Volkswagen Amarok V6 580 vs Ford Ranger Wildtrak Bi-Turbo 2019 review

There are two vastly different ambiences on offer in the cabins of these two utes. 

The Amarok is posher, less fussy and seemingly more focused on space and comfort than being flashy. With its grey-flecked headliner and flocked bottle holders in the doors, you can tell there’s been some real attention to detail put into the cab of this ute.

The Ranger is arguably more special feeling, with the orange stitching through the cabin and sportier elements giving it a more youthful character. It’s more likeable, but not necessarily plush. It has the technical edge over the VW, with a colourful twin-screen instrument cluster and a bigger media screen. There’s one monochrome driver-info screen for the Amarok, and both have digital speedometers and trip-computer displays.

The Ranger’s 8.0-inch touchscreen is crisper and offers a higher-resolution display than the VW, which, at just 6.3-inches in size, is starting to look dated. We had a few issues connecting (or staying connected) with an iPhone in the Amarok, too, but the Bluetooth wireless connectivity was better in the VW than the Ford.

Both get the benchmark Apple CarPlay and Android Auto connectivity via USB, but the Ranger gets a second USB for charging additional devices, and there’s a 230-volt power point in the second row to keep those in the back happy, too. If you’ve got a 12-volt charge cable, there are three places in the cabin of the Amarok to plug in, while the Ranger has two. Both have an additional 12V plug in their tubs.

The space in the Amarok feels more generous, with its much wider cabin providing a feeling of airiness to occupants. Its simpler dash design helps out in that regard, too.

Both have a pair of cupholders between the seats, and there are bottle holders in all four doors (the Amarok’s are bigger, and lined to stop things rattling around), plus there’s a dash-top cubby in the VW. It wins on storage up front.

In the back of the Ranger there is about an inch of extra legroom, which makes a difference if you’re hauling around tall teens or workmates. The Amarok will better fit three across in terms of width, but those passengers would want to be built like teapots - short and stout - because the legroom isn’t great. The outward vision is excellent, though.

The Ranger also gets a flip-down armrest with cup holders, which is a much tidier implementation of beverage containment than the VW’s floor-mounted cup holder duo, which eats into footroom if you’re trying to go three-abreast. 

Both have flexible rear seats that allow you to raise/lower the backrest and also the seat base, with the Ranger featuring handy little hidey holes under there, too. It’s the Ranger that wins the back-seat battle. 

You might be able to get a single cab or extra cab/spacecab Ranger in lower grades, but the only option you’ve got for any Amarok is a dual cab. But in these specs, both are dual cab, and both come with a style-side tub.

There is no denying that some buyers will prefer a steel tray, aluminium tray or flat tray, especially if the plan is to make an adventure truck. But you can’t order these as a cab chassis, so you’ll have to remove the existing tub and sell it online (or turn it into a trailer - in either case it could make a cool sleepr cab with a canvas top to take camping…).

Now, there’s no real way for us to talk about the boot space or cargo capacity of a ute, because you can stack things up pretty high if you keep it covered. And that only gets better if you fit a roof-rack system to the roof rails (standard on Ranger, not on Amarok).  

The big difference between these two is in engine specs.

The Ranger’s much smaller 2.0-litre twin-turbo-diesel four-cylinder engine produces 157kW of power (at 3750rpm) and 500Nm of torque (at 1750-2000rpm) - which, it has to be said, is a higher power and torque rating more than any four-cylinder Amarok we’ve seen. It can only be had with a 10-speed automatic transmission.

The Ranger’s 2.0-litre twin-turbo-diesel four-cylinder produces 157kW/500Nm.

The specifications of the Amarok V6 are impressive. It has the engine size advantage with a 3.0-litre turbo-diesel motor, and it’s a horsepower hero, too, capable of 190kW of power (at 3250-4500rpm) and 580Nm of torque (from 1400-3000rpm). 

In fact, it can get to 200kW in short bursts. You don’t need a masters in statistics to see the spread of grunt across the rev range is better in the Amarok, and that, in part, comes down to its standard-fit eight-speed automatic gearbox. 

The Amarok's V6 makes 190kW/580Nm.

There’s no point taking sides in the manual vs automatic argument - there is no manual transmission option for the engines represented here.

