). US car manufacturers were not allowed to use CAN until model year 2003, and as of this writing (June 2005) ScanTool.net, LLC is working on a CAN-compatible interface.

There are two types of diagnostic link connectors (DLCs) defined by SAE J1962 - Type A and Type B, shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The main difference between the two connectors is in the shape of the alignment tab.

Location - According to J1962, Type A DLC "shall be located in the passenger or driver's compartment in the area bounded by the driver's end of the instrument panel to 300 mm (~1 ft) beyond the vehicle centerline, attached to the instrument panel and easy to access from the driver's seat. The preferred location is between the steering column and the vehicle centerline."




http://www.scantool.net/images/diagrams/j1962f_type_a.gif

Fig. 1 - J1962 Vehicle Connector, Type A



Type B DLC "shall be located in the passenger or driver's compartment in the area bounded by the driver's end of the instrument panel, including the outer side, and an imagined line 750 mm (~2.5 ft) beyond the vehicle centerline. It shall be attached to the instrument panel and easy to access from the driver's seat or from the Co-drivers seat or from the outside. The vehicle connector shall be mounted to facilitate mating and unmating."



http://www.scantool.net/images/diagrams/j1962f_type_b.gif

Fig. 2 - J1962 Vehicle Connector, Type B




As a general rule, you can determine which protocol your vehicle is using by looking at the pinout of the DLC:



http://www.scantool.net/images/diagrams/j1962f_pinout.gif

Fig. 3


The following table explains how to determine the protocol:

Pin 2Pin 6Pin 7Pin 10Pin 14Pin 15Standardmust have--must have--J1850 PWMmust have-----J1850 VPW--must have--may have*ISO9141/14230-must have--must have-ISO15765 (CAN)
*Pin 15 (also called the "L-line") is optional in newer vehicles that use the ISO9141-2 or ISO14230-4 protocols.

In addition to pins 2, 7, 10, and 15, the connector should have pins 4 (Chassis Ground), 5 (Signal Ground), and 16 (Battery Positive). This means that:


PWMThe connector must have pins 2, 4, 5, 10, and 16VPWThe connector must have pins 2, 4, 5, and 16, but not 10.ISOThe connector must have pins 4, 5, 7, and 16. Pin 15 may or may not be present.CANThe connector must have pins 4, 5, 6, 14, and 16.

[Aquahead2001]

Geoff, your a legend! Apologies for getting the OBD acronym around the wrong way...

Do you know about wiring a hands free kit in to work with the radio??

Cheers

Aquahead

[WARNSIE]

i have had the STEINBAUER power module fitted and i went for a 2000km 5 day trip through the south west and up to perth,im very impressed with this unit it sure has provided more power with out the loss of fuel consumption i did 643 ks useing 59 lts of fuel traveling at a steady 110 km/hr,but i got to get cruise control as its just too easy to speed,you can now sit on 140km,h and still accelerate away quite quickly to 160,have taken a few of mates for a drive and they are very impresed

Your telling me you get nearly 650km out of a tank? Mate the best I can get out of my single cab BT-50 is 500km, and thats pushin it. Highway or stop-start traffic...

[Aquahead2001]

Your telling me you get nearly 650km out of a tank? Mate the best I can get out of my single cab BT-50 is 500km, and thats pushin it. Highway or stop-start traffic...

It wouldn't be hard, I'm averaging just under 10L/100km for my Ranger, getting 600kms to 58-59 litres. This for city, suburban and a little 100km/h driving.

[WARNSIE]

What is everyone getting in regards to fuel economy with there BT/Ranger rigs. I am only squeezing 500km out of my single cab 4x4 BT-50 (TJM bullbar and 31's- nothing serious). Mazda reckons it needs to be ran in a bit more, but she's got 9000km's on the clock now... I got a mate with one & he's getting 600+ km's with less k's on it... Barsteds.............

