Volkswagen Amarok Highline: from $67,990 plus on-road costs. 3.0-litre V6 turbo diesel; 165kW/550Nm; 8-spd auto; 7.8L/100km; AWD
Ford Ranger Wildtrack: from $60,090 plus on-road costs. 3.2-litre five-cylinder turbo diesel; 147kW/470Nm; six-speed auto; 9.0L/100km; 4WD
Value
Amarok
At $67,990 (plus on-road costs), the range-topping Amarok V6 Ultimate is the most expensive dual-cab ute currently on-sale in Australia, and therefore starts this test on the back foot against the top-of-the-line Ranger Wildtrack.
For that, the Volkswagen has the most powerful engine in its class, comes standard with an eight-speed automatic, rides on 19-inch alloy wheels, has a full leather interior with heated front seats, dual-zone climate control and an 8.0-inch multi-media screen with sat nav, reverse camera, Bluetooth and Apple CarPlay.
But it's also missing some key safety gear, including airbag coverage for rear seat passengers and the latest active driver aids such as adaptive cruise, emergency braking and lane departure warning ? all of which are included in the Ranger.
Ranger
The Ranger XLT which sits one rung below the Wildtrack has been Drive's Best Ute champion in our Car of the Year awards for the past two years. At $60,090 (plus on-road costs) when fitted with a six-speed automatic, it immediately offers a compelling case against the Amarok.
When you consider it also comes with a leather-trimmed cabin that features dual-zone climate, heated front seats and a multi media display with Ford's latest Sync3 capability that includes sat nav, Bluetooth and smartphone mirroring, the Ranger doesn't lack for anything in comparison.
In fact, it picks up more gear as it has curtain airbags for rear seat passengers, a full suite of active driver aids plus a bed liner in the rear tray and a lockable tonneau cover.
Winner: Ranger
Inside
Amarok
The Amarok has been praised for its more car-like interior ever since it first arrived in 2010, and the updated model introduced this year with the V6 continues that theme with a host of features that are familiar from within the VW passenger car line-up.
The seats are comfortable, the driving position is great, and the quality of the leather feels genuinely premium. The instruments are clear and easy to read, the multimedia screen is lifted straight from a Golf, meaning it's intuitive to use and has good functionality.
There's also decent space in both the front and the back with enough rear legroom for adults to travel without too much hassle.
Ranger
The Ranger's cabin is a little more colourful than the Amarok's, which suits the more adventurous nature of the Wildtrack.
The overall design and quality of materials is just as good as it is in the VW, but instead of full leather trim it uses fake cowhide on the bolsters of the seats only and a more durable, body-coloured fabric for the cushions.
Ford's latest Sync3 is also easy to use and the Ranger's instruments are more comprehensive with the inclusion of the active driver aids.
The Ranger is just as spacious but comes with a few more thoughtful touches such as a cooled centre console bin and a household power point in the back seats that can re-charge a lap top, power tools or run a low-voltage light for a while.
Winner: Ranger
Engine
Amarok
As far as leapfrogging the competition goes, the Amarok has jumped to the top of the heap with the fitment of the most powerful engine in its class. The 3.0-litre V6 turbo diesel features in other Volkswagen group products such as the Touareg and Audi Q7 SUVs and the previous-generation Porsche Panamera limousine and produces 165kW of power and 550Nm of torque in the Amarok with a claimed average fuel consumption of 7.8L/100km.
It's a cracking engine that is more car-like than others in its class, with a linear power delivery, an immensely strong mid-range and it's quiet at highway speeds.
Ranger
The Ford has a unique 3.2-litre five-cylinder configuration that has served the Ranger well in terms of balancing strong outputs with respectable levels of refinement. It can't quite match the Amarok's numbers, generating 147kW and 470Nm, and consumes slightly more diesel, with a claimed average of 9.0L/100km. But, in the real world, it doesn't feel that short of the mark with a strong surge of pulling power once on boost and a unique warbling exhaust.
Winner: Amarok
How it Drives
Amarok
The Amarok's arrival changed the perception that dual-cab ute drive like trucks, and this updated model incrementally improves on that. While it maintains its rough-and-ready underpinnings ? with a traditional ladder frame chassis and leaf-spring rear suspension set-up ? the Amarok is easy and comfortable to drive with good steering and well-tuned suspension. A key attribute in achieving these attributes is that it rides on road-biased Continental tyres rather than dual-purpose rubber.
