Ford Ranger Review | CarAdvice

Car Advice

Ford Ranger Review

FORD RANGER

Pros: Car-like steering; good road manners; high towing capacity; grunty diesel; cabin space; well-sized tray; interior design; well equipped

Cons: More expensive than Mazda twin; diesel still more truck-like than SUV-like; fuel efficiency could be better

By Jez Spinks |
FIND DEALS

Price: $53,390

Our Rating:  

The Ford Ranger may not be built here, but the big ute arguably has as much right to describe itself as Australian as much as the likes of the Toyota Camry and Holden Cruze.

The Blue Oval’s new-generation utility was designed, engineered and tested primarily by Ford Australia, and predominantly in Victoria.

All-new from the ground up, the Ford Ranger is being sold around the world as part of the company’s One Ford product strategy. It’s imported to Australia from Thailand where it’s built alongside the twin-under-the-skin Mazda BT-50.

There’s no confusing the two utes, though. Where Mazda has opted for a polarising exterior, particularly the drooping front end, Ford has stuck with a design that reflects its long-associated ‘Built Tough’ slogan.

Ford says it mixes elements of US Ford design and the Ford Europe ‘kinetic’ design language, though it’s the former that dominates most – notably the front end with the bold, triple-bar chrome grille.

And it’s arguably the best-looking ute on the market.

The Ford Ranger, released in September 2011, now has its full range available – with supply normalised after disruptions caused by last year’s Thai floods.

There are 20 variants all up, comprising Single Cabs (single-cab chassis, single-cab ute), Super Cabs (extended-cab chassis, extended-cab ute) and Double Cabs (dual-cab chassis, dual-cab ute). There are ‘Hi-rider’ versions with raised suspension, two main trim levels (XT and XLT) and a choice of 4×2 or 4×4.

We tested a Ford Ranger XLT 4×4 dual-cab ute that sits towards the top of the pecking order, a place below the range-topping Wildtrak, and costing from $53,390.

The XLT is a more luxury-focused trim compared with the more workman-like XL.

That brings more convenience/comfort features, such as dual-zone climate control, floor carpets, rain-sensing wipers, auto-dimming rear view mirror, and privacy glass.

XLT also adds multiple chrome touches – grille, door handles, tailgate handle, rear bumper, side steps and sports bar.

There are also rear parking sensors that are much needed for such a large vehicle – though it’s a pity the Wildtrack is the only Ranger to be fitted as standard with a reverse-view camera.

The Ford Ranger was previously a big unit but now it’s even taller, longer and wider than before.

It stretches to 5.35 metres, with 3.22m of that accounting for the wheelbase.

Shifting the 2159kg mass of this Ranger XLT is a 3.2-litre five-cylinder turbo diesel, mated to a $2000 optional six-speed auto in our test model rather than the standard six-speed manual.

It produces 147kW at 3000rpm though buyers looking for grunt will take greater note of the torque figure: 470Nm delivered between 1500 and 2750 revs.

In terms of literal pulling power, the Ranger XLTs 3350kg towing capability is beaten only by the 3500kg mark of the all-new Holden Colorado. (A tow bar is also standard on the XLT.)

On the road there’s bucketloads of torque from the deep well of the Ranger’s five-cylinder. There’s so much muscle low down in the rev range that it’s easy to chirp the rear tyres.

The diesel is quite refined when cruising, though there’s a more pronounced rattle under acceleration.

The delivery of power is generally superb, however – both linear and meaty. And the Ford Ranger XLT is effortless to drive even on light throttle, with smooth gearchanges provided by the excellent auto.

That’s just one of the factors that makes the Ranger one of the picks of the dual-cab segment that continues to expand its appeal beyond work sites to those looking for an ultra-versatile vehicle that can help with the trade during the week while transporting family or lifestyle equipment at the weekend.

Another key area is how the Ford Ranger drives.

While there’s no revolution underneath – the Ranger continues with almost-prehistoric rear leaf springs that are biased towards load-carrying abilities – Ford’s ute rides surprisingly comfortably, with little of the bouncing tendencies experienced with some rivals such as the category-dominating Toyota HiLux.

The Ranger’s steering is also relatively brilliant, for a ute – more direct and car-like than the segment norm. The turning circle is also surprisingly tight, making the big Ford fairly easy to manoeuvre around both city and suburbs.

It also goes around corners well to a point, but while the those leaf springs inevitably limit the Ranger’s dynamic qualities.

