Ford Ranger vs Citroen Berlingo

What's the difference?

Our time with the new Ranger was limited in terms of distance driven and the number of variants we could sample. We were also unable to test the vehicle with a trailer attached, so we’re unsure as to how well the new, lower-powered engine will cope with towing duties.

We do know the new engine is being welcomed by owners and fleets who held concerns over the technical layout of the previous 2.0-litre powerplant, but only time will tell if the reduced performance is seen as being balanced by the technical upgrades.

We can also tell you there’s nothing inherently wrong with the new 2.0L in the context of normal driving on normal roads and its refinement is still an improvement on a lot of its competitors’ offerings.

Note: CarsGuide attended this event as a guest of the manufacturer, with meals provided.

Given Citroen’s proud heritage of innovation, the Berlingo has a few unique and quirky features, but is overall quite conventional in its design and performance (though in a well thought-out and practical package).

With sub-$20K run-out pricing, it should have plenty of appeal for commercial customers, as it costs much less than its major rivals yet offers a superior payload.

Here’s a classic case of leaving well enough alone. Having figured out for sure that the Ranger’s looks weren’t costing it any sales whatsoever, Ford wisely decided to spend the facelift money where it counted most; under the bonnet.

If you have sharp eyes, you might pick the dark highlights replacing the chrome finish on some models, the new wheel designs and a couple of new hero colours for specific variants.

Beyond that, those big, bold, bluff looks continue with more than the odd nod to the US-market pick-ups that seem to inspire so many ute buyers in this country.

Inside it’s the same story, with those fabulous interior door handles that are so easy to use continuing and everything else remaining very, very Ranger-ish.

The smallest Berlingo rides on a front-wheel-drive, 2728mm wheelbase with an overall length of 4380mm and width of 1810mm. Compared to the Caddy, the Berlingo is 46mm longer in wheelbase, 28mm shorter and 37mm wider.

Suspension features MacPherson struts up front and a tidy trailing arm arrangement at the rear, which is well designed for carrying heavy loads. Steering is via power-assisted rack and pinion and four-wheel disc brakes provide reassuringly strong braking. The turning circle is a compact 11.0 metres.

The cabin and cargo bay are separated by a removable grey vinyl screen, with a large clear section in the upper half to allow rear vision for the driver. Citroen says this screen is primarily to reduce air-conditioning requirements, which in turn reduces the A/C load on the engine to optimise performance and fuel economy. 

It’s also claimed to (slightly) reduce noise intrusion from the cargo bay, which is mostly caused by tyre roar through the rear wheel arches. However, Citroen has taken a commendable step in trying to muffle these noise paths by surrounding each wheel arch with large plastic mouldings which are claimed to contain sound-absorbing material.

Glazed rear barn doors with wiper/washer and 180-degree opening, plus solid sliding side doors, are standard issue. The barn doors also feature an asymmetrical design (one wide, one narrow) to off-set the centre pillars and reduce the large blind spot they create in the rear-view mirror. 

The cabin layout is simple and functional with decent-sized door mirrors, although the kerb side would benefit from a wide-angle lens due to a big blind spot for the driver created by the solid side door. The fold-down inboard arm-rest is a nice touch and the cabin is quite spacious, although tall drivers will find the left footrest too high for a comfortable leg position.

Despite the lower-tech new engine and its power losses compared with its predecessor, the 2.0-litre Ranger in dual-cab 4X4 form retains its full 3.5-tonne towing capacity.

Sticking with towing, if you option up the Touring Pack, the Ranger gets Ford’s 'Trailer Reversing Guidance' which uses cameras and the rotary drive-mode dial to allow the driver to take the hassle out of trailer reversing. Up to a point, anyway. But there’s also a great check-list menu on the info-screen to detect failed trailer lighting and other problems. The Touring Pack is now standard on many versions but still optional of cheaper variants.

Which ever version you buy, any dual-cab 4X4 Ranger styleside has a tub measuring 1547mm long, 1584 wide, 1224mm between the wheel arches (to accept a standard pallet) and a loading height of 816mm. The tub also features inner tie-down rails, a light, a tailgate-lift assist ram and cupholders moulded into the tailgate’s inner side.

