RE: Military-spec Ford Ranger makes Raptor look feeble

RE: Military-spec Ford Ranger makes Raptor look feeble

Author
Discussion

blearyeyedboy

4,867 posts

125 months

Wednesday 9th October
quotequote all
Does it have a big enough payload for self-employed tax advantages?

hehe

Coley88

2,821 posts

137 months

Wednesday 9th October
quotequote all
Cool manly looking with a pathetic 2.0 4-pot.

No thanks.

200bhp

5,489 posts

165 months

Wednesday 9th October
quotequote all
As a Ranger Wildtrack owner, I wanted to like this "military" version but it's crap. There is also a lot of sales bluff in the PH story too which, has clearly been written by somoene who knows nothing more than what they've read in the company press release.

"Toughened bumpers" - Not really, they've added a hoop style bumper to the rear, utilising the standard mounts and throwing the standard steel bumper in the bin. Front bumper is standard OEM. There are many steel bullbars they could have fitted instead.

"roll over protection system" - Really? There's no in-cabs ROPS and the rear hoops are bolted to the tub which in turn is still bolted to the chassis using the standard mounts.

"Skid plates for the radiator" - Not sure they picked the best one for the job if anything - The vehicle still have the standard front bumper skirt.

"sill protectors" - They're the standard ford plastic ford side steps.

Ranger really doesnt lend itself well to heavy modifications such as armoured glass as the front axle rating doesnt have sufficient capacity to do much at all. With the winch fitted as shown on this vehicle it'll be maxxed-out already, even without armoured glass. A GVM upgrade can be done but the extra capacity only goes on the rear, front will still be overloaded.

Plate spinner

13,469 posts

146 months

Wednesday 9th October
quotequote all
Walt-tastic! hehe

300bhp/ton

37,487 posts

136 months

Wednesday 9th October
quotequote all
Coley88 said:
Cool manly looking with a pathetic 2.0 4-pot.

No thanks.
Not sure it’s really fair to call it pathetic. It makes over 100bhp/litre. ...... for a diesel!!! That is fairly impressive in its own right. Not many production diesels manage this.

And it has over 200hp. That is more power (and a lot more torque) than an EP3 CTR, GT86 or ND MX-5.

sege

203 posts

168 months

Wednesday 9th October
quotequote all
Wow! This is my perfect vehicle! It's so manly I could drive it and feel like a man even though I'm an under-endowed complete wimp! And with 213bhp pulling the 2 tonne kerb weight I'd leave no rice pudding skin un-pulled!
More like this please PH! Or maybe....not.

Banks570

9 posts

58 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
With no real room in the cabin (especially if occupants are wearing Cbt Body Armour, helmets, etc) and lacking any real defensive protection against mines or other devices (no ‘v’-shaped hull to deflect blast) this will have limited operational worth in a high risk environment.

Aimed at the private security sector or small defence forces where the more expensive systems are beyond reach.

I’d also suggest that, when fully loaded, it’ll be underpowered.



Edited by Banks570 on Thursday 10th October 06:09

skidskid

153 posts

87 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance tank is incorrect, CVR(T) means Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance Tracked.

That ranger wouldnt last ten mins in the real Army world. Sat nav? Does that take grid references? Seat covers??? We broke hummers in a day so this has no chance.

MC Bodge

11,468 posts

121 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
Banks570 said:
I’d also suggest that, when fully loaded, it’ll be underpowered.
I think it would be fine from a power point of view.

The rest of it, possibly less so.

Nb. Militia around the world use civilian pickups with all kinds of bolt/weld on attachments....

yellowstreak

514 posts

98 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
Hired Rangers and L200s have long since replaced the 110 as utility vehicles within the UK. The Dutch use a matt green Amorok that looks similar to this. Ultimately it will do what's required. No ballistic protection needed though, its things like Foxhound from now on if there is a kinetic threat.

Wildcat45

7,143 posts

135 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
As a Staff Car it looks fine. For anything dangerous, no. I could see it's potential in a different spec for HART teams, Coastguard, Police and Fire Marine units. Not much else.

