Ford Ranger News

Fuel prices in Australia are soaring, meaning fuel efficiency in vehicles is a more important consideration than ever. Hybrid cars offer the potential for superior fuel efficiency compared to internal combustion power without the big price premium if fully electric or plug-in hybrid options. This makes them an increasingly attractive option for buyers given the current global climate. Hybrid sales are already booming in Australia, but will increases in fuel prices accelerate the shift away from pure internal combustion cars? NRMA spokesperson Peter Khoury said that while hybrid sales are increasing, an even swifter transition is less than clear. “If you’re driving a standard vehicle with a 55-litre tank, compared to what we were paying before the war began to now, it’s a $45 increase on one tank of petrol. That applies regardless of whether it’s hybrid or petrol,” Khoury said. “Historically speaking, looking at what happens after an oil shock, it certainly opens up their consideration. “No doubt that if this crisis continues and these prices hang around for weeks or months, Australians will look at those alternatives more seriously.” Below is a comparison between popular petrol and hybrid choices in each segment to see how they stack up in a changing fuel context. Fuel cost has been calculated using current data from the New South Wales’ government’s average fuel price for unleaded 95 petrol and diesel. Toyota’s Corolla hybrid hatch offers superior fuel efficiency and driving range compared to the Kia K4 petrol model. The Corolla is also cheaper to fill up with fuel thanks to its smaller tank and offers a substantially bigger driving range. The Kia Seltos is a petrol-only variant, but despite its bigger fuel tank, it has less driving range than the Toyota Corolla Cross, courtesy of the hybrid powertrain. The bigger fuel tank means the Seltos is also more expensive to fill up. The mid-size CX-5 has a non-turbo charged petrol engine, which sees it offer an impressive estimated driving range of more than 800km, but once again the Toyota competitor’s fuel efficiency wins out in the RAV4 hybrid. The Toyota Kluger continues the Japanese juggernaut’s fuel efficient theme, with a hybrid set-up offering a driving range of more than 1122km, which is significantly more than the MQ QS, despite both cars costing a similar amount to fill up at the bowser. Utes are some of the worst affected by the fuel price increase as many of them are powered using diesel engines, with diesel fuel rising more than petrol. It has now risen to well beyond the $2.60 mark per litre. The BYD Shark’s plug-in hybrid set-up uses petrol, which makes it an affordable option, given the price of diesel. It should be noted that the Shark 6’s fuel efficiency is significantly reduced when the battery is not charged. It’s a similar story for the GWM Cannon Alpha, which should be noted is no longer on sale, but remains one of limited plug-less hybrid utes in Australia. 

