Mercedes-Benz X-Class vs Ford Ranger

What's the difference?

The X was an opportunistic shot at a market segment new to Benz. With even apprentices able to afford to buy a well-specced Hilux, it's become harder to separate the foreman from the kids. I, like Mercedes, thought this would be the boss's car. Mercedes saw the gap and went for it, thinking it could grab sales from top end utes from VW, Toyota and Ford, while maybe saving a few folks from buying a RAM or an F150.

The problem is, the target market knows its utes. And in a rough-and-tumble workplace, the perception is that if you've spent up big on this Merc, you've actually just paid too much for a Nissan Navara. Still, like those flawed movies I enjoy, the X-Class is a fine thing - and I don't blame Mercedes for trying. It just costs too much, and yet isn't Mercedes enough to justify that price.

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.

Despite being a Japanese ute in drag, the X-Class isn't immediately rumbled as resembling a Nissan, which certainly should count in its favour. Everyone who asked about it had little idea it wasn't a Daimler from the ground up, until you pointed out various details. Up here in the higher reaches, it's a really quality-looking thing, with beautiful paint and enough differentiation to make it look like a Merc. The headlights do seem a tad small next to the rest of the Mercedes range, but the whopping great three-pointed star in the grille leaves no one in doubt. 

It's fairly tasteful in silver, too, and with a few carefully chosen options it looks pretty tough.

Once you're inside you see where it starts to get confused about itself. The hard, scratchy plastic dash pokes out from behind a huge slab of metallic trim. The centre console is clearly a brother from another mother, as is the overall dash layout. The cabin lacks the thoughtfulness and quality of a Mercedes design - you can't just slap on those signature air vents and expect to get away with it. Every piece that comes from Mercedes appears glued on, and it's jarring. 

This might have been less of an issue if the car was significantly cheaper and not likely to be purchased by people who are familiar with the brand.

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.

I really can't imagine how anyone signed off on the most annoying features of the X. Front-seat passengers get a solitary, shallow cupholder (the second one is unusable), and big door bins that could hold a bottle if you didn't mind it getting smashed from sliding around (they're unlined), and nowhere to put your phone. Like, nowhere, except maybe the glove box. Even the centre console bin is shallow and not much good for anything, apart from as an armrest.

The front seats are reasonably comfortable but the rears are way too high (in the name of a better view) and rammed hard against the rear bulkhead. The rear doors are also pretty narrow, so entry and egress can be a bit of a challenge if you're large or toddler small. Once you're in the seats, legroom is limited and headroom marginal. At least you get air-conditioning vents, but you don't get an armrest in the rear. On a nearly $80,000 ute. Even the dark-ages Colorado has one of those.

Anyway, that's enough said about the interior flaws.

The tray is a big boy, but it's worth knowing that the roller cover does rob a bit of space, as it does on any ute. The optional tray liner looks good and with Mercedes-Benz stamped in it, reminds you again what you've got. All told, it's 1581mm long, 1560mm wide (1215mm between the wheelarches) and you can load up nearly a tonne of people and things into the X350. You can also tow a massive 3500kg braked and still be able to carry a payload of 490kg. Gross vehicle mass is 3250kg (tare is 2190kg).

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 Ranger line-up is vast, so we’ve stuck with the dual-cab 4X4 versions in the range for the purposes of this review, mainly because that’s what people are buying in the greatest numbers.

The line-up kicks off with the XL dual-cab at $51,400 in 2.0-litre form ($57,990 for the V6 version), before working through the Black Edition 2.0-litre at $53,000 drive-away ($60,000), XLT at $67,990, the Wolftrak at $73,000 drive-away, Tremor at $75,090, Wildtrak at an identical $75,090 and finally the Ranger Platinum at $80,890. We’ve left the Raptor and Super Duty variants out of this as they’re completely separate vehicles despite sharing basic architecture.

Within that line-up, of course, there are some new models making a debut, some old ones disappearing and other familiar names making a return. The variant saying goodbye is the Sport, which is being replaced by the Wolftrak with a slightly more off-road focus. It includes the 'Touring Pack' that features the 360-degree camera.