The Ranger still has a regular 4WD system, with a switch between the seats that allows you to move from 4x2 (rear wheel drive) to 4x4 (adding front wheel drive to the equation in either 4H high and 4L low range). The Amarok? It doesn’t have a transfer case, and uses a permanent all-wheel-drive system instead. There is an offroad mode, which helps control the transmission using the car’s electronics.

The Ranger is Euro 5 compliant, with a diesel particulate filter fitted, and engine stop-start technology. The Amarok 580 goes further, with Euro 6 emissions compliance and AdBlue (urea solution) fitted. 

Both of these utes have the benchmark level of towing capacity, with the hauling ability pegged at 750kg for an unbraked trailer and pulling possible for trailers with brakes up to 3500kg. The tow bar down weight for the Amarok is capped at 300kg, where the Ranger is 350kg.

While we would have really liked to do a towing review, it wasn’t possible with the vehicles provided - the Amarok doesn’t come with a tow bar, and VW didn’t fit one. The Ranger comes standard with a towbar. 

But we did get to explore the load capacity of these two, with a carrying test where we loaded up 500kg in the tray of each, an indicative amount of weight for an average ute driver. Read how that went in the driving section below.

On the topic of weight, the GVM (gross vehicle mass) of our Ranger Wildtrak bi-turbo is 3200kg, meaning a payload of 954kg and kerb weight of 2246kg. The Amarok Ultimate’s GVM is 3080kg, with a payload of 836kg and kerb weight of 2244kg. Pretty close, really.

The gross combined mass (GCM) for both is 6000kg.

While the new engine in the Ranger may seem high-tech, it’s a matter of time (probably five years or so) before we see an EV version of a ute of this size, and petrol powertrains seem to have done their dash in this part of the market, as has LPG.

We get a lot of people asking “timing belt or chain” for utes. You might be surprised to know that the new Ranger engine is a belt-driven unit, which the company says is just as robust as a timing chain. The Amarok uses a chain.

Check your owner's manual for oil capacity and type, and ask the dealership if you can fit a dual-battery setup (it should be possible). 

If you’ve looked at the forums you may be worried about diesel engine problems, blowing black smoke, driveshaft vibration, oil change frequency, auto gearbox problems, intercooler, injector, suspension, turbo, clutch, oil pump, cruise control and transmission issues (even transmission failure) - just be sure to read up on each of these utes in our VW Amarok problems page and our Ford Ranger problems page.

For what it's worth, we ended up near a mechanic’s workshop on test, and everyone there said the Ranger was more prone to problems than the Amarok…

The aim of this test wasn’t to try and break these utes by exploring their hardcore off-road capability, nor could we push the limits with a towing review (as the VW didn’t have a tow bar).

Instead, we melded our testing to suit what most people will encounter regularly - a mix of highway, urban and inter-urban driving, and some high-speed gravel driving - the sort of off-road review that actually matters to the majority of buyers, especially at this end of the market.

And while it wasn’t high on our list of priorities to run a 0-100 acceleration test, by the seat of the pants it was closer than you might think when it came to hitting highway speed from a standstill. VW claims an amazing 7.3 seconds 0-100km/h time; Ford doesn’t state performance figures for its model.

It's pretty much all in favour of the Ford if you plan to take on serious terrain.

The Amarok was faster from 40km/h onwards, but suffered more lag from a standstill. That’s the point of the twin-turbo engine in the Ranger - the first turbocharger helps negate lag, before it passes proceedings on to a bigger turbo to huff at speed.

The refinement of the Ranger’s engine is impressive, and there’s undoubtedly a lot less noise in the cabin than you find the in 3.2-litre version. But the Amarok was quieter again, and when you could hear the engine, it was a more pleasant noise.

Now, the transmissions. The 10-speed auto in the Ford can be confused at times, as it gets a little busy shuffling between cogs. And yes, it uses all those gears, engaging 10th at highway speed, which certainly helped it save some fuel. But at lower speeds, in first and second gear in particular, we noted some unlikeable vibration through the cabin.

Our gravel-road test highlighted the advantages of VW's all-wheel-drive system, which doesn't require you to press any buttons or even think about traction.

The Amarok’s eight-speed auto was superb - it was smoother and smarter than the Ford’s ‘box, always finding the right gear no matter the situation. It doesn’t jump between gears as much as the Ford, and allows you to use the engine’s torque more readily.