It's starting to turn into a shit fight with Mazda because they reckon the consumption is normal. But it's averaging out at about 12-13L/100km's since I picked up from the dealer nearly 10 000km ago (mixed driving but more highway k's). That makes it the same consumption as my old petrol Bravo... If everyone could telln me there average and I will give all the stats to these bludgers at Mazda and then see what they have to say...
:drink:

[stRANGER69]

:drink: hello warnsie and other bt-50,ranger owners cross oz.have a ranger duall cab manual 4x4 and piss in 600kms with 10-15ltrs left in tank.Best effort 9.66ltrs/hundred.like others feel speedo is a bit slow,havent had a chance 2 compare it with something else.just seems slower than general traffic flow especially in 100 zones.whether there got pedal 2 the metal dont know?on another note got the ranger booked in 4 new stereo as the display is missing parts of letters and numbers.Has anyone else suffered this fate??.Small gripe i know its just bloody annoying too look at new car and all.small crunch from second too third as well and rear mudflaps have torn off-plastic fixings weak as piss,bigger deeper pot rivets work much better.other than that goes like a rocket!!!!

[Aquahead2001]

:drink: hello warnsie and other bt-50,ranger owners cross oz.have a ranger duall cab manual 4x4 and piss in 600kms with 10-15ltrs left in tank.Best effort 9.66ltrs/hundred.like others feel speedo is a bit slow,havent had a chance 2 compare it with something else.just seems slower than general traffic flow especially in 100 zones.whether there got pedal 2 the metal dont know?on another note got the ranger booked in 4 new stereo as the display is missing parts of letters and numbers.Has anyone else suffered this fate??.Small gripe i know its just bloody annoying too look at new car and all.small crunch from second too third as well and rear mudflaps have torn off-plastic fixings weak as piss,bigger deeper pot rivets work much better.other than that goes like a rocket!!!!


My fuel economy is hovering around the 9.6 to 10.1L/100km mark, can just squeeze 58-59 litres in when the light comes on. This is usually 580 to 600km's of general city, suburban and some short highway driving.

Yesterday had my first freeway experience, up to Tulla and back, 220kms round trip, needle just touching 3/4 full mark on gauge. As I'm heading off OS for a couple of weeks, I wont get to check the economy for a fair while...

I also have a notchy second to third change, mine goes in tomorrow for it's 3,000km check up, and I've highlighted it to them. Hopefully it's a matter of adjusting the clutch as it needs to be fully depressed to disingage properly.

Also got a loose tail gate and the brakes are a bit spongy.

Other than that, I love it.

[dulvari]

I was thinking about this fuel consumption thing today, are the guys getting good k's to a tank still running 245/70/16's, if so, would it be right that because your speedos are reading up to 10km's too fast (mine was until on put on 245/75/16 tyres) that this is why your k's per tank seems higher, on my last 2 tanks (90% highway) i've managed 530 & 540k's, both refills took 53ltrs, so being an auto this is pretty close with fords 10.5ltrs/100k's, now if i was still running 245/70's, and the speedo was reading 10k's/hr faster, the k's cover would have been closer to 600.
Would this be correct?

Jayde

[drifter49]

Gdday warnsie (and others).
I did reply to your post ref fuel consumption in another thread. I will repeat it here so you can easily collate all the replies.

My vehicle is a stock standard 4x4 bt50 single cab trayback with 4000 kms on the clock. All driving to date has been with a light load in the tray.

Driving in the Perth metro area I get 9.2 - 9.4 l/100km (not real heavy traffic and quite a bit of 80 -90 km/h highway/freeway travel).

Country driving (eg Perth - Geraldton) at a constant 110/115 km/h i get 11 l/100 km.

Traybacks of course are not very aerodynamic and the consumption suffers at higher speeds. I do plan to modify the headboard to cut down the wind resistance which may make some improvement.