Payloads for the various Ranger models are determined by kerb mass, which means the lightest variant, the XL can carry 1135kg, while the heaviest, the Platinum, is restricted to 981kg. Still a decent figure, to be honest.

Inside, the Ranger’s cabin ranges from the starkly utilitarian in the XL (vinyl floor mats and cloth seats to name just a couple of features) to extremely plush in the case of the Platinum with its four USB ports, wireless phone charging and even a row of six switch blanks ready for aftermarket accessories.

The front seating is definitely superior to the rear seat in the Ranger, and the latter features a fairly flat cushion and a backrest.

Lesser versions of the Ranger also get a conventional park-brake compared with the electronic one on more expensive models. We’ll take the manual version any day.

The Berlingo’s 1433kg kerb weight and 2150kg GVM would normally result in a 717kg payload. However, Citroen’s official payload figure is 133kg higher, at a class-leading 850kg, because PSA calculates kerb weights differently to the norm (typically French). So, 75kg of that can be carried on the roof when shared across three racks with the mounting points provided.

Its robust 3250kg GCM allows up to 1100kg of braked trailer to be towed without any reduction in payload. Citroen states that this GCM applies up to a maximum altitude of 1000 metres above sea level, with a 10 per cent reduction for each additional 1000 metres. So keep those stats in mind if you’re heading for Mount Kosciuszko.

The cargo bay, which offers 3.3 cubic metres of load volume (or 3.7 with passenger sear folded), has a floor length of 1800mm and a roomy 1229mm between the wheel arches. This means it can carry one 1160mm-square standard Aussie pallet, easily loaded with a forklift through the rear barn doors and held in place by six tie-down points. There’s also internal lighting, a 12-volt outlet and sturdy ladder-frame cargo barrier behind the driver. Nothing for the passenger, though.

Cabin storage options include two pockets and a combined cup/bottle holder in each door. There’s also a large lidded compartment and two open bins set into the dash-top, two circular storage slots in the centre display plus two smaller pockets below and beside the gearstick; the latter a slim-line 'holster' complete with USB port.

The single glovebox has two-tier storage, and there’s a full-width cabin shelf overhead. The centre console, which is a module that can be unlocked and removed if you want floor space between the seats, has a cup holder at the front, a big internal storage area with sliding lid in the centre and two cup/small bottle holders at the rear. There’s also lots of vacant space for additional storage under both seats.

The Citroen Berlingo range comprises three models; the L1 Short Body Manual, L2 Long Body Manual and L2 Long Body Semi-Automatic.

Our test vehicle was the L1 Short Body Manual (aka M Confort VTi), which, with a 1.6-litre petrol engine and five-speed manual gearbox, is normally $22,990. This compares favourably with the Kangoo L1 SWB (1.2-litre petrol/six-speed manual) at $23,990, and is a huge 24 per cent saving over the Caddy TSI220 SWB (1.4-litre petrol/seven-speed dual-clutch auto) at $30,390. 

However, the Berlingo’s run-out price is now a bargain basement $19,990 drive-away, so you’ll save even more up front, plus be eligible for an immediate tax deduction if you're a business owner.

Given it’s a commercial van, our Berlingo came with all the usual visual cues of a hard worker, like the solid white body colour with contrasting black bumpers, door mirrors, handles and side rubbing strips, plus black hub caps inside 15-inch steel wheels with 195/65 R15 Michelin tyres and a matching spare. However, the cabin does at least get floor carpet.

Its standard equipment list includes useful stuff like a rear-view camera and rear parking sensors (essential in any van with solid side doors), guide-me-home headlights, height/reach adjustable steering wheel, RDS stereo sound system with a 7.0-inch touchscreen and multiple connectivity options (including Apple CarPlay, Android Auto and Bluetooth), cruise control with adjustable speed limiter, one-touch electric front windows and more.

