PLUG-IN hybrid (PHEV) utes sound like a great idea and BYD’s Shark 6 has been a runaway sales success, vying with the Mitsubishi Triton for title of Australia’s fourth most-popular ute.
GoAuto was able to put the Ford Ranger PHEV through some tricky real-world testing over the summer and, while we came away impressed with the vehicle, it was clear that the technology – and perhaps the way Ford, BYD and others currently implement it – requires some refining and re-thinking.
We are approaching this from the perspective of a family of four, who like the idea of local journeys being completed using electricity sourced from our rooftop solar array (we already have a home charger) but the flexibility to get off the beaten path with our choice of camper trailer, swags or rooftop tent and the ability of a vehicle to serve as a power source during these trips.
Dramas around diesel particulate filters and other emissions-control systems also add to the appeal of a petrol-electric system that can overcome the fuel-efficiency drawbacks of running a big, heavy vehicle on unleaded (the Ranger PHEV requires 95 RON premium).
Ford has copped flak for equipping its Ranger PHEV with what is seen as the bare minimum; a relatively small 11.8kWh traction battery delivering electric-only range half that claimed by Chinese competitors, further hampered by a lack of DC fast charging capability (even AC charging is slower than the industry standard).
Justifying this conservative approach are payload and towing figures much closer to those of a diesel Ranger, although the battery’s location reduces tub capacity (there is a 31mm-tall hump occupying much of the floor) and makes aftermarket tray or service body fitment a warranty-voiding technical nightmare.
From launch, the PHEV commanded a hefty premium of up to $10,350 over an equivalent diesel Ranger but since Ford made the 3.0-litre V6 diesel its default engine option across much of the ute range, the gap has narrowed to between $4000 and $4900.
For this test, Ford supplied a Ranger Wiltrak PHEV (listed at $79,990 before on-road costs) optioned with Cyber Orange paint ($700, looks yellow to us) and everything that comes standard on the flagship Stormtrak; full-size spare (no-cost option), flexible rack system ($2800, comprising movable sailplane with pop-up crossbar plus swing-out roofbars to carry long loads of up to 80kg dynamic/250kg static) and ceiling-mounted bank of six auxiliary switches ($500).
Drive-away pricing for our Queensland postcode came in at a whopping $89,513. A set of all-terrain tyres can be optioned for another $700.
At the time of writing, Ford was offering $3K off all grades of Ranger PHEV and we have also observed dealers doing even sharper deals on new and ex-demo examples.
While BYD’s much more affordable Shark 6 has become a major ute segment player with just one variant, it seems GWM shares some of Ford’s pain in shifting plug-in hybrid Cannon Alpha utes. Put it this way, it is feasible to buy two of those for the as-tested price of our Ranger.
Both the Chinese utes appear less compromised on paper, with much greater quoted electric-only ranges and the GWM packing some serious off-road hardware along with their aggressive pricing (we have seen Cannon Alpha PHEVs priced at around half the as-tested price of the Ranger covered here).
However, the BYD gives the driver less control over its electric-driven all-wheel-drive system – especially when towing – and GWM put the battery where non-PHEV variants have a spare tyre so you have to carry it in the tub.
Like the Ranger PHEV, aftermarket trays and service bodies are a problem for BYD and GWM, although the former’s market success has prompted companies to come up with solutions and it is becoming increasingly likely that a cab-chassis Shark 6 will launch this year.
Both the Ford and BYD enable vehicle-to-load (mains style power drawn from the traction battery) from sockets within the cabin and tub but the GWM requires an adapter to be plugged into the charging port, making it a static-only operation.
Drawing energy this way also requires the vehicles to be powered up, daytime running lights and all, which is less than ideal for camping applications given the light pollution caused. Noisy fans and engines might also kick in unexpectedly.
Beyond omitting DC fast charging, Ford hobbled the Ranger PHEV’s AC charging to 3.5kW rather than the 7kW most entry-level AC chargers can deliver.
It means a quick top-up over lunch or back at base is out of the question, although your correspondent’s home charger tends to automatically throttle at around this rate to minimise drawing from the grid and maximise the use of solar energy that would be otherwise exported.