So you’ll discover an effective stability control system – standard across the Ranger range unlike some other utes such as the HiLux – keeping things in check if you’re too eager with the throttle, especially when cornering in the wet.

A load in the tray – which is competitively sized, by the way – would certainly help that rear-end stability. On dirt or gravel tracks, drivers can engage four-wheel-drive (high or low) via a centre console switch (there’s also hill descent control and a rear differential lock for off-roading).

Ford’s designers have also made the Ranger’s interior more car-like.

Tough plastics are still the go, but there’s a strong argument for durability over tactility for utes.

Otherwise there are stalks, buttons and dials familiar from Ford passenger cars such as the Focus small car.

There are also similar design cues though the Ranger, suitably, gets a masculine-looking approach that matches the exterior.

The instrument cluster is even inspired by Casio’s chunky G-Shock watches.

Dual-cab utes used to feature perpendicular rear seats that left passengers bolt upright, but the newer models are less neglectful and the Ranger is typical of the modern breed by offering a more comfortable reclined seatback position.

Ford claims the Ranger has 20 storage spaces, and we certainly never struggled to find places to store various items such as mobiles, coffees, wallets and bottles of water.

Peace of mind is also offered by six airbags – dual front, side and curtain airbags – and the fact the Ford Ranger scored a maximum five stars in independent crash testing by NCAP.

One of the only major irksome points with the Ranger is that the twin Mazda BT-50, the XTR dual-cab 4×4 3.2 diesel, costs a few thousand dollars less at $48,810.

The Ford Ranger still sits among an elite group of dual-cab utes, which also includes the Mazda and the Volkswagen Amarok, that have distanced themselves from competitors in leading safety scores and features, and in the way the drive.

 


 

Owner reviews of the FORD RANGER Add a New Review

  • Robin_Graves

    Top of the wozza in the ute market.  Will be interesting to see if there is any issues in the longer term, normally the first model off the line has a couple of issues.

    • AB

      I drove an XL 3.2 manual last night and all I can say is wow!
      The ride quality is unbelievable, the cabin is so quiet, comfortable and spacious and build quality is very good.
      The Ranger made my GU Patrol feel like an underpowered tractor!!

      Im sold!!

  • davo

    Yawn…..styling.

    • D987

       I think it’s the best looking ute currently available.

      • davo

        its cousin has my vote…..as its not boring…..

        • Housecat84

          If by “not boring” you mean ugly but exciting. I’d rather go the Mini F-Series thanks. 

          • Loft

            I think it looks great, if so many people like bt styling I’m suprised I don’t see ssangyong utes everywhere as they have been hit with the ugly stick.

          • davo

            who wants hand me down yanky styling….its all about choice and I would rather save the $$$ and have a more modern, fresh styled looking ute….

        • Sumpguard

            Sanggyong’s worst is still be far better looking than the BT 50. I thought I’d get used to it but I haven’t. It’s still aweful. I’d take the ford over all others in the segment.

    • Schah7

      Christ “DAVO” please get over “I’m SUCH a HOLDEN lover” and grow up.!
      How about saying something “POSITIVE” for a change.! Is your “life” so depressing cause it certainly reflects in your comments.! lol.!

      • davo

        awwww now that hurt NOT…….Holden lover never Ford absolutley not…..and as for my comment….your about as boring as the new look crappy Ranger…….

        • Schah7

           Davo your lastest comment only just confirms you seriously need to GROW-UP.
          Hey how about being happy a local manufacturer [in this case FORD] has done sure a excellent design/tech/engineering job. Which can only be POSITIVE even in your pathetic NEGATIVE existence

          • davo

            actually all I commented on was the look as I don’t like it as its boring….you started the slangin match…now who is the immature one….I have owned and raced Mazda’s for over 30yrs so my $$$ would go to the radical, fresh bold looking Mazda BT50….the superior of the two..get a life buddy…..

  • symo

    Never knew the tow bar was standard, there goes my plan to install a more hidden Hayman Reese version…

    • Insider

      You could always get the hidden Hayman Reese unit installed anyway, and sell the factory fitted unit to an XL owner or whatever…

  • Doctor

    The VW and new D-Max are the 2 best looking IMHO. The D-Max has the best towing capacity at GVM – a full 3 tonne. VW has upgraded the Amarok’s towing capacity to 3,000 kg, but I don’t know if the GCM has been upgraded too. Ranger is only 2,750 kg at GVM.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YQLKLFNYP3UFBFAGOV2LNDSREA Robert Ryan

       According to Ford it is 3350Kg, same as the Mazda. The Amarok with the new Automatic transmission goes to 3000Kg. The Colorado is supposed to have 3500kg

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Joash-Tan/100000351085371 Richard Joash Tan

        hi Robert! the Colorado already has 3500 kg 

    • Fred

      GVM does not include what you tow. It includes what is loaded in the tray though.

