A double-cab pick-up is the favourite way of moving men and machinery spares for many farmers and contractors. Andrew Pearce takes the chance to eye up two established numbers — Ford’s Ranger and Mitsubishi’s L200 IThe double-cab pick-up market seems to have stalled recently. Sure, most makers have tweaked their basic product and added tricked-out variants — but there’s been no spanking new product for a while. That’s set to change over the next couple of months as VW releases its Amarok onetonner and Ford rethinks the Ranger, but until then it’s business as usual. Speaking of which, the Ford and Mitsubishi about to be prodded here have trundled along for several years in their current form; both come in 2WD and 4WD, and naturally offer a choice of trim levels and engines. Costs are much the same. While it’s possible to source a 4WD double-cab from either maker for £17,000+, the more up-market Barbarian and Wildtrak variants featured will lighten the pocket by £26,500-£27,000. For that you get a full measure of Bob the Builder chrome, a common-rail turbodiesel engine, the ability to seat five, a 1t payload, a modest selection of in-cab goodies and, in the case of the L200, a five-speed auto box. Specifying manual transmission on this car drops the price by £1,500. Practicality I The two brands take different approaches to their cab and load area. The Ford is some 100mm shorter overall, but by favouring load space over cab size it gives away only a little on bed length. But that bed is a substantial 90mm narrower at maximum, and the load bay’s sides and weighty tailgate are higher to lift stuff across. The L200’s bigger bay is easier to load into and more boxy, which in day-to-day terms outweighs the Ranger’s better roping facilities; the L200 has no external hooks. And no matter what you think of the Mitsubishi’s fat-boy chrome bar, it does form a locator for ladders and similar stuff that the Ranger in Wildtrak guise can’t manage — along with rear cab glass that opens electrically to make a through-way for really long items. Neither car has a lockable tailgate, which made the test Ford’s key-access Armadillo cover seem rather pointless. A prime reason for buying a double-cab is to cart staff — or family, where the two are different — around. Both cars seat five adults comfortably, six at a pinch. Here the L200 wins, no question. Not only does its rear section deliver better legroom, but those odd egg-shaped back doors create a wider opening to clamber through; so much so that, by comparison, access to the Ford’s back seats is poor. Only on rear headroom does the Ranger win, though even this small triumph is tempered by the absence of a proper third rear seat belt. So far the Ford hasn’t had too much of a look-in, but the tide turns on front-seat accommodation. But first the L200, where a low dash and light-toned plastics create a good feeling of space, yet the materials don’t speak of quality. There’s cruise control, a height-adjustable seat for the driver and proper climate control; satnav even, though the Kenwood system that hosts it is a model of how to confuse a user. That aside, the L200’s dash is simple and the controls likewise. Alongside all this the Ranger’s cupboard looks pretty bare — plain air con, no nav, no seat height adjustment — yet its old-school interior beats the flash-looking L200 on a crucial count: comfort. This comes from a better seat (softer and much more supportive) and the way the centre console box forms a good armrest. Clinchers for the Ford are a much more useable centre console box, extra stowage, classier plastics and a more user-friendly entertainment centre, even if it can’t pair with a mobile phone. On the move I Performance matters for towing, entertainment and general drivability, and this couple has enough of it to get by. You’d think that the Ranger’s mellow 3.0-litre engine would top the L200’s lighter-sounding 2.5 unit, but it ain’t so — the Mitsubishi makes 175hp against 154hp. Even driving through a smooth five-speed auto box, that’s enough of a difference to open up a perceptible performance gap between the two similarweight vehicles. The Ranger’s strength lies more in its deep-reaching torque which, teamed with Ford’s agreeable (if rather oldfashioned) five-speed manual transmission, brings laid-back travel and should suit it to towing. Speaking of which, the Ford is rated to pull 3t against the L200’s 2.7t. Noise levels are low enough to make long hauls sociable, though both cars seem a little low-geared. Given a choice we’d take the Ranger for extended trips for its better comfort and for its fuel economy. Consumption on test finished at 30.5mpg (Ford) against 26mpg (Mitsubishi), although the L200’s transmission probably had a say in that. We have talked about the Ranger’s plusher seat, but that’s far from the whole comfort story. Ford’s suspension hasn’t kept up with the times; so, while motorway travel is OK, back-lane surfaces bring on traditional stutters and jolts. The L200 rides more softly (to the point that the front can float over crests) and is better for it. On the handling front pick-ups are built for loads, not speed, so it’s no surprise that corners are not to be rushed at. Having said that, long fast bends don’t trouble either car. Tighter versions suit the Ranger more of the pair, thanks to its grippier seats and stiffer springing — the L200 is too easily upset by mid-corner bumps. But the Ranger has no electronic stability control to help sort out the chaos if it all goes wrong, so the net result is a draw. And the same goes for the brakes — spongy but effective in both cars — but not the steering: the Ranger’s heavier, less precise and grittier-feeling set-up delivers a 2WD turning circle almost 1m wider than the L200’s, and in 4WD the difference feels even greater. Sensibly big power-fold mirrors feature in both camps. Off the road I This pair normally runs in 2WD, with manual shifting on-the-move into 4WD. Taking low range 4WD calls for a stop and, in the L200’s case, often a wait while the driveline gets its act in gear. The Ranger driver also needs to remember to switch in the front axle’s locking hubs, or 4WD there will not be. Otherwise the core 4WD systems are basic, though the L200’s viscous centre diff allows mechanically kinder use of 4WD on tarmac, and its standard traction/stability system helps to kill wheelspin. The Ranger packs a limited-slip rear diff as standard and has no electronics. Better clearance under the body-kit side rails lets the Ranger step over bigger humps without grounding. And although it has significantly less rear axle travel (a negative in deep gullies), its simple driveline proved surprisingly effective at finding traction. Climbing on mud over chalk the L200’s electronics didn’t bring any obvious advantage beyond encouraging the car to stay in a straight line, and in some circumstances — like when wanting to build up momentum — the system was better turned off. A lack of engine braking from the Mitsubishi’s automatic box was a liability on steep descents; here the Ranger’s manual transmission is a big plus where some grip is available. Summary I Which of these vehicles holds the best cards depends on how you plan to use it. Where people will often be ferried about, the L200 aces out thanks to its better rearseat access, more roomy accommodation and kindlier ride. Where goods take priority, a slightly bigger bay and lower loading height also edge the Mitsubishi home. But don’t write off the Ranger: it’s easier on the eye for a start. And while the Ford is more of a traditional pick-up — particularly in ride comfort — it’s simplicity, big-hearted engine, generous towing capacity, better front seating and general user-friendliness keep it completely in the frame.