Although the Ford Ranger is currently the best-selling vehicle in Australia for two years running, there's no denying BYD has had a lot of success with the Shark 6 plug-in hybrid (PHEV) ute.It’s even more of a big deal when Ford CEO Jim Farley comes to Australia to test it out, along with other key rivals to see how they stack up against the Ranger.“They’re totally different animals,” said Farley to Australian media, including CarsGuide, when asked how the Ranger compares to the BYD Shark 6 and GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV.“The [BYD] Shark is a ute, but if you put 500kg in the back, it’s not a Ranger, it’s not a HiLux.“But for someone who doesn’t do that every day and they want electrification, you know, it’s a pretty competitive product.“I have no idea how they make money.“The Great Wall is a very competitive product and I’ve talked to a lot of customers of both and those customers are very educated.“Yet again, [BYD and GWM] haven’t been doing it like our Ranger or the HiLux for decades, so they don’t have all the chassis and all the towing payload and all the experience.“So they’re coming at it with a huge deficit, but it’s a good, solid, competitive product.“I mean I much prefer the Ranger for real work. It’s no competition, but not everyone in buys a Ranger to do the kind of work that we design it for.“There’s a lot of different kinds of customers here.”The BYD Shark 6 ute is by far the best-selling PHEV ute currently in Australia. In 2025 a total of 18,073 examples were sold, making it BYD’s best-selling vehicle for the year, while also outselling a number of diesel-powered rivals like the Mazda BT-50, Nissan Navara and Volkswagen Amarok.While it has a body-on-frame chassis, the Shark 6 has an electric-heavy PHEV powertrain layout with no driveshaft down the middle of the vehicle and no locking differentials. It also has a slightly reduced braked trailer towing capacity of 2500kg.GWM has had success to a lesser extent with the Cannon Alpha PHEV in Australia, but due to how its PHEV drivetrain is configured, it allows for a mechanical four-wheel drive system plus a higher 3.5-tonne braked towing capacity.It’s worth noting the Ford Ranger PHEV also has a similar PHEV layout as the Cannon Alpha PHEV and similarly allows for a segment-meeting 3.5-tonne braked towing capacity and a mechanical four-wheel drive system.Ford doesn’t publicly disclose sales figures that split out Ranger PHEV sales from the wider Ranger family, which now also includes the beefy Ranger Super Duty. It’s therefore unclear how popular the Ranger PHEV has been in Australia to date.On paper, where the Ranger PHEV is let down over the Shark 6 and Cannon Alpha PHEV is pure-electric range. It only offers up to 49km of electric range, whereas the Shark 6 offers 100km and the Cannon Alpha PHEV offers 115km, all according to NEDC testing.Another notable disadvantage for the Ranger PHEV over the BYD Shark 6 and GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV is pricing.The Ranger PHEV currently starts at $71,990, before on-road costs, for the XLT and extends to $79,990, BOC, for the Wildtrak.The Shark 6 on the other hand is currently offered in one trim level, priced at $57,900, drive-away.The Cannon Alpha PHEV starts at $51,490, drive-away, and extends to $58,490, drive-away, thanks to a pricing offer that’s set to end at the end of March.

Ford CEO Jim Farley has warned the legacy carmaker may axe its Australian engineering arm if the local government doesn’t come to the table and help equalise costs.While the Blue Oval hasn’t produced any cars in Australia since 2016, it has since still led the engineering development of vehicles like the Ranger ute and related Everest SUV.Ford currently has around 1500 engineers employed in Australia.“Australia has become ground zero for the global industry because your government dropped all the tariffs,” said Farley to Australian media, including CarsGuide.“It’s a completely open market and also pushing CO2 , arguably way beyond the customer requirements.