  • D987

    I’d be happy to spend a few thousand dollars extra to get a Ranger over the BT-50– the Mazda is just so ugly!

    • davo

      I agree to disagree….I love the radical look of the Mazda and the $$$$ in my pocket….

    • Clem

      I agree Ranger is better looking UTE. BT-50 will looks out dated very soon. It looks like a Joker. Smiling everywhere you go.

      • davo

        your choice clem but its smiling because its cheaper and superior…..

        • Housecat84

          If you want to follow the line of personification, I’d say it’s smiling because it hasn’t looked in the mirror yet. It’s just walked out from a Dodgey plastic surgery job and is still numb from the Botox and Local Anesthetic. I’d actually go as far as to say the BT looks like Jocelyn Wildenstein. Image search her and you’ll see…  

          • Captain Nemo®™

             I did what you suggested Housecat.
            Ewwwwwww Jocelyn looks like a Barbie doll that has been left on the parcel shelf of a car on a 40°c day.

          • davo

            that sounds like a comment from a latte drinking auto driver that has to have bling all over their ute…..we have more BT50′s on the road in Orange than the spewed up yank lunch looking Ranger that has to have its name across the back so we do think its something else as it looks like a bland POS……

          • Housecat84

            Haha.. Davo, you crack me up. Even Mazda had to put a bull bar on its BT’s in the Commercials just to make it look more palatable. I’ve seen a stack of rangers on the road. They’re not always Bright Blue and Top of the line but they’re there.. being used by tradies in the single cab a fair bit actually. That spewed up Yank Lunch you talk of  is ranked about number 14 in Australia compared to the BT-50 which is sitting around 26th. It’s also designed and engineered in our own back yard. As for what I drive. It’s a chipped Turbo Charged, six speed manual sedan. 

            Captain Nemo- the resemblance to the BT-50 is amazing huh!  

    • Modern Man

      the mazda also has less features compared to the ranger.

      therefore justifying the extra spend (let alone the styling that NEEDS $3000- of bullbar and alloys to make the bt50 look hidden.)

      • D987

        That is very true. When ever I see the BT-50 advertised with a bull bar to me it is an admission by Mazda Australia that they think it is ugly too.

      • D987

        That is very true. When ever I see the BT-50 advertised with a bull bar to me it is an admission by Mazda Australia that they think it is ugly too.

      • Ranging on

        Extra equipment in Ranger also includes roll bar behind cab and tray liner.
        I compared the two and bought Ranger. Have now done 16000km and very happy with it in every way.  Tows a 2700 kg van like a dream

      • davo

        what it misses out on is the bling…..and as for the bullbar Mazda was smart enough to have accessories ready to go than waiting months on end…..isnt selling a vehicle all about getting more $$$ for accessories…

  • Rocket

    Easily the best ute on the market.

  • chook

    Possibly the 3.2 diesel from ranger is the engine ford should have used in the territory……and potentially even falcon for that matter , and i guess for a lower cost and better power , ……..but on second thoughts the buyers would probably crucify ranger sales for having a single component in common with territory or falcon………such is their mentality !!!

    • Tony

      No, they’d crucify Ford because in general 3.2 diesel NVH is far too high for a car/SUV. It is also heavier than the current 2.7L, and you’d need to add another 100kg of sound deadening to achieve expected refinement for the class.

      The 2.7L diesel used in the Territory may not be a powergouse but it is very refined.

      • Doctor

        Tony, you’re probably right regarding the two engines – the 5 being from the Transit and the 6 from Landrover, etc. I have not driven either but I’d reckon that the Ranger would pull like a tractor. Pity about the towing capacity – if you tow a caravan you like to load up the ute too.

        • Zandit75

          Whats wrong with the towing capacity? How many kgs do you want to tow? The only vehicles that can do more(Apart from the supposedly higher Colorado) is a Yank import like the Ram or F-Trucks.Vastly superior to what was available just a few short years ago.

