Volkswagen Amarok vs Ford Ranger

What's the difference?

The Amarok W600 is impressive when you get it onto a twisty road, and my hat goes off to Walkinshaw for turning a dual-cab into something that is genuinely fun to drive on twisty roads. I’m not kidding, the W600 is proper fun.

But it’s expensive, and despite the tough looks and on-road ability, it doesn’t have any more on-paper performance than its standard siblings. That and its ride is compromised by its new abilities.

Those who spend the cash on a W600 probably won’t be disappointed if they can handle a slightly stiff ride, but it’s possible VW is expecting people will be more into the idea of a corner-carving dual-cab than is the reality.

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

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.

The Amarok W600 looks tough. In fact, it might even look a little too tough given the engine under its bonnet is unchanged from the regular V6 Amarok.

Walkinshaw has done an excellent job making the Amarok look like a properly fierce on-road performer, from the bespoke front bumper and new ‘W’ motif in the grille, to the lightbar across the front of the fascia connecting the lights and the aforementioned 20-inch Walkinshaw wheels.

The side-exit twin exhaust up the back of the ute looks excellent, and the fact that the sidesteps retract to tuck in below the doors gives the ute a sleeker vibe.

It’s a bit underwhelming in the cabin by comparison, with the Walkinshaw stitching in the headrests and the stainless steel pedals the biggest additions to the (admittedly already plush) Amarok interior.

It’s just a little more than a jazzed-up Ranger interior, but not by much.

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 Amarok starts from a solid base in terms of practicality, so the W600 inherits pretty much all of it, including a couple of its downsides.

The positives to start, the W600 uses the same handy multimedia system on a nice, clear vertical touchscreen with always-on climate controls and a few buttons for key shortcuts.

As much as a bespoke steering wheel would feel more special, the standard one from the Amarok has convenient buttons and is nice to hold.

The seats in the W600 are comfortable, and finding a naturally ergonomic position is easy with the 10-way electric adjustment, but as much as everything falls nicely to hand the cupholders are in an awkward position and there’s not a lot of easy storage space.

A little cubby above the glovebox and a small centre storage bin are a little hard to reach or access while driving, and the phone charger isn’t the best place to store items.

There’s decent space in the back, with doorcard bottle storage (as up front) and a centre armrest with cupholders.

Impressively, the Amarok W600 still has a 3500kg braked towing capacity, a 954kg payload, and no intrusion on the 1544mm long and 1224mm wide tray. There’s an optional roller cover for that, too.

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.

Powering the W600 is the standard 3.0-litre twin-turbo-diesel V6 available in other Amaroks, with 184kW and 600Nm.

It’s mated to a 10-speed torque converted automatic and powers either the rear or all four wheels, depending on how you’ve set the all-wheel-drive system.

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 Amarok’s diesel V6 engine remains unchanged so the 8.4L/100km fuel consumption rate stands, but if you’re driving the W600 as intended, you’ll see that figure climb.

It’s fitted with an 80-litre fuel tank so theoretically a 950km trip would be possible in WLTP test conditions.

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.

The first and most impressive thing to mention once you’re on the move in the Amarok W600 is that, once you sling the 2.4-tonne dual cab into a corner, you can tell there’s been some rigorous engineering work undertaken here.

The cornering and handling ability of the W600 belies its dual-cab nature to some extent, as it holds relatively flat and is far more confidence inspiring even on soaked roads than any ladder-frame ute I can recall. 

Of course, the tyres help on the cornering front too, with the PS4 SUV rubber being a fairly big trade-off in terms of sacrificing off-road ruggedness for asphalt grip.

Even the exhaust is a subtle reminder that you’re in something that’s had the once-over (or several times over) from a crew of engineers who know what they’re doing.

Sure, it’s not the same burble that used to roll out of the Walkinshaw sheds back in the Holden days, but it growls gently at certain revs or under the right load.

But the ride is firm, and it’s surprising the roads in the south and east of Tassie showed that given they were the test roads used to turn the W600 into the ‘ultimate driver’s ute’.

It’s noticeable enough that you’d probably get a bit tired of it on a long trip, which is a shame as that’s something VW is pretty sure its W600 customers are looking to use it for. That’s why it can still tow 3500kg and has that near-1000kg payload.

I should note that utes with some weight in the tray often feel a little more settled at the leaf-sprung rear, but we didn't test the W600 with any load onboard.

Its big wheels and low-profile rubber probably don’t help the 2.4-tonne ute on the comfort front, but hey, they look good.

The other main issue is it doesn’t feel as ‘special’ as it could in the power and performance department. 

The engine is great for a dual-cab, plenty torquey and doesn’t feel like it needs to work hard day-to-day, but something with a bit of mongrel about it would have been better.

VW not wanting Walkinshaw to detract from its towing and payload ability might have hindered this a little, but I can’t help but wonder if the Amarok W600 could have been more lively with the four-cylinder petrol engine than the diesel V6.

In the Amarok TSI452 variants, it feels peppy enough to be interesting, and there’s probably more scope for chassis balance than the twin-turbo diesel allows.

It’s also the engine used in Ford’s Mustang EcoBoost and the wicked Focus RS of a few years ago, so not bad pedigree.

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.

The W600 is backed by VW’s standard five-year, unlimited kilometre warranty.

Given most popular utes are covered by the same, that’s pretty standard, but longer warranties are creeping in.

Volkswagen says a five-year servicing plan covers the Amarok for just $3200, which averages to $640 a year. Service schedule is every 12 months or 15,000km.

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.