While the V6 turbo-diesel remains unchanged with its 184kW and mighty 600Nm of torque. It remains paired with the 10-speed automatic transmission and the availability of a '4-Auto' setting for the drive system which allows for the use of all-wheel drive on dry bitumen.

The big change to the V6’s status is that it’s now available across the entire dual-cab 4X4 range, right down to the XL version with its rubber floor mats and steel wheels.

Now, if you were cynical, you might suggest Ford has made the V6 more widely available, because the four-cylinder engine option (once the only one available on lesser versions like the XL) has lost a bit of mojo in the transition to Ranger 2026.5.

The thought of a carmaker going backwards on specification and output for an engine goes against the grain somewhat, but in this case, the move to a simpler, potentially more robust engine design makes some sense in the context of long-term ownership costs.

Opinions are divided on how many of the previous 2.0-litre engines posed problems for their buyers, but the fact remains that the wet timing belt (where the rubber belt runs in an oil bath) design had a less-than-perfect track record here and abroad. And even if failures were only a small percentage of units sold, when that failure happens to you, it’s a 100 per cent failure rate…

So, Ford has re-engineered the 2.0-litre unit to use an utterly conventional timing chain, designed new pistons, a different fuel-injection system and reduced the turbocharger count from two to one. The theory is the more robust timing chain will reduce problems, while the single-turbo installation will save money at a production level. In the process, however, both power and torque outputs have fallen. In this case, the bi-turbo engine’s 154kW and 500Nm have fallen to 125kW and 405Nm respectively in the new engine.

Payloads and towing capacity have not been affected (the Ranger can still tow 3500kg) but there’s speculation that 125kW won’t drag a huge trailer around with the same ease as the old engine, even with the 10-speed automatic that’s fitted. Hence the V6 being made available across the board. Allegedly.

The counterpoint is that Ford has dropped the final-dive ratio of the 2.0-litre Rangers which should help with in-gear flexibility and acceleration.

The 2.0-litre-engined Rangers also lack the 4-Auto setting and operate in two-wheel drive mode exclusively on bitumen.

The Euro 6-compliant 1.6-litre multi-point fuel-injected four-cylinder petrol engine is conspicuously rev-happy for a commercial vehicle, as evidenced by its tachometer which displays rpm increments all the way up to 7000rpm - with no redline.

The needle has to reach 6000rpm to access the engine’s relatively modest maximum power of 72kW (less than Kangoo/Caddy, which are both turbos), with peak torque of 152Nm (also less) at a relatively high 3500rpm. It also requires 95-octane fuel.

The five-speed manual gearbox has useful spread of ratios for both city/suburban delivery work and load hauling on the highway.

Ford claims a combined cycle (urban/extra-urban) fuel economy figure of 6.8 litres per 100km for the new 2.0-litre engine. We didn’t get too close to that, but that’s hardly surprising given real-world figures almost never match the official test figure. Rather, we managed 8.2L/100km in mainly relaxed country driving and about 9.5L/100km with a little peak hour traffic thrown into the mix. Either way, the Ranger should be pretty frugal.

The real question mark crops up when you hook a bobcat and tandem trailer to the tow-bar. We’ll have to wait and see how that affects economy on the 'little' Ranger engine.

Meantime, those real-world figures, combined with the Ford’s 80-litre fuel tank, mean a typical range of something like 800 to 900km between visits to the service-station.

And while you might be thinking a newly-developed, modern turbo-diesel would need AdBlue, the 2.0-litre as fitted to the Ranger line-up does not.

Our Berlingo achieved a combined figure of 7.2L/100km over a distance of 422km on a variety of roads and with different loads, including near-maximum GVM. Impressively, that was line-ball with the official combined figure of 7.1. With its 60-litre tank, you could expect a realistic driving range of 580-600km.

Since Ford has made no changes to suspension, steering, tyre specifications or braking hardware, it’s no surprise to find that the new version feels very familiar.

The V6 variants remain something of a revelation after some of the competitors’ four-cylinder engines, and the sophistication and refinement comes through immediately with the V6 slurring away at its upshifts and generally feeling like a high-end solution to a dual-cab propulsion problem.