While it’s not a ‘real’ exhaust brake system, the Ranger does offer better grade-logic braking when you’re descending steep hills. It will hold its speed better, meaning you won’t need to get on the brakes as much.

But on the topic of brakes, the Amarok gets discs front and rear, where the Ranger has drums at the back. The plus side is better performance in regular use in the VW, but it’s an additional cost consumable - pads and discs wear quicker than drums, and cost more to replace. Of course, both have anti-lock brakes (ABS) and while both weigh almost the same (there’s only 2kg in the kerb-weight difference), the Amarok was definitely quicker to pull up.

Both of these utes have ladder-frame chassis set-ups with leaf rear suspension, and they're designed for heavy-duty performance rather than sport.

Now, what about comfort?

Both of these utes have ladder-frame chassis set-ups with leaf rear suspension, and they’re designed for heavy-duty performance rather than sport. We loaded in a typical amount of weight for a truck like this to run with - 500kg, consisting of sandbags (with thanks to our mates at Lower Mountains Landscape Supplies), and there was a bit of a difference in the way these two drove.

The Ranger felt slightly less at ease, rebounding and wobbling about more at the rear over speedhumps and other bumps - both with a load and without. The Amarok’s rear suspension did a much better job of settling itself after a bump, and its extra track width (1654mm front/1658mm rear for the Amarok vs 1560mm all around for the Ranger) offered more assuredness in its handling. 

The Ranger, though, had better steering - it was less prone to understeer, and the electric power steering system is fingertip light at parking speeds, where the Amarok requires more heft and effort to turn. The turning circles of both are pretty rubbish, though: 12.4m for the VW and 12.7m for the Ford.

The Amarok's rear suspension did a much better job of settling itself after a bump, and its extra track width offered more assuredness in its handling.

Let’s talk off-road specs: ground clearance mm - VW: 192mm; Ford: 237mm; approach angle - VW: 28.0 degrees; Ford: 29.0deg; departure angle - VW: 23.6deg; Ford: 21.0deg; ramp-over angle - VW: 23.0deg; Ford: 25.0deg; wading depth - VW: 500mm; Ford: 800mm.

So, it’s pretty much all in favour of the Ford if you plan to take on serious terrain - but I’ve tested both over the same challenging tracks before, and it wasn’t as black-and-white as it appears. The AWD system of the VW is truly impressive, but so is the Ranger’s off-road hardware. 

Our gravel-road test highlighted the advantages of VW’s all-wheel-drive system, which doesn’t require you to press any buttons or even think about traction. This time around we were running without weight in the tray, and the Amarok was more civilised and better hooked into the terrain below than the Ranger, which was a touch more skittish over bumps and more willing to step its rear end out in corners.

The VW’s AWD system means there’s no chirping of tyres (on tarmac) and no rear-end slipping (on dirt), and you have a more assured drive experience as a result. Yes, you can put the Ranger in 4H on dirt, but that’s not advisable on wet roads, where the back end can screech and squeal at times. 

If you want more of a desert-dune truck, consider the off-road killer that is the Ranger Raptor - it’s more than just a set of wheel-arch extensions and all-terrain tyres: with Fox Shocks that offer a ride similar to air suspension. 

At the end of the day, the Amarok was slightly better at everything apart from low-speed steering, but the Ranger was still really good for its class in terms of dynamics and driving. 

Both utes have a five year warranty plan, and both have unlimited kilometre cover for that period. Think you need an extended warranty? Ask at the dealership. 

There’s a bit of separation between the two when it comes to capped-price-servicing plans. 

The VW plan runs up to 60 months/75,000km, with intervals every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever occurs first. Service cost levels are higher at VW, working out at $610 per service over the five year plan.

The Ford plan covers the life of the Ranger, and has the same 12 month/15,000km intervals. The cost over five years - for comparison’s sake - works out at an average of $460. 

Look, we only test the utes for a week at a time, so we can’t speak to the entire ownership process and nor can we really comment on potential quibbles with long-term ownership of these vehicles. We test new cars, which limits that intel somewhat. 

But we can understand that if you’re going to spend this much on a ute, you could be concerned about things that will affect your resale value, including reliability issues, problems, common faults, complaints, defects, and durability. Rest assured, you can check our VW Amarok problems page or our Ford Ranger problems page for everything we know.