The Tremor which was a special edition, has now joined the fleet permanently, and it gets all-terrain tyres and a 26mm lift to its ride height. The Tremor is now also available for a limited time with the V6 engine.

The main changes to the across-the-board specification include the 12-inch screen, a 400-watt inverter and dual-zone climate-control. Other notable additions include matrix LED headlights and a Bang & Olufsen stereo system for the Wildtrak variant.

Across the fleet, all versions that come standard with the 2.0 litre turbo-diesel can be optioned with the V6 turbo-diesel, and the Ranger now also has a standard 12 inch info-screen, a trailer alarm and front and rear parking sensors.

The X350d has something very Mercedes about it - the engine and transmission package. With 3.5-litres of turbo-diesel V6, you get 190kW at 3400rpm and a thumping 550Nm between 1400 and 3200rpm. These kind of figures at least put it up there with the brawnier VW Amarok.

Feeding the power to all four wheels is Mercedes' own seven-speed automatic. A centre diff apportions power front to rear and you have a choice of three modes - automatic, high range and low-range.

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 X350d did pretty well in the week I had it - the official figure of 8.8L/100km was never going to happen but with a long motorway run to the Blue Mountains and the rest bashing about town, the 10.5L/100km I did achieve without trying was not bad at all. The 80-litre tank should give you a decent range of 750km, or thereabouts.

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.

One of the weirder things to make it into the X-Class is the world's second most irritating column stalk, which is asked to pack in indicators, headlights and wipers. Thankfully, the world's most irritating column stalk, the Mercedes automatic shifter, wasn't inflicted on the X-Class. But the obvious problem is the key, which clearly isn't a Mercedes unit - even the star is ill-fitting and will probably fall off after a while. This is not a premium experience.

Thankfully, the big turbo-diesel wipes away a lot of the complaints about this car not being Mercedes enough. Brawny and super quiet (twin balance shafts will do that), the X is a very easy car to live with. While not especially lively, it's easygoing in the city and very refined.

On the open road it cruises almost silently and the ride is way above what you might expect from an unloaded tradie-mobile. It doesn't feel as high as some utes, which makes it feel a bit more car-like, and will no doubt appeal to some who might have to swap in and out of a traditional SUV and into the X, for whatever reason.

It is by far the most civilised ute I've ever driven and was worlds away from the Colorado I drove last week, to the point where I could almost - almost - see a justification for the unbelievably hefty price tag.

Credit for the refined ride and handling goes to the coil-spring rear end, much maligned in some quarters. While that style of suspension is not the ultimate in load-lugging, it's way more comfortable for passengers and, given the likely buyer profile, probably more agreeable than a cart-sprung rear-end.

I would cheerfully drive long distances in the X and it feels like it could go anywhere.

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 Ranger’s safety systems are among the better ones in the dual-cab market, in terms of their number and depth, but also their calibration and transparency.

All Rangers now have front and rear parking sensors and an alarm system that alerts the driver if the Ranger’s trailer is disconnected. There are also driver aids including adaptive cruise-control, traffic sign recognition, blind-spot monitoring, autonomous emergency braking, trailer-sway control, lane keeping assistance and pre-collision warning.

There are nine airbags including full-length side-curtain airbags for both rows of seats.

A little disappointingly for such a towing-biased vehicle, tyre pressure monitoring isn’t available until you get to the XLT trim level. It should be standard across the range on a vehicle like this.

The Ranger was locally crash tested by ANCAP back in 2022 where all dual-cab variants scored the maximum five stars.

Mercedes offers a three year/200,000km warranty for the X, which isn't too bad. It also throws in roadside assist for the duration. Also worthy are the 12 month/20,000km service intervals. 

A basic capped-price service scheme will hit you for $1950 (pre-paid) or $2,555 if you pay when you front up for each of the three services covered. The servicing isn't super-cheap, as you can see, but at least you know what you're up for.

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.