RE: Military-spec Ford Ranger makes Raptor look feeble
Discussion
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.
"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.
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. No thanks.
And it has over 200hp. That is more power (and a lot more torque) than an EP3 CTR, GT86 or ND MX-5.
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.
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
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.
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.
Yet considerably more powerful than the vehicle cited in the article, i.e. the Land Rover Wolf!Edited by Banks570 on Thursday 10th October 06:09
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 10th October 09:27
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.More like this please PH! Or maybe....not.
You do realise such a vehicle as this is not about 0-60mph times and how much power it makes
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.
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!!!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. 
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...No thanks.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff