Our test car was a double-cab Ranger in the mid-range Limited trim; there’s also the hairy-chested Wildtrak version that’s tipped to be the most popular in the UK. More basic XL (which is two-wheel drive only and does without the switchable all-wheel drive of other versions) and XL T versions are also offered.
The engine line-up includes the 2.2-litre, four-cylinder turbodiesel from the Mondeo/S-Max/Galaxy range with 148bhp, mated to a six-speed manual gearbox (tested here) or a six-speed automatic, and a 3.2-litre, five-cylinder turbodiesel with 197bhp and the same transmission options. A 123bhp version of the 2.2 is also offered on base models.
In its higher state of tune, the four-pot engine is a solid performer. There’s enough torque (277lb ft) to mask the Ranger’s sizeable mass, although there wasn’t a chance to test the Ranger’s performance with a maximum 1333kg payload. In-gear performance is strong, too; even in sixth, the Ranger responds to throttle inputs.
It’s a shame, then, that the gearbox isn’t quite as accomplished, feeling more like a truck than a car. The distances between the gears are greater than they should be, meaning a bit of searching with the left hand is required, particularly for third and fifth. Certainly given our experiences with the manual, the Ranger feels like it would be much better suited to the auto.
Our test route included some twisty roads through a Bavarian forest. Here, the Ranger performed much better than expected. It’s not nimble, but there’s less roll than you’d expect and a level of communication from the steering not normally associated with cars of its type.
On the motorway, it’s also competent; the engine spins at a quiet 2000rpm and wind noise is kept in check – apart from around the sizeable door mirrors. Ford claims the Ranger is the most aerodynamic in its class.
The spacious interior is also more car than truck. It’s not quite at the same level of luxury or design as Ford’s staple passenger cars, but given that the Ranger will live a tougher life than any Focus, an added level of durability is needed. The driving position is excellent, offering a commanding view of the road, and visibility is also impressive in the double-cab version.
Where the argument that the Ranger can be considered a road car really falls down is in its ride quality. It’s unmistakably a pick-up in this department. The ride is very bouncy, something needed for compensating for large loads, but there’s no adjustability for everyday use without a tonne of bricks in the back.
Join the debate
Add your comment
Land Rover DC100 “Ranger”
It would have been interesting - appropriate - if this review could have been looked upon as an appreciation of the prototype, of the oft-mentioned Land-Rover “utility series” of vehicles.
Maybe AUTOCAR's talented artist should have shown us what the Ranger would look like incorporating the “face” ( grill-lights-bumper ) of the DC100 . . . .
http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/lr/defender-concept/photo-and-video/
This is an impresive Pick up,
This is an impresive Pick up, (called a ute in my part of the world) these are going out the door like pancakes here in NZ, this is a closest thing to a car that has a solid rear axle. Also i can see why the 2.2 is more avalible in the UK, emissions perhaps? its only avalible by special order here, we dont have to worry about emission charges so we only have the 3.2, just an idea?
Confused by the engine range,
Confused by the engine range, the Ford/PSA 2.0 TDCI is good for 140 - 163 bhp and the 2.2 TDCI is good for 200bhp, so why have they detuned the 2.2 so much and then thrown in a 3.2 with 197, it makes no sense.
The logical solution would be 2.0 in low or high tune and 2.2 in normal tune, and forget the 3.2 that probably will not sell very well in Europe anyway.
This is a development of the
This is a development of the old "Puma" diesel engines, which is Ford only and nothing to do with PSA. It's also used in Transit and LR Defender. I'm pretty sure the last car it was used in was...the X-Type.
Hope this helps!
donjon wrote: This is a
Ah, clarification !
Thank you !