“So it’s this cauldron of innovation and brutal competition, and to have engineers here – we’re the only ones left.“It's amazing to me that no one notices that Toyota has like 10 engineers in the country, and Ford has got thousands.“Do we get credit at the brand level? Probably not, but thank god they’re here because we wouldn’t have a Super Duty without them, and the global Ranger wouldn’t be number two to HiLux globally.“ needs to decide if they want to help us equalise the cost differential … because this is among the most expensive places to have engineers on the planet.”Another element is the Australian government’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) could further strangle the future of Ford’s local engineering efforts.“What we’ve seen around the world with this kind of pressure on pure EVs is that ultimately all OEMs develop compliance vehicles," Farley said.“They’re not designed for customers. They’re designed for the OEM to be compliant and they’re subsidised by the OEMs and the customers have great choice.“That’s not a natural market and over time that winds up not being sustainable.“Something your government, or any government, has to be very sensitive to around the CO2 glide path. We want to reduce our CO2 footprint, but there’s a level that the customer can’t afford, and not all duty cycles can be electrified.”Farley noted one particular use case that electrified vehicles currently aren’t suited for is for heavy towing and that this happens frequently in Australia.“From my standpoint, those are the two policy issues that this country has to face. You want to prioritise mining and extraction of raw materials? Fine, but then you’re going to have to make some tough choices," Farley said.“Is the CO2 road map sustainable for customers? I think Australia may be on the wrong side of that now.“As well, you have to decide as a country, do you want to have a traditional engineering capability in your country?”“I think the government has to decide on that and it can’t sit on the sidelines and pretend that’s not a choice.“It’s a choice because that engineering can be done in a lot of other places … cheaper and faster.“The good thing is Ford is committed, but we’re not going to make bad choices.”As it currently stands, Ford does have a wealth of credits as reflected in the 2025 performance period for NVES.To be exact, it has 451,899 credits which it can either trade with other carmakers for profit or hoard to offset the results in coming years as the targets get stricter.A major reason for why Ford currently has NVES credits is because it, among a wealth of other brands, advocated for the implementation of two different target types – Type 1 and Type 2.Type 1 vehicles are regular passenger cars like sedans, hatchbacks and SUVs, whereas Type 2 vehicles include utes, vans, as well as body-on-frame four-wheel drive SUVs with a towing capacity of more than 3000kg.The latter has CO2 targets that aren’t as low but they still scale down as the years progress.Many of Ford’s best-selling vehicles, including the Ranger, Everest and Transit all fall into the Type 2 category.For context, in 2025 the CO2 emissions target for Type 1 vehicles was 141g/km and for Type 2 vehicles was 210g/km.It has since been reduced to 117g/km for Type 1 vehicles and 180g/km for Type 2 vehicles in 2026.It takes until 2028 for the CO2 emissions target for Type 2 vehicles to undercut the original 2025 CO2 emissions target for Type 1 vehicles.It's understood Ford is already making efforts to reduced its fleet CO2 footprint in Australia.The company has discontinued the 2.0-litre four-cylinder bi-turbo engine in the Ranger and Everest, instead relying more heavily on the single-turbo version in addition to the wealth of other powertrains offered, including V6s and a plug-in hybrid.The Blue Oval has also introduced more electrified Transit Custom offerings in Australia.Beyond the E-Transit Custom and E-Transit commercial vans though, the only other pure electric vehicle (EV) Ford Australia currently offers is the Mustang Mach-E mid-size SUV.