Cheers,
drifter

edit - I have not corrected the above l/100Km figures or odometer error (which I have not fully investigated but dont believe is very significant). The km/h readings are all from my scangauge which I have calibrated with a GPS.
Transmission is manual.

[Aquahead2001]

I was thinking about this fuel consumption thing today, are the guys getting good k's to a tank still running 245/70/16's, if so, would it be right that because your speedos are reading up to 10km's too fast (mine was until on put on 245/75/16 tyres) that this is why your k's per tank seems higher, on my last 2 tanks (90% highway) i've managed 530 & 540k's, both refills took 53ltrs, so being an auto this is pretty close with fords 10.5ltrs/100k's, now if i was still running 245/70's, and the speedo was reading 10k's/hr faster, the k's cover would have been closer to 600.
Would this be correct?

Jayde

My Ranger is stock in the drive line area and using GPS (Various) I have an 8% error on the Speedo and a 5% error on the Odometer (over nearly 100km). Example: This puts my corrected distance at 600km x 95% = 570km.

Now putting that figure into the economy test = 58 litres / 570kms * 100 = 10.17L/100km.

Using an uncorrected distance = 58 litres / 600kms * 100 = 9.67L/100km

Difference - 0.5L/100km. Important, but not the significant difference other people have stated. I think 12L/100km is a figure that people have said...

If I went up in tyre size from 245/70-16 to 255/75-16 there would be a 5% Change in drive ratio, thus making my Odometer accurate. But what would this do the performance characteristics?

I'd say it would have an impact.

Aquahead

[BravoSDX]

I'm surprised at the economy some of you BT-50 and Rangers guys are getting. The manual 3.0 is rated at 9.4l/100kms from memory - looking at the yellow windscreen label.

When I bought my 06 Bravo t/diesel it had a fuel rating of 10.1/100kms. When the BT's first came out I though great, I'll trade up to a newer one. But after reading this thread, I'll probably stick with my Bravo. I constantly get in the high 7's to mid 8's.

I'll admit, I drive like a grandpa and change up at 1700-2000rpm all the time and do 80km/h on the highway and rarely carry a load, but I also have relatively wide tyres too, the bridgestone dueler 265/75's. Off course, the economy goes up when in soft sand i.e. jumps up to around 15l/100kms or when towing my tinny (about 10l/100kms), but I guess I have nothing to worry about. Also, I don't have a bullbar either, just trying to keep it light as possible.

Just a tip - make sure your tyres pressures are up. These new common rail engines are great, they're powerful, can tow heaps, but power comes at a price - more fuel.

[rogie from WA]

Your telling me you get nearly 650km out of a tank? Mate the best I can get out of my single cab BT-50 is 500km, and thats pushin it. Highway or stop-start traffic...
yeah thats right when empty

[rogie from WA]

I was thinking about this fuel consumption thing today, are the guys getting good k's to a tank still running 245/70/16's, if so, would it be right that because your speedos are reading up to 10km's too fast (mine was until on put on 245/75/16 tyres) that this is why your k's per tank seems higher, on my last 2 tanks (90% highway) i've managed 530 & 540k's, both refills took 53ltrs, so being an auto this is pretty close with fords 10.5ltrs/100k's, now if i was still running 245/70's, and the speedo was reading 10k's/hr faster, the k's cover would have been closer to 600.
Would this be correct?

Jayde

you would be right there,my speedo was out by 10ks going by my brothers gps though i dont know how accurate they are does anyone know? i took it too ford and they reckon it was 1.5ks out but im sure its more than that,i now have 245/75 tyres it should be a bit closer to the mark now

[rogie from WA]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/rogieoz/P1050173.jpg?t=1212484864 (javascript:void(0);)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/rogieoz/P1050170.jpg?t=1212484900 (javascript:void(0);)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/rogieoz/P1050167.jpg?t=1212484930 (javascript:void(0);)

[dulvari]

I did a search on the accuracy of GPS and satnav's and all said they were very accurate, someone even mentioned atomic clock accuracy, using atomic clocks or something like that, and people were also saying that they were not getting done when they were going through speed traps, whether being car, hand held or cameras, i know I've been past a speed camera doing around 5 over on the satnav, which is around 15 over on the speedo and never received a photo in the mail, that's in my 2WD ranger which reads 10k's faster than the satnav at 100-110km.

