Ford News

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. 

Ford is still investigating the possibility of creating an ultimate Raptor for the road.Speaking to Australian media, including CarsGuide, Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley said a production version of the Raptor T1+ Dakar racer is being studied.“I don’t want to go into it too much, other than say, Kumar and the team really under that the invisible line between off-road and on-road supercars is blurring and with partially electric powertrains and digitally controlled damping and torque vectoring, you can now imagine a digitally enabled super vehicle that on-road and off-road is equally capable.“What the silhouette looks like all the details … we’ll continue to look at, but if there’s a company in the world that would break the rules and do something like that, I think it should be Ford.”This follows commentary from Farley in August last year where he discussed the potential of a 1000hp supercar that he sees eventually competing in the Dakar Rally.Ford currently competes in the Dakar Rally with the Raptor T1+ which is a purpose-built off-road racer. It’s powered by a 5.0-litre Coyote V8 engine, has 37-inch off-road tyres, as well as 400mm of ground clearance.Previous reports indicated that Ford is plotting a Mustang Raptor that could sit at the top of the Raptor line-up, above the Bronco Raptor, Ranger Raptor and F-150 Raptor R.It’s unclear if the Mustang will be used as a base for this potential off-road supercar, though Ford did recently create the high-performance Mustang GTD to rival the Porsche 911 GT3 RS.In the aforementioned interview with Bloomberg in August 2025, Farley noted this potential off-road supercar, if it’s actually produced, will be different to vehicles like the Porsche 911 Dakar and Lamborghini Huracan Sterrato.“The on-road performance hierarchy is very simple to see and the very top is over-served in my opinion, but no one’s ever done off-road supercar,” said Mr Farley.“Let’s see how long it would last on the Baja 500 course.”It’s now been years since rumours of an ultimate Raptor supercar being produced, so for now we still need to wait and see whether it will actually eventuate.

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.

Polestar Australia boss Scott Maynard has opened fire on Australia's owners of American-style utes, saying they "use and abuse" FBT and LCT subsidies that are aimed at tools of the trade. In a stinging rebuke of government policy that favours some of the nation's biggest vehicles, as similar rebates for electrified vehicles are under the microscope, the executive suggested the Albanese Government would be better off tightening light commercial vehicle policies towards American pickup trucks."It's actually being used and abused in the light commercial vehicle space," Mr Maynard said. "I was a tradie. That's how I started in this industry, as a tech. So I fully support the subsidy of tools of trade to our trades people. I couldn't be more supportive of it."But these vehicles are not even being marketed as tools of trade. You've got $200,000 American-style utes and pickup trucks marketed as towing caravans and boats, and yet they enjoy the same FBT and LCT let-off, which can be tens of thousands of taxpayers dollars, so that they can never, never turn up on a job site."That is entirely unjust. So if the government sets out to save some of the taxpayers' money handed over in FBT deductions, it should be done in reconciling where its support of light commercial vehicles goes, not supporting the electric vehicle industry."Since 2022, electric vehicles positioned below the Luxury Car Tax (LCT) threshold of $91,387 for electrified vehicles, under a novated lease, were no longer eligible for Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) obligations. Numbers crunched by the Australian Financial Review found someone who leases a $60,000 car could save as much as $12,000 per year if they opt for an EV over an ICE vehicle.While spurring EV sales, the program is expected to cost $1.35 billion over the 2025/2026 financial year. The incentives are currently under review, with formal submissions closing last month.Similarly, most utes are not subjected to FBT obligations, provided the vehicle can carry a load of one tonne or more, or carry more than eight passengers, or are not primarily designed for carrying passengers. The vehicles must only have "limited" private use. LCT – which generates as much as $1.3b annually – does not apply to “a commercial vehicle designed mainly for carrying goods and not passengers”..Data from the Australia Institute, published in 2023, found the LCT exemption resulted in lost revenue of around $250m per annum on the sale of American pickup trucks.

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.