The eight-speed automatic shifts smoothly, but the broad spread of ratios and small powerband of the engine means it changes often under acceleration.
Ranger
One of the big reasons why the Ranger has taken out our Car of the Year crown in the Best Ute category for the last two years is because of its nicely balanced ride and handling traits. It's a close contest between this par as to which is more comfortable on the road; the Ranger soaking up bumps with a little more compliance and yet its dual-purpose tyres are noisier at highway speeds.
Winner: Amarok
Workability
Amarok?
First things first, the Amarok doesn't actually have a low-range transfer case gearbox, instead relying on a mainstream permanent all-wheel transmission with a diff lock and electronic smarts to get it through the rough stuff. In some situations, that makes it a lot simpler to operate as there's only a few buttons to press. In the more extreme conditions though, it might not go as far off the beaten track as the Ranger. The tyres don't help its cause there either.
As for towing capacity, it can pull a maximum of three tonnes with a braked trailer. It has a payload of 864kg and four tie-down points in the tray, which is unique in that it can fit an Australian pallet between the wheel arches, has a light on the sports bar and features a spray-on, anti-slip protective coating.
Ranger
The Ranger is as tough as they come, and smarter than the Amarok in terms of its workhorse status. For starters, it can tow more (up to 3500kg), carry more (with a 950kg payload) and its combination of slightly higher ground clearance, a low-range transfer case transmission and dual-purpose tyres gives it the edge in off-road ability.
Its tray is slightly smaller in width and length but it has a more durable plastic tubliner, a lockable, retracting hard tonneau cover and a 12V power outlet.
Winner: Ranger
Verdict
Amarok
Volkswagen has raised the bar in terms of engine performance with the Amarok's V6, and continued to develop an impressively flexible and comfortable ute with a taste of the good life from within the cabin. Problem is it is hugely expensive and lacks the safety credentials.
Ranger
The Ranger, on the other hand, sets the benchmark for safety with a suite of driver aids not found on any of its rivals. That it drives just as well on the road, can go further off the road and carries and tows more than the Volkswagen makes it the ideal playtoy for adventurous families.
Winner: Ranger
11 Comments
stumbles | 2017-01-03 08:32:32
60 to 70k for these trucks......ok.
BuilderBob | 2017-01-25 00:54:47
Based on reviews I first drove the Ranger Wildtrak, then the Ultimate and I came to my own conclusions. You keep focusing on airbags and driver fatigue aids which I have absolutely no interest in. I don't need a chime every time I go to change lanes and I am sufficiently experienced in driving to know that tail gating is going to eventually cause an accident that no electronic gizmo is going to protect me from. What I am interested in, is the fact that as a owner of a company that needs a ute and a parent that you cannot get leather seats (way easier to keep clean) without going aftermarket for another $3k in the ford. You seem to think that a garish orange is ok but I hate it. Secondly, in the race to have a large screen, the Ford aircon vent on the drivers side is behind the steering wheel and I could not on a hot day get direct air blowing on to me (but my left hand felt great). Who thought this was a good idea? The window buttons are set back on the arm rest on the drivers side and you have to lock your elbow back to operate them. These things add up to ergonomic fails for a $60K vehicle from Ford that in the real world are a pain. Having heard a few rumours about reliability, paint durability particularly and resale, I looked up the number of Rangers for sale on the second hand market. There were something like 1600 XLT's for sale. Clearly the impact of fleet buyers means I would have a tough time selling it down the road (no pun intended). As someone who also owns a BMW and had a number of them, I noticed a lot of features in the Amarok that are common (must be a german thing) that I like and appreciate that barely get a mention in reviews. In a hot climate, I like being able to have all the windows come down with the touch of a button to cool the interior, or the nav directions are on the display in the dash (ok not like my heads up display but the next best thing). It's like comparing a Toyota and a BMW. Once you've owned one you know the reason for the quality / features / safety and people rarely go back. I think the price is not as bad as you claim when you take into account the additional features. I'm buying the Amarok and it was a no brainer...
Craigy | 2017-02-26 00:54:34
Seems like a lot of money for a car made in Argentina with no low range or safety aids...Ranger for me please
MelbourneMerv | 2017-03-02 10:59:40
Had my Ultimate V6 just over 3 weeks. A German build and understand they will come from South America production mid year. Have owned Ford's and happy I made this choice for the rok. Can't compare comfort and engine/gearbox combo which is a nice change from Ranger. I don't have kids in back or need anymore driver aids. I've shown brand loyalty to Ford's and dear I say Jeeps, but hey it's my money and I'm happy. My age I need comfort and not orange stitching .........
David P | 2017-03-06 05:26:45
As we are looking at the Ranger XLT, Amarok Highline or Hilux SR5 to replace our current 4WD I would make a couple of points: To Stumbles: they are not really trucks - my 1976 Patrol was a truck (and cost $4,500 on-road - $750 less than the Toyota). If you want a cheaper option go further down the range........ To Craigy: The Amarok is still made in Germany - I was told yesterday that the next batch will be made in Spain by Seat (not in Argentina) whilst the Ranger is currently made in Thailand - if any of that matters (we have a 5yo Golf TSI made in Mexico and a 16yo Patrol made in Japan and both have been extremely reliable). And if the final drive ratios are important overall factor whether in low range or not - Amarok's final drive ratio is 3.7:1 (not listed in the brochure) against the Ranger's 3.73 - the Ranger definitely wins out in low first here. However the Amarok has 8 speeds to keep the engine on the boil as compared to six and a flatter torque curve according to some independent reviews. The Amarok has 4w discs - which my Patrol has, and my off-road experience since 1976 suggests disks have a quicker recovery time after water immersion than drums (and towing 3 tonnes of horses and float has not been a problem with 4w disks on the Patrol either). The Amarok also has a rear diff lock which the video review appears to omit but a centre diff lock (like my old Jeep Quadratrac had) would be a good addition to the constant 4wd setup. Possible deal breakers on the Ranger for me (having just driven one) is the messy dashboard display which I found hard to read with sunglasses on, fiddly cruise controls and a non-retractable steering wheel (as my wife will have to drive the vehicle to horse events, etc.). The tailgate is also fairly heavy to lift - not an issue for blokes I suspect but the Amarok has a torsion bar which makes it much easier. Also concur with BuilderBob's comments. Cheers,
David P | 2017-03-06 06:09:26
And for the sake of accuracy in the text of this review the price of an Amarok Highline price should be the one compared to the XLT - not the price of the Amorak Ultimate...........
Gerbur | 2017-03-11 07:24:13
I think there a a number of issues that aren't correctly represented here. The low range transmission is a difference, if you look at the overall ratios low low in the Ranger would give an advantage in extreme situations, probably when fully laden towing. But with these high power and torque vehicles, and 8 speed autos, it's a new paradigm when thinking of older 4wds needing that facility. Hence in these tests it's never shown as an issue. The towing capacity still seems to suck people in including these journos that should know better. The Amarok 3t tow capacity is in conjunction with the vehicle fully loaded, gcm of 3t. This is the same spec. Quoting as they use for 4wd wagons. Deviously these dual cab manufacturers have come up with this max tow capacity to try and show extra power or strength or to compare to big wagons that also tow 3.5t, but the latter do that at full load of vehicle, ~3-3.5tgvm. The ranger at 3.5 t tow and gross combined mass rated at 6 t gcm, leaves a payload of 300 kg after taking 2.2t tare weight. So as long as your fuel, bull bar, tow bar and passengers don't weigh more than 300 kg, you could do it. That's without consideration for axle loads and tow bar load. I think these journos would need to find their skinnier brothers to tow 3.5t with a ranger. That aside, who is really going to be towing 3.5t anyway. That's a massive boat or caravan, you would be looking at 1% of the market or less, but it's quoted as some sort of manliness test figure. Really? Another point not mentioned is that the safety provided by a constant 4wd system vs an old fashioned 2wd system is massive. Anybody that has driven these tail happy dual cabs in the wet, knows what a difference awd makes. Sure traction control helps, but awd again is a feature on all the best large 4wd wagons. The argument that awd uses more fuel, is thwart by the fact the Amarok uses less fuel. As you can tell, I am biased to the Amarok, but that's after making a better educated and informed decision than these superficial unqualified commentators have offered. Some quality unbiased investigative journalism would be refreshing.