But of course, we knew that, didn’t we? Exactly, so the big questions surround the new 2.0-litre four-cylinder turbo-diesel with its new specification and downgraded outputs. Specifically, can 125kW and 405Nm cut it in this cut-throat market?

The initial answer appears to be yes. In fact, when you consider that not every dual-cab owner tows three-and-a-half tonnes with one, you can see why a smaller, more frugal engine might do the job. And there’s always the optional V6 if the job demands it, right?

Acceleration is nothing like the V6’s of course, but the new four-cylinder rolls along at highway speeds without a problem and can still accelerate to overtake. That’s largely a function of having 10 gears and a lower final-drive ratio, but the latter doesn’t seem to have made the engine feel manic or short-geared in any way.

Normal overtaking ranges, say, 70km/h to 100km/h feature lots of mid-range and it’s only when you wring the new engine out that it starts to feel a little puny at the top end. But it never fails to impress with its refined feel and fairly low noise levels and, if nothing else, it proves that smaller capacity four-cylinder engines have an inherent advantage in being smoother and silkier to rev than some of the big bangers out there.

Perhaps if you jumped straight from the outgoing bi-turbo variant into the new single-turbo Ranger, you might notice a decent fall-off in performance, but if you’d never driven a bi-turbo, you’ll never dismiss the new engine as anything other than completely adequate.

The caveat to all that is when we get to hitch a big load to the new Ranger and see what a couple or three tonnes does to that apparent adequacy.

The first thing we noticed was the relatively low cargo-bay noise, combined with low wind and engine noise. The ride quality was firm but acceptable without a load, and the steering responsive and linear in weight, with a strong self-centering effect ensuring good directional stability. 

The slick-shifting manual gearshift was nice to use, with well-defined gates and a light clutch action. Braking response was strong, but four discs designed to cope with a 3250kg GCM could bite hard if you pressed too firmly without a load.

With maximum torque at 3500rpm and peak power at 6000rpm, the 1.6-litre non-turbo engine responded best around town when kept revving freely between those two numbers. Although torque started to fall away sharply below 1800rpm, a useful amount remained between 1800-3500rpm, as evidenced by 2750rpm at 100km/h and 3000rpm at 110km/h in top gear on the highway.

With 600kg in the cargo bay plus a 100kg driver, our 700kg payload was 150kg below GVM. Handling and ride quality with this load was excellent, particularly over large bumps and on heavily patched bitumen roads. Braking was also reassuringly strong and it continued to track straight in cross-winds at highway speeds.

The engine’s rev-happy nature was noticeable on our 2.0km, 13 per cent gradient set climb with this load, finding its sweet spot in second gear at 3750rpm - which it happily pulled all the way to the top. Engine braking on the way down was non-existent, but the powerful brakes easily covered this shortfall.

No ANCAP rating here, but a LHD diesel version with dual airbags achieved four stars when tested by Euro NCAP in 2009. Evidence that our local model is aimed at cost-cutting fleet buyers is a front airbag and cargo barrier for driver only, with passenger front airbag and side airbags for both sides only available as optional extras. There’s no AEB either, but you do get an electronic stability control program with traction control and hill start assist, plus a rear-view camera and rear parking sensors.

Ford’s standard factory warranty for the Ranger is five years/unlimited kilometres.

There’s also the option of pre-paid servicing, available when you purchase the vehicle brand-new. By locking in the servicing cost, you can pay for the first four scheduled services up to 60,000km or four years, whichever comes first. That’s worked out in accordance with the vehicle’s 12 month/15,000km service intervals.

The Ford Australia website also has a service-cost calculator function where you can input your vehicle’s details and a fixed-price service cost will be worked out for you.

Ford Australia also has a huge dealer network, so parts and servicing should not represent a problem anywhere in the country.

A three-year/100,000km warranty includes roadside assistance, plus there’s a five-year anti-corrosion warranty. Scheduled servicing is 12 months/20,000km, whichever occurs first. There is also fixed pricing for the first three scheduled services of $416 (12 months/20,000km), $777 (24 months/40,000km) and $416 (36 months/60,000km).