Ford Ranger v Holden Colorado 2016 Comparison

It’s a solid base for Ranger to start this comparison from, and one that should have Holden’s newly-revised Colorado shaking in its boots.

Or should it? Holden’s Melbourne-based engineering team has worked hard to improve the now five-year-old model, refining areas including driveline, chassis, cabin refinement and safety and infotainment technology. Let’s see how it fares.

The Colorado hasn’t performed well in previous comparison tests. In our most recent site-horse stoush it ranked second-last behind Isuzu’s D-MAX, our judges criticising the Holden’s poor NVH isolation, loose ride, uneasy towing performance and lowest-on-test payload capacity.

With those areas now improved, it was felt the Colorado deserved a chance to prove itself. In short, we aim to see how far it’s closed the gap on the current class champ; and if that measure can score Holden a boost up the sales charts.

To the end of last month (August 2016), the Holden Colorado sold just 12,675 units Down Under, around half that of Ford’s Ranger (24,037 units).

The modern dual-cab four-wheel drive ute is no longer just a workhorse. Sure, that’s a significant part of its brief; but with car-like drivability, tech and safety levels and cabin refinement now as important as payload and towing capacity, the recreational family market is clearly a valuable customer.

Off-road adventure touring is a now-critical element of what vehicles like the Colorado and Ranger must do well, usually with a boat, van or camper-trailer in tow. Ford and Holden know this, which is a big part of the reason General Motors invested so heavily in Colorado’s refurbishment.

To get a better understanding of how Colorado and Ranger perform, we’ll test a variety of elements, including load-lugging ability, and on and off-road performance.

On test are the Ford Ranger XLT (from $55,615 plus ORCs) and the Holden Colorado LTZ (from $52,690 plus ORCs). Each is generously equipped with plentiful driver safety items, dual-range four-wheel drive and up-to-date infotainment arrays: Ranger with Ford’s SYNC system and Colorado sporting Holden’s MyLink set-up.

Holden and Ford both offer a three-year / 100,000km warranty on their tradie trucks, Ford adding seven years / 105,000km roadside assistance as part of its lifetime capped-price servicing scheme. Holden offers a similar arrangement for the Colorado, also including breakdown assistance as part of the deal.

The Ranger’s service intervals are set at 12 months / 15,000km where Holden stipulates a nine-month / 15,000km increment for the Colorado.

The Ranger is more compliant unloaded, and doesn’t ‘skate’ as much on wet or loose surfaces. Holden wins a little back when loaded (we tested each with 650kg in the tray), however, the Colorado finding the bump stops far less often than Ford’s Ranger.

We preferred the brake pedal feel of the Ranger, but found the Colorado’s throttle better metered. Ford wins a little back with the inclusion of adaptive cruise control, maintaining an exact speed regardless of terrain and payload. The Sport mode offered in the Ranger’s six-speed automatic is beneficial when hauling.

The Ford’s rear differential lock is a huge bonus off-road, the Holden’s stability and traction control (used to mimic the operation of a mechanical locking diff) often inhibiting progress just when you need it most.

Ranger’s dual-zone climate control was better regulated than the Colorado’s inconsistent single-zone system, although the Apple CarPlay interface offered in the Holden is far more useful than Ford’s proprietary system.

The Holden wins back ground with better low-beam headlights, offering more distance and spread than the Colorado, but loses a little on the ergonomic front, Ford’s more generous seat cushion offering better thigh support.

We reckon the Colorado could still do with a little polishing where engine and transmission calibration is concerned. It’s much improved over the outgoing model, but is still left in the shade when compared to the Ranger.

It’s a trivial point, but the Holden’s aft centre-console cup-holder is effectively useless, though we think it wins a little back by housing its USB port in the console bin, making it easier to hide your device from prying eyes.

Ford should offer electrically-adjustable seats at this price, a feature found standard in the Holden. However, we think Holden should offer a tray bed light, a feature Ford includes across the Ranger line-up.

There’s really very little in it. Both the Colorado and Ranger are exceptionally capable vehicles and offer pretty good value for money in the class. Each has its pros and cons, but it’s the Ranger in which we found less to complain about.

Holden may have closed the gap with its latest Colorado, but it’s the Ranger that is the most cohesive package – and one that we think better suits the broader audience that dual-cab utes are now required to mollify.

2016 Ford Ranger XLT

2016 Holden Colorado LTZ