David P Gerbur | 2017-03-18 12:05:38
Agree with Gurbur - and to the keyboard warriors out there who like to argue the toss about this stuff - when you have done a trip like this you can pass comment on an Amarok (2L 4 cylinder version): We crossed the Simpson last year with an auto MY15 Trendline, on standard 245/65R17 HT tyres. The last day or so, we were down to about 15 in the front and 17 or 18 in the rear. The daily air temperatures were over 40?C every day. The tyre pressures changed quite a bit with the air and sand temperatures, much more than the 4PSi many say is common. We had no issues at all with the auto. I took the time to tell my wife, who had no experience off road at all, to simply blip the throttle then back off a touch when she took off in sand. This allowed the auto to change up out of first if she was going very slowly on very rough patches. We were often climbing the dunes in 2nd or third, with the engine just purring and sounding very unstressed between 1200 to 1800RPM. The lock up in the torque converter made the ute feel like a manual as it walked up the dunes. When I drove with a little more verve on the last day, the Rok went up the dunes like a rat up a drain pipe. It was so impressive others thought I must have the diff lock on. I didn't. We were the only ones in our group who climber Big Red from both sides. The others could have, but for some reason didn't try. When we came back up the eastern side, I simply started the engine, then took off without any run up from being parked at right angles to the track and went straight up. It wasn't till I crested the top that I realised I forgot to turn on the off road mode. To say the performance was impressive is an understatement. The auto will crawl at less than walking speed in second, slower than a manual cruiser or ranger will go in low first. Off road mode does change the way the auto behaves. What no one else has mentioned here, is that it also modifies the ABS to allow some wheel skid, so your braking distances on loose surfaces is reduced by quite a bit. From the Amarok forum - which features lots of ACTUAL use of the vehicles - rather than those who like to argue the toss from articles they have read: http://www.ausamarok.com.au/forum/archive/index.php/t-3552.html I've had 4WDs since 1976 with some off road stuff that even scares me now, desert trips (old Strezlecki in the wet, Chambers Pillars, the Finke River crossing, etc.), high country stuff out the back of Omeo & Mount Stirling, towing and launching big dive boats off beaches at Wilson's Prom and the like, towing big horse floats and other stuff (like pulling steam engines out of sheds, etc.). I've been stuck a few times but it has never been the vehicles fault - just replaced my 2001 GUIII 4.8L Patrol today with a V6 Amarok after driving the XLT and the SR5 as the other contenders. (Gets Cooper LT AT3s on Monday) Buy what suits you best and don't bag the opposition just because you've bought something else - I've had enough of that rubbish at places like Dalhousie Springs where I got chipped about driving a Nissan. At least we were traveling solo (towing a camper) and didn't need (or require) the security of half a dozen other vehicles..............
countach | 2017-03-19 00:40:54
From what I can gather the Amarok does pretty well in the really tough stuff, despite its lack of low range. However, I wonder if this would still hold true while towing a camper trailer, which would put another whole level of pressure on the lack of torque. Really hard to decide between these 2 excellent, but flawed vehicles.
David P | 2017-03-19 02:57:14
Countach, have a look at: www.ausamarok.com.au/ for lots of comments by owners who have actually towed off road with the 2l and 8 speed auto (Fraser Island beach towing, across the Simpson, etc.). We did 4,000k off road(down the old Ghan track, into Chambers Pillar, across the Finke, Dalhousie, Odnadatta, Flinders Ranges, etc.) with a camper behind a GUIII 4.8L Patrol when it was near new - and then it blew its tranmission up just out of warranty....... As to the comment 2 flawed vehicles - there is nothing out there that isn't flawed in one way (even Unimogs have faults) - just depends where your prejudice lies.............
TimG | 2017-03-23 10:54:21
Both good trucks, however we got Rangers because of their far greater wading capacity. The VW is just too weak in water. We've got 3 of the new models, and their road manners are far better than the old Hiluxes we ran, and not only do they pull more but they seem just as good in the rough stuff. Internal ergonomics need a rethink though, the one-shot buttons for the windows on the Amarok show how short-sighted and poorly though out the Ford is, even if it does have more goodies in the end. Still managed to get the Ranger stuck in snow though when it slipped into a roadside ditch , half an hour with the shovel though and I was able to drive it out, the dual purpose tyres definitely paid dividends there.