          • Ace

             Ranger weighs 2200kg, put four people and gear in it, say 800kg. The Ranger can now tow less than 3T. The maths is very similar for the Colorado. Look up GCM, and GVM to see the difference

          • Rod

            They are around 6 tonnes GCM. I don’t think you want to gross any more than that. Getting very heavy for a ute and on a car licence. If you need more than that then buy a proper truck or F truck.

            Also yes 800 KG is also a lot for 4 people and gear. I mean im pretty large at 80kg. You need 4 really big fat fellas and gear to get near 800KG

            Like I said, 6 tonnes on a car licence. Its getting too heavy already.

    • Legnab

      Perfect transport for the fordophiles who have to ditch their fast depreciating falcoons , and they can chuck a sheep in the back , baaaa .

      • Garrywhopper

        Cancer is funnier than you

      • Force-15

        If you ignore the trolls they will go away. Hopefully.

      • chook

        What happenned Legbag ??……did someone in a ford steal away your pretty boyfriend ??.

        • Robin_Graves

          He thinks his VeeDud hair dresser’s car is the quickest car on the street.  He probably just got blown into the weeds by an AU running on LPG thats done 750000km

      • Turbodewd

        troll!

      • Schah7

        You need to GROW UP too, Legoflamb

  • Prospector4000

    Whoops, Jez forgot about the nissan navara v6td, has more power, and a greater towing capacity.

    • Insider

      And is the most expensive of all the dual cab utes on the market.

      • Dudeface

        And is inferior to the Ranger in every other way. Have you seen the interior? $61K for THAT??

        • Prospector4000

          Screw the interior, I like power mate.

      • Prospector4000

        Power’s not cheap fella.

    • Rod

      Na, only 3000 tonnes has the Nav V6. But I almost bought one, the engine is great. But the car is kind of old. But the 5cyl ranger engine is kind of close to the V6 nav and sounds pretty good too, almost v8 like under light load. So to me the ranger won out on the test drive and I am very glad now that I bought it.

    • VB

      Yes and all you do is blow clutchs in them

  • the lone gunmen

    “The Ford Ranger, released in September 2011, now has its full range
    available – with supply normalised after disruptions caused by last
    year’s Thai floods.”

    This is simply not true, Ford are telling you stories. Many Ranger buyers including me have been waiting months and there continues to unexplainsed delays. The Ranger definitely has serious supply problems, still.

    • davo

      and mind you that supplies of the BT50 aren’t affected…….as much as the Ranger…600 units between them on sales last month and a percentage of Ford sales would be fleet….

      • Amlohac

        Nah Mazda have the same issues. Stil waiting on one lol.

  • Andrew M

    I dont get why the Review gives the Ranger a big green tick for being well specced, then the thumbs down for being dearer.

    When you compare the extra kit the Ranger gives you it easily makes up the few $K on the BT50.

    If you dont want to pay for the extra kit, buy the lesser specced XL

    • davo

      all you get on the XLT compared to the XTR is bling and a towbar…..is this something that a tradie really needs….

      • Andrew M

        Is half the kit on these utes nowdays really a necessity??

        Its still not the point, the Ranger still has a few extra things which justify the price, Just because you decide its just a bit of “bling” doesnt mean the Ranger is over charging you.

        Oh, and do you really think a Tradie doesnt want a Towbar??

    • Amlohac

      When you put those extras on a bt50 it still comes out cheaper than the Ranger, i think thats what they are getting at.

  • Andrew M

    And regarding the lesser towing capacity than the Colorado, anyone that thinks a vehicle with a smaller wheel base, smaller track, smaller engine and no trailer sway technology can tow more than the ranger is dreaming.

    I think Colorado has just put a figure on it for some sort of bragging rights

    • Zandit75

      Exactly, I really want to see a full on towing test for these vehicles and some one willing to put the maximum load possible(Legally of course) on the backof the ute and give us an unbiased review.
      Jez, is something like this in the pipeline?

      • Andrew M

        I would be up for that, noone ever tests towing ability, they just take the log book figure and assume its realistic. There is never an independant test on towing capacity.

        Problem might be lining up a decent trailer and getting the manufacturers OK to go ahead on their vehicle. They would probably blow an excuse that the engine isnt run it enough.

        • Garrywhopper

          That would be the most boring test ever, just take the word of the company, please?