V8RX7

18,338 posts

209 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
Would be better using something more basic as the base vehicle

F150 or that Land Cruiser Namib etc surely the Indian / African market have something suitable.

300bhp/ton

37,487 posts

136 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
Banks570 said:
With no real room in the cabin (especially if occupants are wearing Cbt Body Armour, helmets, etc) and lacking any real defensive protection against mines or other devices (no ‘v’-shaped hull to deflect blast) this will have limited operational worth in a high risk environment.
It's hardly being aimed at the use though is it. You might as well criticise it for not having wings and being unable to take off from a carrier!!!

Banks570 said:
I’d also suggest that, when fully loaded, it’ll be underpowered.



Edited by Banks570 on Thursday 10th October 06:09
Yet considerably more powerful than the vehicle cited in the article, i.e. the Land Rover Wolf!

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 10th October 09:27

300bhp/ton

37,487 posts

136 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
sege said:
Wow! This is my perfect vehicle! It's so manly I could drive it and feel like a man even though I'm an under-endowed complete wimp! And with 213bhp pulling the 2 tonne kerb weight I'd leave no rice pudding skin un-pulled!
More like this please PH! Or maybe....not.
Wow, there are a lot of folk on here with huge chips on their shoulders.

You do realise such a vehicle as this is not about 0-60mph times and how much power it makes rolleyes ffs!

And ironically the Ranger makes more power than a 2.7 Disco 3 or RRS and weighs less and is considerably more powerful than a Td6 L322 Range Rover and with a similar power to weight ratio of the early 4.4 V8's. And is again more powerful and lighter than the base model new Defender 110, which seemed very popular on the PH forums.

Teddy Lop

1,717 posts

13 months

JxJ Jr.

151 posts

16 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
Banks570 said:
With no real room in the cabin (especially if occupants are wearing Cbt Body Armour, helmets, etc) and lacking any real defensive protection against mines or other devices (no ‘v’-shaped hull to deflect blast) this will have limited operational worth in a high risk environment.
It's hardly being aimed at the use though is it. You might as well criticise it for not having wings and being unable to take off from a carrier!!!
Well, exactly. No one is claiming this is a replacement for an armoured personnel carrier or a tank, Ricardo itself says: "The demonstrator is ideally suited as a flexible application, general purpose utility vehicle for defence, policing, security and rescue services roles", the emphasis on defence was Pistonhead's, people need to think more of the other three uses mentioned and less of road side bombs and Afghanistan.

MC Bodge

11,468 posts

121 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
JxJ Jr. said:
Well, exactly. No one is claiming this is a replacement for an armoured personnel carrier or a tank, Ricardo itself says: "The demonstrator is ideally suited as a flexible application, general purpose utility vehicle for defence, policing, security and rescue services roles", the emphasis on defence was Pistonhead's, people need to think more of the other three uses mentioned and less of road side bombs and Afghanistan.
The Armchair generals/last action heroes on here need ultimate military capability and a good 0-60. Obviously.

aeropilot

18,726 posts

173 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
Henryhall52 said:
Nerdherder said:
Anyone spot the WWII designed (1930's actually) item in the pictures?
V


Yes. All seven of them.
And a bloody clever bit of Jerry design it was too biggrin

Jon_S_Rally

583 posts

34 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
The demo probably has sat nav because it-s just that - a demo. I'm sure that vehicles would be modified as the buyers requested. This sort of thing is never going to be used by the western military in dangerous areas, as they've now moved on to more well-armoured alternatives, but I am sure there is still uses for light, relatively low cost vehicles for some jobs.

Coley88 said:
Cool manly looking with a pathetic 2.0 4-pot.

No thanks.
Yes, because MoD Land Rovers were known for having fantastic power and torque outputs...

MC Bodge

11,468 posts

121 months

Thursday 10th October
quotequote all
Jon_S_Rally said:
Yes, because MoD Land Rovers were known for having fantastic power and torque outputs...
You may laugh, but what if the British army encountered the Taliban or IS at a junction and lost a traffic light grand prix?