This charger’s feature can be overridden if we need to charge more quickly but the Ranger’s slow charge rate makes it impossible.
Ford quotes an electric-only range of 49km, which we found misleading as selecting the ‘EV Now’ drive mode never seemed to yield more than 20km of driving on battery power alone.
However, when using the ‘Auto’ setting, the trip computer reported that 40km of a 70km (mostly motorway) trip had been completed using electric propulsion, resulting in overall fuel consumption of 3.1L/100km that was impressively close to Ford’s combined-cycle claim of 2.9L/100km.
Without charging ahead of the return journey (due to the all DC chargers at our destination being unusable with the AC-only Ranger) the trip computer said we had used 8.3L/100km and 8.2km was done using electricity.
During this leg, we were heading into a strong and hot northerly wind with the results of a school holidays Ikea shop with the kids onboard, putting extra energy-sapping strain on the drivetrain and air-conditioning system.
So, acting like a non-plug-in hybrid, the Ranger PHEV uses roughly the same fuel as a four-cylinder diesel dual-cab.
What about towing? Ford quotes a 795kg payload for the Ranger Wildtrack PHEV tested (5kg more than a BYD Shark 6, 110kg more than a GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV and 178kg less than a Ranger PHEV XLT), with a 3500kg braked towing rating (1000kg more than the BYD and matching the GWM).
A key part of our testing plan for the Ranger PHEV was a challenging combination of towing, sand driving (towing and not towing) and using the ‘Pro Power Onboard’ system to create a powered site experience for our off-grid camp spot on Moreton Island off the coast of Brisbane.
Threading the Ranger through hilly suburbia and on the motorway, Ford’s claimed combined system output figure of 207kW/697Nm made expectedly light work of our two-tonne camper trailer plus two adults and two kids onboard, a loaded 95-litre portable fridge in the tub along with recovery gear, portable solar panels and camping equipment we didn’t stash in the trailer.
We strategically deployed the ‘EV Later’ setting to maintain maximum battery for our Pro Power Onboard experiment, leaving the 2.3-litre turbo-petrol engine to do much of the work.
In this scenario it consumed more than 20L/100km but on the return leg (with less weight to tow and the computers free to work out the best balance of energy use – albeit with a depleted traction battery) fuel consumption dropped to less than 13L/100km which was impressive for any flavour of driveline we have tested with a similar load combination.
In between, however, our Pro Power Onboard experiment hit an early limitation when the fridge plugged into one of the tub’s power outlets seemed to have caused an issue and the system shut down. We later discovered it wasn’t just the fridge.
Due to a lack of 12V outlet in the Ranger’s tub, we were unable to use this as a backup. Thankfully, the fridge’s onboard battery kept our food fresh until we reached camp and devised an alternative solution. Spoiler alert: We were glad we packed those solar panels.
On the ferry over to the island, the deckhands made plenty of jokey reminders to Ranger drivers that they had to disable their security alarms as the model is notorious for being sensitive to the vessel’s motions.
The dashboard tyre pressure monitor made it easy to drop our pressures to 18psi for the sandy journey ahead (giving us plenty of room to deflate further in a recovery).
We were also keen to try out the Ranger’s ‘Sand’ drive mode, especially being quite laden and towing with a vehicle on bitumen-biased rubber and stock suspension.
After seeing the Everest that departed the barge in front of us get immediately bogged, stress levels were heightened. But we needn’t have worried; that mishap must have been purely user error as the Ranger PHEV tackled beaches and soft, chopped-up inland tracks en route to our camp site with ease.
Porpoising on stretches of beach with multiple washouts aside, sand driving was pretty much as refined and smooth as we’d come to expect from driving the Ranger – indeed any Ranger – on bitumen.
Even the porpoising had that stiction-free sensation Fords tend to be better than any other brand at and we never experienced the bobbing without our trailer attached, or even hitched up for the return haul to the ferry once its water tanks, gas cylinders, fridge and pantry had been depleted.
We also came away impressed by how easily it conquered the terrain with our trailer hitched up and our ground clearance concerns turned out to be unfounded. For example, swapping ruts or going up from hard sand up a steep, soft section left by the previous high tide were completed with such ease that it felt like cheating.