This month marks the 40 anniversary of the launch of the Holden VL Commodore in Australia.The fifth and final iteration of the original, German Opel Rekord E-derived (and ultimately HZ Kingswood-usurping) VB Commodore series released back in October 1978, it ranks alongside the most revered Holdens ever.Now a cultural phenomenon, it’s become, to Gen Xers and Millennials mainly, what the 1963 EH is to Baby Boomers. Peak Holden. Here's why.The most changed Commodore to dateThat 1970s-era VB changed little through its VC (1980), VH (1981) and VK (1984) facelifts, though the latter did adopt an extra side window, plastic bumpers and truly ugly square instruments to set it apart.Frankly, buyers became bored, rivals were trying harder and sales were in a worrying downward spiral.Stylistically, then, the VL’s strikingly low, sloping bonnet, featuring slimmer yet far-more effective headlights, seemed almost revolutionary compared to any previous Commodore.Inspired by the mid-sized JD Camira’s facelift of 1984, they also provided a welcome change after seven years of samey front-end design themes. The flagship Calais, meanwhile, added pop-up light covers for dramatic visual demarcation. How Eighties is that?And while the mid-body and cabin sections carried through from the preceding VK, save for a tacky rehash of the upper-dash architecture and refurbished seats in Calais, further back, a small kick-up at the trailing edge of the boot lid gave the sedans a distinctive duck-tail silhouette, for a five-per-cent aero improvement. The wagon, meanwhile, made do with a bumper that merely hung back there like a full nappy. Never mind.But the VL’s defining change lurked underneath the bonnet.Breaking with traditionWildly controversial leading up to the launch, to meet unleaded petrol requirements, the VL ditched Holden’s venerable 3.3-litre overhead-valve iron-block in-line six-cylinder (I6) Black petrol engine (in 86kW carburettor and 106kW fuel-injection guises), for Nissan’s more-advanced 114kW 3.0-litre overhead-cam RB30E, which also debuted soon after in the locally made R31 Skyline.Remember when they actually made Skylines in Australia?Dubbed Powertech 6Ei and imported from Japan, it was 33 per cent more powerful yet 15 per cent more economical than the previous 3.3 base, bringing with it a GM-H-first electronic four-speed auto.Fitting the Nissan I6 in “Australia’s Own” was seen as a betrayal amongst some loyalists, politicians and unionists (since the switch meant a Holden engine factory closed), though it quickly became the literal heart of the VL’s enduring appeal.Especially the cop-car-favourite 150kW RB30ET turbocharged option that followed from July, which even blitzed the 122kW 4.9-litre V8 (an unleaded revamp of the 1969-vintage original still stuck with a three-speed auto option) – as well as anything arch rival and market-leader Ford bothered to muster.Perhaps that’s why the contemporary XF Falcon generally commands a fraction of this-era Commodore’s resale values. Burn!Too little, too late, for GM-HYet, for all intents and purposes, the VL helped end General-Motors-Holden’s (GM-H) as we knew it.Firstly, the Commodore failed to reel in the high-flying Falcon, which was comfortably Australia’s most popular car at the time, owning some 15 per cent of the total vehicle market at its peak. Though more popular with private buyers, only once, in April 1986, did the VL hit the top spot, and only by three units. The end-of-year tally was nearly 55,000 versus over 66,000 registrations. The 1987 results were worse: 53,000 against nearly 70,000, in the XF’s favour.Fleet buyers preferred the visibly-wider (by nearly 140mm) Falcon over Commodore because of the former’s greater size, perceived higher-quality interior (Holden’s build quality was dreadful) and more-predictable road manners. No doubt Ford’s brilliant marketing helped, too.Secondly, the VL also suffered at the hands of an increasingly more-aggressive Mitsubishi, which burst back into the large-car segment in 1985, after a four-year absence following the end of the ancient Chrysler Valiant it inherited, with the innovative, wide-bodied Magna – the first of its kind among medium-sized cars anywhere in the world.A massive hit, the latter embarrassed the VL for interior space and set new local standards in refinement, and continued to challenge Holden and Falcon for the next 20 years.Thirdly, that Nissan engine was a financial disaster for GM-H, reportedly costing more than twice as much per unit than when the deal was struck years before, due to unfavourable currency fluctuations. Unable to make a profit with the VL, Holden couldn’t catch a break.That, along with mounting debt partly accrued due to the over-capitalisation and long-term sales underperformance of the also-Opel-based Camira project – a doomed endeavour given how close in size and price the two Holden family cars were – effectively bankrupted GM-H.On December 9, 1986, GM in Michigan bailed Holden out, and split the operations into the Holden Motor Company (manufacturing) and Holden Engine Company, the latter becoming a key export earner later on, allowing the brand to be less-encumbered with debt in the lead-up to the larger, second-generation Commodore’s release in August, 1988.The car behind the complicated legacyWhether the VL was a success or failure depends on your point of view. Commercially it under-performed, but critically… well, things were complicated.Available in government cheapo-spec SL, fleet-fodder Executive, private-buyer-baiting Berlina, luxury Calais and performance SS grades – with the latter trio being sedan-only bar one brief exception – it offered a broader choice than a very-complacent Ford.Actually, that’s a little harsh, as Ford was stretched developing the largely new-from-the-ground-up EA Falcon, along with the SA Capri convertible.What Holden desperately lacked were responses to the XF-based ute, panel van and long-wheelbase luxury car (Fairlane rival), as these were the provenance of the full-sized WB line-up that ceased in 1985. The VN-derived VG ute and VQ Statesman/Caprice twins wouldn’t surface until 1990.Contemporary reviews loved the Nissan I6’s BMW-levels of power delivery and straight-line performance, especially at the SL’s price point, and swooned over the turbo’s sensational speed and smoothness. But many also criticised the VL’s retrograde steering and suspension revisions that were meant to fix previous models’ sharp steering, but instead resulted in duller handling, excessive body movement and a lumpier ride. Fail.Holden was praised for solely offering a cheap V8, since Ford dropped theirs years before (and not rectified until 1991’s EB series), giving caravanning and boating-obsessed Australians an affordably torquey towing option, which nobody could match.To stoke VL sales, a Vacationer special arrived by mid 1987, while another – badged ‘200 Series’ in time for Australia’s Bicentennial – largely served as a spoiler for the EA Falcon the following March.HSV is bornThis was also the era of Holden’s very public breakup with racing hero Peter Brock over his infamous Polarizer engine-efficiency enhancer that GM-H wanted no part of. This led to the in-house Holden Special Vehicles (HSV) replacing Brock’s Holden Dealer Team, resulting in the HSV VL SV88 as the first in a long line of hot Commodores.An early standout was the HSV VL SS Group-A SV, unkindly branded the Plastic Pig or Batmobile despite boasting up to 231kW, developed to meet racing homologation regulations by Walkinshaw. But, with its outrageous body kit and pricing, sales stalled (it was released as VN came on stream), though now they’re a highly sought-after.VL afterlifeWith so much at stake, the VN arrived with huge fanfare in August 1988, and immediately addressed many of its predecessor’s perceived shortcomings, being equal-largest in class with Falcon, far-more modern inside and out and dynamically a better-behaved proposition.A more suitable family car for Australia, in other words.But the thing is, with the financially debilitating Nissan engine deal cancelled, the VN’s powertrain replacement – this time to a rough old Buick 3.8-litre V6 from North America – sealed the VL’s place in Holden folklore. Even with the very non-GM engine code name, RB30E is now considered one of the greats.If nothing else, the Commodore’s quick ascension to the top (a position it would continuously swap with the Falcon until the disastrous AU a decade later, but that’s another story) proves that Australians are basically size queens.Overall, 151,008 VLs were made over about 30 months, a record for any Commodore at the time, with 134,795 built for Australia, 4322 exported mostly to South East Asia and 12,720 in assembled from completely knocked-down components in New Zealand and Indonesia.The final first-gen Commodore may have lost the battle against the XF, but the big Holden eventually overtook – and outlived – the Falcon. The journey back began here.More importantly, it won the affection of Australian enthusiasts and loyalists like no other before or since – thanks ironically to that controversial Nissan heart within, saving the Commodore for 33 more years.Happy 40 birthday, VL.