          • Zandit75

            Whats wrong with finding out if a vehicle becomes dangerous to drive when fully loaded up?
            I know my Falcon ute feels very jittery with a trailer on the back, but not one review told me that before I bought the car.
            I would be very interested in seeing a test on this Trailer Sway technology and how it helps stabilise the car.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Joash-Tan/100000351085371 Richard Joash Tan

      this is not true. I am always biased towards the Colorado because the Ranger, even with the trailer sway control and 3.2 liter diesel, is too much for me.

  • Dennis

    My brother in law purchased a 2012 XLT with Auto, Tonneau Cover, Mats, Tints for $51K Driveaway. Had to wait 2 Months for it though…

  • Sheep2

    Thats a long wait

  • Guest_pest

    It’s the Ranger or Amarok for me.
    Can’t believe Mazda took what should have been a great ute & then made it look like a smiling clown.
    That’s just plain dumb, Mazda. 
    Utes are for men & they don’t want it looking like a girly Mazda 3.

  • Schn

    We should build this here, it would definitely sell, might be good for Ford Australia. 

  • jekyl & hyde

    2159kgs!!!! omg,it is quite the porky pig.although the jorno hasn’t harped on about it,i’d like to know what the “could be better” fuel economy was?…

  • Jaffre35

    Has anyone with a family bought this vehicle and been on a longer than 1 – 2hr trip. I’m concerned (coming from a GU wagon) the rear seating isnt going to be comfortable on long trips. I know its a dual cab and to some extent have to suck it up and realise it’s premise was for the commercial market long ago, but there’s nothing quiet like a whining family for 4 hours due to uncomfortable ride/seats. Would luv to hear any objective comments from you guys and girls out there.

    • NZ

       Yep have had if for 5 months now, purchased as a family car replacement…  Kids in the back…  Normally drive 4 to 5 hours at a go on holidays… I have ridden in the back for a 2 hr trip and I am 6ft4.  Have to say I would like a wee bit more rack to the back seat, but had plenty of leg room.  Works well for what it is… in my opinion…  can through the dive kit in the back with fish or whatever and not worry…unlike wagons…

  • Kljpc

    Delivery of the XLT is December at best at the moment…Thought that was bad until I was told an ST Navara would be January!

  • Rosco

    Working for a company that has a number of different brand utes all of which pull the same loaded up tandem trailers, its interesting to look at the advertised KW and the claimed torque figures, one brand I won’t name claims the highest power and torque needs a lot of gear swapping to keep it percolating whilst another begginning with I (and one of the lowest power/torque claims) hold gears on hills that others with 6 speeds don’t. I notice that many purchasers don’t look at the torque curve realising that a broad average is preferable to a narrow peak.
     Also note that the earlier model Ford and Mazda PJ/PK that do have a good torque spread finally got their lower gearing sorted in the new models and……they have gone back to a single mass clutch never admitting (like a few other manufacturers) that many owners had major problems with the dual mass clutches fitted and it was not due to driver useage!  Clutch specialists have been doing a roaring trade in single mass conversion kits for quite a number of manufacturers and they are remaining reliable. No more rattles, shudders or reducing clamping force.
     Ever tried to back a heavy trailer etc backwards up a driveway in a 3 litre Mazda or Ford PJ/PK? The engineer who chose the ratios for these manual boxes ought to be shot.
    My next choice will be probably the Mazda Spacecab baseline ute, but will havve to be fitted with a bar (or should I say a mask) reason…price and correct me if I’m wrong the Mazda 4×4 baseline comes with a diff lock, the Ford base model doesn’t . I don’t want carpet inserts, a dodgy single chrome roll, nah sports bar (wouldn’t support too much in a roll) and if I can have the A/T tyres of my choosing fitted not the crappy road rated tyres fitted as standard.fare.For the money saved not getting the bling I can buy quite a lot of useable extras of my choice and still come out ahead.

  • Natolsen

    has anyone any thoughts on 2.5lt petrol engine,yet to drive one but dealer assures me they are selling well.currently driving navara petrol.unsure whether to go from v6 198kw to v4 122kw.

  • Devincadillac

    Unfortunately, its still small compared to the current generation Toyota Tacoma

  • Hayd Evo

    They can’t be too bad… In my home town BMA & Rio Tinto have given their Toyota landcruiser & hilux company trucks the flick and replaced them with Ford Rangers…

  • Joanne hoad

    ford ranger 2012  towing problems at 6000 kg  GCM – GVM of 3200 kg = 2800 kg towing capity …not 3500 kg… or tow 3500kg with three passengers and nothing in the rear of the vehicle