Ford Ranger v Volkswagen Amarok 2018 Comparison
High-spec dual-cab utes hold sway in the pick-up market, and high-performance engines are the new battlegroundPowertrains and passion
Dual-cab pick-ups (or 'utes') are often the largest-selling variants in any company's one-tonne commercial vehicle range. Their popularity with private buyers rests with the 4x4 models' go-anywhere ability. Around the same size as a medium or large SUV, the dual-cab 4x4 is more capable in the rough stuff than the soft-roaders.
Cashed-up private buyers often want more from dual-cabs, and performance frequently tops the list of those wants.
The Volkswagen Amarok and the Ford Ranger are two vehicles providing that extra whallop, but from two different means: a new, 580Nm V6 for the Amarok or a bi-turbo four-cylinder for the Range. Both are diesels and both enhance what are already accomplished packages.
Why are we comparing them?
The Ford Ranger and Volkswagen Amarok are proven designs. They've been around for ages and have been tested extensively over the years – but it's now looking like future models will end up on the same platform.
So this is not only a comparison of two new engines, it's also an assessment of two platforms possibly in competition for survival. The next Volkswagen Amarok may end up on Ford's T6 architecture currently underpinning the Ranger (and Mazda's BT-50), or next-generation models from Ford and VW will share a common platform superseding the T6 chassis.
So there's some added piquancy in this particular comparison... in addition to comparing high-output engines in premium packages.
Who will they appeal to?
Dual-cab pick-ups (either cab-chassis vehicles or utes with a load-carrying tub) are ideal for commercial fleets needing to transport more than two people plus their tools to remote localities. But these two premium models tested are aimed at families wanting a tradie’s workhorse with some creature comforts for weekends away with the spouse and kids.
These buyers don't care about the Amarok's pallet-loading width between the wheel arches. Rather, they are impressed by the Amarok's cupholders for the rear-seat occupants.
How closely can a dual-cab 4x4 approach the civility of an SUV or passenger car without relinquishing more than say five per cent of the innate off-road ability and load-lugging functionality? That's what the target buyers demand to know.
How much do they cost?
Volkswagen can supply a V6-engined Amarok Ultimate with 'just' 550Nm for $68,490, which is $3500 cheaper than the Amarok TDI580 ($71,990) taking part in this comparison. But that's still $4500 more than the Ford Ranger Wildtrak with the bi-turbo four-cylinder. At $63,990, the Ranger Wildtrak is $8000 less than the Amarok TDI580.
The Ranger also outguns the Amarok with its five-year/unlimited-kilometre warranty – two years longer than the Amarok's coverage. Volkswagen Australia is offering Amarok buyers five-year coverage for vehicles purchased prior to the end of 2018, but that’s a short-term campaign only.
Based on official fuel consumption figures, the Ford Ranger Wildtrak is cheaper to run than the Volkswagen Amarok TDI580 Ultimate. According to Redbook the Ranger costs $126 to travel 1000km, versus $152 for the Amarok. With fuel prices on the rise recently, the difference is likely to be greater than that in reality.
Equipment favours the Ranger Wildtrak, featuring standard safety equipment such as autonomous emergency braking (AEB) with pedestrian detection, lane-keep assist and driver fatigue warning.
On the comfort and convenience front, the Ranger Wildtrak comes with voice recognition, keyless starting and heated mirrors.
What do they do well?
Packaging is an outstanding aspect of the Amarok. There’s stadium seating in the rear for the kids, and an appropriate hip point. Side steps and grab handles help even the tiniest members of the family climb in. The roofline is a little higher than the Ranger’s, so adults won’t have to duck as much entering the rear of the cabin. Two cupholders already mentioned are fixed in place, forward of the centre seat position on the transmission tunnel.
Up front, the Amarok’s ergonomic design (instrument legibility and control placement/operation) is generally superior to the Ranger’s, with just the indicator stalk on the left of the steering column and the handbrake lever nearer the front passenger detracting from the whole.
The V6 engine of the Amarok is a powerful unit and reasonably economical too, given its performance potential. On a 50km run comprising 80km/h-limited country roads, a couple of klicks on the freeway and the rest suburban arterial roads, the Amarok posted a fuel consumption figure of 8.9L/100km. That's actually the same as the official (WLTP) combined-cycle figure.