With the hammer predicted to drop on EV subsides in the coming weeks, there are growing calls to instead shine the spotlight on Australia's ute segment, where similar tax breaks exist for "commercial vehicles."

Is the Ford Ranger Super Duty actually as good as you've heard? Let's take a look.

Internal combustion power is still by far the most popular type of car in Australia, the latest sales data has revealed. 

China is now the biggest country of origin for new-car sales in Australia, leapfrogging Japan in what is a seismic shift in the Australian automotive industry.

If you spend any time on the road you’ll see plenty of utes being used for work – but you also see just as many, if not more, vans being used as the conveyance of choice for couriers, tradies and the like.So which is actually better as a work vehicle: a ute or a van? It’s an age-old debate likely to generate more than a few raised voices.I’m ute-biased because I own a ute and use it for my other job(s), but I know plenty of people who are quite happy with their van.So, let’s tackle this touchy subject, shall we?Is the popularity of utes simply a result of hype? Are ute owners actually using entirely the wrong vehicle for work? Not at all.Vans and utes are close in terms of engine and transmission, power and torque outputs, the efficacy of driver-assist technology and even day-to-day useability.But the load space area – the business end of any work vehicle – is where the major difference lies.A ute’s tub or tray, as standard, is not closed-in so the extent of your packing is not limited by your vehicle’s roof-line as it is in a van. You can load beyond the top edge of a ute’s tub, and tall or awkwardly shaped loads aren’t a problem so long as they are safely secured.A ute also offers superior and more flexible load-carrying capabilities than a van.However, if a ute has no cover on its tub/tray, security from thieves and protection from the elements remain a serious issue. The good news is that there are OEM or aftermarket tub coverings available (hard or soft tonneau covers, roller shutters, aluminium lids etc) for utes, so that’s a potentially easily resolved issue.Or you can purchase an aftermarket canopy to be fixed to your ute tub, and some of those options are lockable. The problems is a canopy is not an engineered-at-vehicle-origin solution, so while it offers much better security, water- and dust-proofing than having no cover at all, it’s no match for a van’s factory built-in load space.And, besides, installing a cover on a ute’s tub – whether it’s a tonneau, roller shutter, canopy, or a bit of tarp over the top – defeats the purpose of owning an open-topped ute, because by doing so you’re robbing the ute tub of its load-carrying versatility.On the others side of the fence, vans have plenty of positives in their favour, even as standard.Take, for instance, the Ford Transit Custom Trail which I recently road-tested. Firstly, focusing on the cabin, the Trail can be optioned as a two-seater with hard-wearing plastic everywhere – ready for the messiness of work and life – as well as charge points (USB-A and -C) and storage (including a van-favourite dash-top slot for logbooks etc, outboard moulded cupholders and a nifty pop-out cupholder).Secondly, the load space includes access via a barn door at the rear and the Trail can be optioned up to have a sliding door on both sides.The cargo area is substantial – 3002mm long (to the bulkhead; 3450mm long if load-through hatch is used), 1392mm wide (between wheel arches) and 1425mm high (floor to roof). Easily big enough for work equipment or recreational gear. It can cope with four Euro pallets (1200mm x 800mm each) and it has a listed maximum load volume (with the bulkhead) of 6.8 cubic metres.Load height through the rear barn doors is 531-585mm, depending on how much weight (driver, passenger etc) is already onboard.The load space has a metal bulkhead (with window and load-through hatch), load area protection kit (full height walls and moulded floor), LED lights and eight tie-down loops.It has plenty of potential as a work and/or recreational vehicle with ample scope for modifications inside and out.Back to vans and utes in general, payloads in vans can range upwards of 1000kg, while payloads in utes (e.g. a single-cab) can be upwards of about 1000kg. (US pick-ups can manage more – with listed payloads of 1759kg and up – but in this yarn we’re focussing on mainstream utes.)But a van’s rear load space could be considered a distinct advantage – or at least a major point of difference – over a ute.A van can be big, for example the cargo space in a 2021 long-wheelbase Mercedes-Benz Vito 116 is 3061mm long, 1709mm wide, and 1391mm high; with 1265mm between the rear wheel-arches, so a 1165mm standard Australian pallet will slot in, no worries. Official cargo volume in the Vito is 6.6 square metres.Vans are built to carry loads and as such there is plenty of space in the rear, and amenities back there include tie-down points (with which to secure your load), lighting systems (halogen or LED), wood panelling on the interior walls and rear door, rubber or vinyl matting, or other grippy protective surface on the floor of the cargo area, and even power points.The load spaces in vans are ripe for customisation: maybe shelves for a tradie, or bedding and extra storage for an adventurous person or couple.And the rear load space may provide open access to the driver and front passengers(s), or it may be separated from the cabin of the van by a bulkhead with a built-in cargo barrier.Access to that fully secure load space may be via sliding doors on either side of the van or by using the rear door, which might be 180°-opening rear twin barn doors (with window), or a single lift-up tailgate, and either of those can be fully locked open so, importantly, a forklift can be used to place a heavier load in the cargo area.So while there’s no problem with permitted access, the load space is fully lockable, so theoretically secure, and the contents may be concealed.The cabins of utes and vans are similar in that they can be set up as mobile offices, with an immediate ease of use and comfort as priorities: think cloth seats, durable plastic surfaces and storage spaces aplenty including a lockable glovebox, dash-top slots (for log books, general paperwork etc) as well as door pockets and bottle-holder, a cup-holder at each end of the dash, and a centre console bin.But each type of vehicle has its own particular advantages, as well as exhibiting characteristics that may count against it when it comes to their potential as work vehicles.As mentioned, I’m well and truly in the ute camp but I know lots of people who wouldn’t swap their van for a ute as a work vehicle.To each their own… but to me utes still have the edge.