Rogie how do you find the MTR's, i put my 265/70 AT's back on today, the tyre noise from the bighorns were really starting to get annoying, especially on the h/way.
Because i never got to give the AT's a good work out, it'll be interesting to see how they go compared to the bighorns, i'm a bit worried about the sidewalls though, off the rim they feel nowhere near as strong as the bighorns.

Jayde

[rogie from WA]

I did a search on the accuracy of GPS and satnav's and all said they were very accurate, someone even mentioned atomic clock accuracy, using atomic clocks or something like that, and people were also saying that they were not getting done when they were going through speed traps, whether being car, hand held or cameras, i know I've been past a speed camera doing around 5 over on the satnav, which is around 15 over on the speedo and never received a photo in the mail, that's in my 2WD ranger which reads 10k's faster than the satnav at 100-110km.

Rogie how do you find the MTR's, i put my 265/70 AT's back on today, the tyre noise from the bighorns were really starting to get annoying, especially on the h/way.
Because i never got to give the AT's a good work out, it'll be interesting to see how they go compared to the bighorns, i'm a bit worried about the sidewalls though, off the rim they feel nowhere near as strong as the bighorns.

Jayde
there a bit noisyer than the standard ones and the sidewalls are 3 ply and have the rubber extending around the sidewalls a bit as in the pic,i had to cut the inside top on the mudflaps a little as they just touched but other than that there all good,i probly go with the more all terrain ones next time as they have the tough side walls as well

[polecat]

Anyone heard of Ranger's & BT-50's breaking chassis, I think I saw a BT somewhere in here with a Camper on it's back & broken chassis rails, one of the blokes @ work has just come back from the simpson & @ the lone gum tree they found a ranger with the rear chassis rails broken. he has e-mailed me 1 photo and will send more when he gets sorted out.

for some reason i cannot get into photobucket so if anyone wants to see it just send me a private message & ill send it to ya


so much for being built ford tough it makes you wonder just how tough thy r

[drifter49]

Yep - there was a bt50 shown here a while back with a broken chasssis. As I recall it was a dual cab with tray and a slip on camper on the back. Apparently it was weighed and found to be well overloaded and looked to have a lot of weight behind the back axle - so probably not an indication of any fault with the vehicle. What body style was the one you refer to Polecat and did it have a camper or any suggestion that it was overloaded or poor weight distribution.

[polecat]

Yep - there was a bt50 shown here a while back with a broken chasssis. As I recall it was a dual cab with tray and a slip on camper on the back. Apparently it was weighed and found to be well overloaded and looked to have a lot of weight behind the back axle - so probably not an indication of any fault with the vehicle. What body style was the one you refer to Polecat and did it have a camper or any suggestion that it was overloaded or poor weight distribution.



It was a xl dual cab tray top, with a large home made box on the back, as for weight i have no idea.

[polecat]

The Ranger


http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa295/billy1volt/Desertcrossing2008084.jpg?t=1216980902

[polecat]

Anyone know what this is?


http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa295/billy1volt/IMG_1389.jpg?t=1216981088

[dulvari]

I think it's called an Everest

[drifter49]

Yep - ford everest based on ranger mechanicals and sold in various parts (mainly asia). They might be a good thing - maybe the full length bodywork might stop the chassis from bending

[Aquahead2001]

The Thread with the Bent Chassis also said that the vehicle has a set of aftermarket air springs and they'd concluded that they had put considerable force on the chassis right at the point where it bent.