Trailer left at camp and exploring the island’s beaches and criss-crossed its sandy tracks we came to realise that Sand mode is overkill unless dealing with really soft stuff or being challenged by towing and heavy loads.
Sand mode locks the rear diff – it can be locked in high range and even rear-wheel drive as well as the low range many 4x4s require before they’ll enable a locker – but also uses the lowest three of the Ranger’s 10-speed automatic transmission, which is noisy and chews fuel.
For less challenging sand drives, we found it best to manually select 4H (there is also a 4A mode that works like all-wheel drive similar to Mitsubishi’s ‘Super Select’ system) and turn off traction/stability control.
In this scenario, it’s a shame that manually selecting ratios is via an awkward trio of thumb-operated buttons on the gear selector rather than paddle-shifters or a traditional sequential gate setup.
Still, compared to even the most refined diesel alternatives, the Ranger PHEV goes about its business with the composure and quietness of a luxury car. If you paid nearly $90K as-tested for this one, you’d bloody hope so!
In the optioned-up Wildtrak tested here trim it spoils occupants with an extensive array of creature comforts while being eminently practical for family life with a spacious interior (for a dual-cab ute) plus a great number of storage areas, cup holders and device charging outlets.
For those who need to, the Ranger is also one of the least-worst dual-cabs (among an admittedly very bad bunch) for ease of installing and adjusting child seats.
With our trailer set up a fair but walkable distance from the toilet and shower block (depending on the fatigue levels of our youngest family member) being able to drive there silently on electricity felt kinder to our fellow campers.
Our test vehicle’s Cyber Orange paint finish and quiet electric propulsion drew several double-takes from bystanders during these short trips and it was not until the traction battery no longer had sufficient juice that we came to truly appreciate the mechanical (and environmental) sympathy of reducing cold starts.
Ah yes, the battery. We had hoped to run our camper trailer from the Pro Power system – taking the pressure off the house batteries should we have overcast days with low solar yield – and it was pure luck that our island stay was a sunny one.
Having thought our portable fridge was the problem, connecting the camper directly to the sockets in the tub seemed to work for a few minutes before a familiar message popped up on the Ranger’s huge touchscreen.
We tried everything, consulted the user manual and eventually gave up and reverted to our tried-and-trusted solar setup.
Ford Australia tested the system once we had returned the vehicle and claimed to have found no issues.
Maybe it was one of those hard-to-diagnose intermittent faults because during the big job of clearing sand from the interior once back on the mainland we used the cabin power outlet to keep one vacuum cleaner charged while we used another and found no problems with Pro Power Onboard during that admittedly undemanding load scenario.
Glitches notwithstanding, we’d delay a plug-in hybrid ute purchase until better options emerge. Vehicle-to-load with the daytime running lights and other systems off, for example. Being able to run a custom tray or service body. Not losing tub space to batteries or spare tyres.
On that last note, a saving grace was the Ranger’s already-deep tub. Our big camping fridge gets in the way of most roller shutter ute tonneaus but just snuck under the PHEV’s.
The abundance of tie-down points and versatile rail-mounted hooks in the model tested were also excellent – but far from unique to the PHEV. Similarly, the optional movable sailplane and Subaru-style deployable roof bars are a practical, easy-to-use option for occasionally carrying paddleboards, pipes or planks without the permanent aerodynamic nightmare of ladder racks.
Using the Ranger PHEV in the taxing way we did somewhat validates Ford’s conservative approach – the impressive character and capability of Australia’s favourite ute is maintained and in several respects improved upon. We admired the vehicle and enjoyed living with it.
Like a Shark 6 is for so many Australians – who admittedly might forgive more compromises at BYD’s lower price point – your use case might suit Ranger PHEV life perfectly.
But a word of caution. Compared to a diesel Ranger, we’d worry about PHEV resale values given the sharp dealer offers we’ve seen and the fact that rapidly advancing electrification tech could quickly make this first attempt look obsolete.
Convinced this is the ute for you? You’ll probably love it. But drive a hard bargain at the dealer to take the sting out of its compromises.
English (US) ·