The Ranger’s four-cylinder engine is responsive, refined and even sporty sounding once it’s up to operating temperature. After testing an Everest with the 3.2-litre five-cylinder engine earlier this year, the bi-turbo powerplant in the Ranger is a revelation for its quiet running.
Front seats are comfortable in both vehicles, with softer cushioning for the Ranger's pews and slightly better contouring for the Amarok's.
The smooth 10-speed automatic transmission is a very effective match and any rumble from the powertrain is eradicated at open-road speeds – to the point where it just cannot be easily distinguished from the subdued road noise. Fuel consumption over the 50km test loop was just 7.9L/100km.
Aussie engineering input has resulted in a ride quality that betters Euro prestige passenger cars, yet the Ranger will go off-road as well and still provide an acceptable level of grip on bitumen. It’s a communicative chassis overall, with nice strong brakes and good pedal feel too.
The Ranger has a 240-volt power outlet in the rear of the centre console and the Amarok comes with a power-adjustable front-passenger seat. Both vehicles are fitted with tailgates that are easy to close, but for our money the Ranger’s is ever so slightly lighter to lift.
What could they do better?
It’s a high step up into the cabin of the Ranger, and there are no grab handles on the B-pillars to assist passengers taking their seat in the rear. While the Ranger is just as roomy as the Amarok the roofline is lower over the rear doors. Even with the side steps fitted the Wildtrak is just a little harder to enter or leave.
The Ranger’s climate control switchgear comprises buttons in an organic-looking array, which is hard to take in at a glance. There are no dials, such as the Amarok features in its simpler interface. While the interior styling of the Wildtrak is more adventurous than the relatively conservative Amarok's, the switchgear placement looks busier. The Amarok’s infotainment touchscreen is nice to use, particularly with its predictive buttons, but the screen itself is tiny.
Both vehicles lack rear-seat adjustable vents.
The Amarok’s engine starts with a key rather than a button and there are no airbags for rear-seat passengers. While the Ranger’s driving position is well sorted – in terms of seat comfort and relationship to wheel and pedals, it could be improved with reach adjustment for the steering column.
Despite its undeniable performance advantage, the Amarok is noisier and harsher than the Ranger, and the eight-speed automatic lacks the inherent sophistication of Ford’s 10-speed unit. On the road the Amarok feels more like a commercial vehicle, whereas the Ranger could almost be an SUV from behind the wheel. The Amarok lacks steering feel on centre, is slower to turn in (despite its lower-profile 50-series tyres on 20-inch rims), and lacks the Ranger’s compliant ride.
Finally, the Amarok runs a constant all-wheel drive system that lacks a dual-range transfer. You’ll travel further off-road in the Ranger.
Which wins, and why?
Two issues stand in the way of the Ranger walking all over the Amarok in this comparison – packaging and straight-line acceleration.
And similarly, two issues place the Amarok at a significant disadvantage against the Ranger – comfort and driveability.
If only it were possible to have the Amarok body on the Ranger chassis.
Maybe in future...
In the meantime, consider the peripheral issues – safety equipment, more affordable purchase price, longer warranty and lower fuel consumption. Looked at that way there’s just one answer: The Ford Ranger Wildtrak.
How much does the 2018 Ford Ranger Wildtrak cost?
Price: $65,090 (as tested, including on-road costs)
Engine: 2.0-litre four-cylinder turbo-diesel
Output: 157kW/500Nm
Transmission: 10-speed automatic
Fuel: 7.4L/100km (ADR Combined); 7.9L/100km (as tested)
CO2: 180g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety rating: Five-star ANCAP (2015)
How much does the 2018 Volkswagen Amarok TDI580 Ultimate cost?
Price: $72,600 (as tested, plus on-road costs)
Engine: 3.0-litre six-cylinder turbo-diesel
Output: 190kW/580Nm
Transmission: Eight-speed automatic
Fuel: 8.9L/100km (ADR Combined); 8.9L/100km (as tested)
CO2: 234g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety rating: Five-star ANCAP (2011)
Please see our Editorial Guidelines & Code of Ethics (including for more information about sponsored content and paid events). The information published on this website is of a general nature only and doesn’t consider your particular circumstances or needs.