This image also looks suspiciously like the chassis has bent above the centerline of the axle, makeing me think that a set of air springs may be fitted to this vehicle as well.

[BT50]

These are the pictures of the airbags and bent chassis from the overloaded BT50 with slide on camper:

20879

20880

[polecat]

These are the pictures of the airbags and bent chassis from the overloaded BT50 with slide on camper:

20879

20880


BT50
Do you know what was done to fix the chassis?
Was it laminated?

[murcod]

It's starting to turn into a shit fight with Mazda because they reckon the consumption is normal. But it's averaging out at about 12-13L/100km's since I picked up from the dealer nearly 10 000km ago (mixed driving but more highway k's). That makes it the same consumption as my old petrol Bravo... If everyone could telln me there average and I will give all the stats to these bludgers at Mazda and then see what they have to say...
:drink:


The inlaws have just bought a new BT50 SDX dual cab auto and said they're averaging 15l/100km!?

Needless to say they're not impressed as that's taking it easy, it's only done around 1000km.

[Matty R]

My fuel consumpion was pretty bad for the 1st 1000ks but it got better. Im avarageing between 9.2 to 9.6. The best ive had is 8.7 and the worst is 12.8 but that was towing about 1800kgs. SDX manual now with 20,000ks.

[suerayii]

A local mechanic says he has had a few Rangers with cracked heads. Any one know of this problem with Ranger/BT50? . I want to e gas and chip one but if it cant take the extra power I may have to look elsewhere.

[Aquahead2001]

I have a mate who works for our local council, they have had no trouble with their Rangers (Fleet of 12 of them). However, they have experienced trouble with the last of the 2.5TD Couriers, 80 to 100k KM, engines have been doing heads.

These all get a thrashing as you could imagine, but the maintenance was kept up to them.

[murcod]

My fuel consumpion was pretty bad for the 1st 1000ks but it got better. Im avarageing between 9.2 to 9.6. The best ive had is 8.7 and the worst is 12.8 but that was towing about 1800kgs. SDX manual now with 20,000ks.


I've done a bit of searching on a few forums and the common factor with the high consumption always seems to be the auto trans. This one does have some weight in the back (probably 200kg) and a canopy but that shouldn't make it that bad?

I've got some OBDII software on my laptop that does instantaneous fuel consumption so it will be interesting to hook that up and have a look at cruising speed figures.

[stRanger]

I'm currenty averaging 9.8L/100k with 25,000 Km's done in 07 Ranger Auto. Best is 9.2L/100k, Worst was 12.6L/100k although this was early on whilst still running in.

[murcod]

:) Well there goes that theory! Is that calculated from actual fuel usage or using your Scanguage? Also, perhaps the servo they use could do with investigating?

Anyone else with an auto got figures?

[stRanger]

:) Well there goes that theory! Is that calculated from actual fuel usage or using your Scanguage? Also, perhaps the servo they use could do with investigating?

Anyone else with an auto got figures?


Thats calculated. Using different servo's, although most are BP. :thumb:

[Aquahead2001]

Just did my first real tow with my Ranger Manual on the weekend, 120km into the fairly nasty head wind with our old pop-top caravan, compete trail bike in the tub and the tribe inside. Also added about 100km in 4WD Low having some fun following my son and brother in law on their trail bikes.

No real long cruise all weekend, but still achieved reasonable economy with 59.08L consmed for 497km traveled which equals 11.9L/100km. Seeing the rest of the tank was my usual drive of urban/short highway driving, where I achieve around 9.7L/100km, I'll estimate that I probably achieved around 12.5 to 13L/100km towing and on the fire trails.

On the way back to my brother in law's farm, the gravel roads opened up and I had a heap of fun power sliding the Ranger through the bends. Third Gear was just perfect to gently loose traction. Also gave it plenty of water baths, but nothing seriously deep, 350mm, and lots of splash.