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.

The President of the United States Donald Trump and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin have combined to eliminate the ‘off-cycle credit’ the EPA said was used to implement the start-stop feature in American vehicles. An EPA off-cycle credit awards carmakers greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction credits for technologies that improve real-world fuel efficiency but are not fully captured by laboratory-based emissions tests. For example, stop-start systems and active aerodynamics.The statement said the feature is “almost universally hated”, with the EPA’s final rule eliminating all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines with model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond, “including for what many Americans refer to as the single worst feature in cars - auto start-stop buttons”.Announcing the change, Administrator Zeldin said, “As I travelled across all 50 states this past year, I heard from countless Americans who not only dislike the start-stop feature but passionately advocated for this mechanism to be a thing of the past. “Not only do many people find start-stop annoying, but it kills the battery of your car without any significant benefit to the environment.“The Trump EPA is proudly fixing this stupid feature at Trump Speed.“Automakers should not be forced to adopt or rewarded for technologies that are merely a climate participation trophy with no measurable pollution reductions. Consumer choice is a top priority for the Trump EPA and we are proud to continue delivering commonsense rules for the American people,” he said.The official EPA announcement stated “about 60 per cent” of new cars have the stop-start feature, and “with the elimination of the off-cycle credits, manufacturers will be incentivized to listen to what Americans actually want in their cars”.Multiple automotive brands manufacturing cars in the US issued statements in response to the regulation change.Stellantis said, “We remain supportive of a rational, achievable approach on fuel economy standards that preserves our customers’ freedom of choice.”A Ford statement said: “We appreciate the work of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin to address the imbalance between current emissions standards and customer choice.”Hyundai made the point that the EPA's rule changes remove incentives rather than mandating change and said, “Hyundai continues to comply with all applicable emissions regulations and regularly evaluates vehicle technologies based on customer feedback, regulatory requirements, and overall efficiency.”General Motors, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and others referenced comments from automotive industry group, Alliance for Automotive Innovation.Alliance President John Bozzella said, “I’ve said it before, automotive emissions regulations finalized in the previous administration are extremely challenging for automakers to achieve given the current marketplace demand for EVs.“The auto industry in America remains focused on preserving vehicle choice for consumers, keeping the industry competitive, and staying on a long-term path of emissions reductions and cleaner vehicles,” he said.