Ford has shared early details of the first product to be underpinned by the global giant’s ‘Universal Electric Vehicle platform’, “a US$30,000 mid-size pick-up” at the same time reiterating the project team’s goal of making “vehicles assembled on this platform affordable for the average family”.Inspired by Henry Ford’s vision for mass availability of the original Model T, the new ute targeted to cost the equivalent of around A$42,500 is likely to be revealed this year with production following in 2027.It’s the first output from the Blue Oval’s ‘skunkworks’ engineering team in California and according to Ford’s Executive Director of Advanced Electric Vehicle Development Alan Clarke, his team has set design and engineering ‘bounties’ or goals aimed at “democratizing electric vehicles” (and it’s fair to assume, compete more effectively against emerging Chinese brands).“The introduction of these bounties is a key element to how the team has been able to really tangibly show every engineer, every product designer, how they impact the customer and cost of the vehicle on a daily basis as they do their work,” Clarke said.A fundamental cost-saving move is adoption of large alloy ‘unicast’ sections in the style of Tesla’s ‘Gigacasting’ process, an approach also used on a variety of EV models from BYD, Volvo, XPeng, Zeekr and others. A non-linear ‘assembly tree’ manufacturing process is also inspired by Tesla’s ‘Unboxed’  tech introduced by the EV pioneer in 2023.It divides assembly into smaller, parallel, modular sub-pieces rather than a single, continuous manufacturing line.Ford said sub-assemblies will include a front and rear module, as well as a battery that serves as the vehicle’s floor, the combination replacing 146 structural components used on the similarly-size Maverick ute.At the same time, the ute’s ‘zonal architecture’ groups multiple functions into five electric control units (ECUs), compared with 30 or more in prior systems, while other key functions are managed via a single ‘Energy Management Unit’.Ford said the UEV ute’s wiring harness will be more than 1200 metres shorter and 10kg lighter than the one currently used in its Mach-E electric SUV.In fact, Ford CEO Jim Farley has publicly voiced his disappointment with the Mach-E’s  teardown performance relative to the Tesla Model Y where the Mach-E proved to be less efficient, significantly heavier and more complex in its construction.“We have all lived through far too many ‘good college tries’ by Detroit automakers to make affordable vehicles that end up with idled plants, layoffs and uncertainty. So, this had to be a strong, sustainable and profitable business. From Day 1, we knew there was no incremental path to success. “We empowered a tiny skunkworks team three time zones away from Detroit. We tore up the moving assembly line concept and designed a better one. And we found a path to be the first automaker to make prismatic LFP batteries in the U.S."The (UEV) platform reduces parts by 20 per cent versus a typical vehicle, with 25 per cent fewer fasteners, 40 per cent fewer workstations dock-to-dock in the plant and 15 per cent faster assembly time as well as lower cost of ownership over five years than a three-year-old used Tesla Model Y,” he said.The new ute’s aero and powertrain efficiency have also been finely tuned to maximise driving range and reduce charging time. Examples cited include a flush underbody, compact exterior mirrors and careful profiling of the load bed.And Ford claims the ute’s in-house electrical architecture design will shorten charging time and improve battery management performance.Time will tell whether these production investments (including approximately US$2 billion to transform its Louisville Assembly Plant) deliver more affordable products while making Ford’s underperforming EV line-up (including the Mach-E and now discontinued F-150 Lightning) profitable.CarsGuide contacted Ford Australia for comment on the prospect of right-hand drive production and local sale of the new ute and was told it had “nothing to add from an Australian point-of-view”.

Ford Australia has recalled some of its Ranger and Everest units, according to a Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication, Sports and the Arts filing. It concerns 244 units affected in the 2022 model year relating to a low battery level causing the transmission to shift into the Park setting at low speeds. “Due to a software issue, under certain circumstances if the battery level drops below a critical threshold, the transmission may shift into Park when the vehicle is travelling at speeds below 6 km/h,” the notice reads. “This may cause a sudden stop without the rear brake lamps illuminating as intended."A sudden stop whilst driving at low speed and the rear brake lamps not illuminating as intended, could increase the potential risk of an accident, causing injury or death to vehicle occupants and other road users.”This recall notice related to an issue that affected nearly 5000 Ranger and Everest models from the 2021-2023 model year back in 2023. Units affected by this latest recall must still be fixed even if works were performed under this previous recall notice. Ford Australia said it is conducting a sweep to identify any vehicles that were not confirmed as addressed in the initial recall.The brand will contact owners affected by the issue in writing requesting for an appointment at their preferred dealership to have the work carried out free of charge. Nearly 3000 Everest and Ranger units were also recalled in late 2025 due at ARB Solis light wiring harness manufacturing defect leading a potential vehicle fire.