Will be heading up to Sheepyard Flat next weekend, do I need to add anti-freeze?

[murcod]

The inlaws took their BT50 in for the first service during the week. The dealer reckons there have been some software updates since it was delivered a month ago, so they uploaded updates. (My guess is they didn't check on the pre delivery, but I could be wrong! ;) )

Anyway, they reckon the auto changes a lot better now and is noticeably different to drive. Time will tell if the economy has improved at all.

[duk]

Couple of queries guys for the Ranger (Dec 07 Supercab);

Has anyone tried running 275/70 tyres;

Suspensions upgrades - looking at TJM, OME (ARB) or Tough Dog - anyone got any experience comments - good or bad.

[stRANGER69]

Couple of queries guys for the Ranger (Dec 07 Supercab);

Has anyone tried running 275/70 tyres;

Suspensions upgrades - looking at TJM, OME (ARB) or Tough Dog - anyone got any experience comments - good or bad.
Have a look at EFS 100,000-3yr warranty about $1800 dollars thats everything including torsion bars and front shock mount bracing.They wont honour warranty without them.Same leaf springs as tjm so i am told.I have them on order not available til october.Yes a bit dearer but that warranty stands alone.OME 40,000kms or 2 yr.

[BFT RANGER]

has anyone got a photo of the front shock mount bracing.
is this need when you replace the suspension ?.

[stRANGER69]

mate no pics,go to EFS4wd (http://www.efs4wd.com.au) click on products then components, scroll down the page and there is a picture of them,not sure if that is ranger but you get the idea,there is another picture of landcruiser ones if u scout around.Nothing too fancy just an angled bracket.If you look at the front shocker at the top u can see there value i think.$60 a pair, as i said though 4 me they will be compulsory because i want the warranty.I reckon they would be a fits all by the look of them.Cheers.

[BFT RANGER]

Cheers mate. just spoke to the WA outlet and they have done heaps of ranger's and had never heard of them so he was going to contact EFS and get me a price.Thanks again for the info.
Millsy

[stRANGER69]

Was that an efs outlet,that sounds strange that they havent heard of them? i am just going on what the local distributor in s.a was telling me.It does say on the quote that"brackets must be fitted to courier/bravo"agent was using old form and insisted that applied to ranger,bt-50 as well.I didnt argue they are all one and the same.

[BFT RANGER]

Yep they are the WA EFS distributor and they have quoted me $77 for the pair.

[cammo79]

ive got 16" 265 75s on my bt they fit ok

[stRANGER69]

Yep they are the WA EFS distributor and they have quoted me $77 for the pair.
Yeah i got a bit trimmed off buying the whole kit and kaboodle.Ya may may as well whack em on ay.Thats good news cammo79 i was going to stick cooper st's 265/75 on.were u able to check speedo out before and after?Cheers.

[BT50]

BT50
Do you know what was done to fix the chassis?
Was it laminated?

Haven't checked in for a while.

Don't know how it was fixed. Was deemed an insurance job so would have gone to panel beaters.

[polecat]

Some more Photo's of the Ranger in the Simpson.
http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa295/billy1volt/th_Desertcrossing2008084.jpg

http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa295/billy1volt/th_ranger03.jpg

http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa295/billy1volt/th_ranger02.jpg

http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa295/billy1volt/th_ranger01.jpg

[Matty R]

ouch

[cammo79]

Yeah i got a bit trimmed off buying the whole kit and kaboodle.Ya may may as well whack em on ay.Thats good news cammo79 i was going to stick cooper st's 265/75 on.were u able to check speedo out before and after?Cheers.


Speedo is only 5kms out at 100(checked on garmin gps unit) and i havent really noticed any loss in power, it was very minimal, it does scrape on bumps on full lock but thats nothing a hacksaw wont fix(factory plastic mud flaps)

Cam

[dulvari]

Cam, a stanley knife will do the trick, slices through the plastic easily.