BRENDAN SEERY

NE of the most agonising tortures available to modern man is to place a normal-size adult into the back seat of a double-cab bakkie and then go on a long – 300km or more – journey.

Double cabs – those hugely popular lifestyle accessories – generally have a raised floor, or a lowered seat position, for those in the back.

This means that an averagesized person sits with their knees in a high, awkward position. After a few hours, that becomes, to put it kindly, uncomfortable.

In addition, the seat squabs (the bits accommodating your bottom) in the back of double cabs generally have thin cushions, making those positions even more effective as implements of torture.

Most of the time, kids ride in the back – and they are always uncomfortable about everything on a long trip, so no one would really pay any attention to their whining.

All of that has been applicable to double cabs on the SA market – until recently.

Ford’s new Ranger bakkies made their appearance a few years ago and the global car giant rationalised its plant at Silverton in Pretoria to produce just the bakkies (the Americans would call them “trucks”) for local markets and for export.

Although still a utilitarian vehicle in terms of payload capacity, off-road ability (in the 4x4 versions) and ruggedness, the Rangers are also possibly the most car-like of all the bakkies on our roads.

In the case of the Ranger, making the vehicle more comfortable was probably in line with the way the American Ford trucks have been going for years.

I drove some of these behemoths, along with the company’s other SUVs, on a trip to Jordan last year – and I was impressed most of all by the levels of comfort.

This was especially noticeable in the rear seats of the double cabs, including a left-hand-drive Ranger which was born in Silverton.

But, I still had not had the opportunity to put the back

Oseat of a Ranger to the test until recently, when we headed up to Magoebaskloof with friends. I have done the trip before with four adults in my own Subaru Forester, which is one of the most comfortable SUVs out there.

But I was concerned about how our passengers would fare in the back seat of the double-cab Ranger, so I held back until the last minute on deciding on whether to take the Ford or the Subaru.

I climbed into the back of the Ranger and was immediately surprised at how car-like it was.

There was good leg room and the floor was not elevated. In addition, there was decent support for my thighs. It felt like the back seat of a sedan.

To confirm I wasn’t imagining things, I immediately got into the back seat of my Forester… and there wasn’t much difference.

The trip up to Limpopo may have been a comfort challenge for the Ranger, but our back-seat passengers confirmed the Ford passed it with flying colours.

No different from being in the back of a comfortable large car, was their opinion. So comfy was it that they nodded off a few times on the trip.

The feeling of being in a decent car, rather than a commercial vehicle, was even more pronounced behind the steering wheel.

With Ford’s Sync infotainment system allowing you to control its functions from steering wheel buttons and with strong aircon (when outside temperatures hit the low 30s), the Ranger cabin was a comfortable place to be.

All the information I needed (because I am a nerd who fixates about fuel consumption, average speed etc, etc) was, likewise, available at my fingertips.

The driver’s seat in the Ranger was as good as the one in my Forester, which is saying something, given I have travelled the 1 200km from Joburg to Knysna in a Subaru on three occasions and felt none the worse for wear at the other end.

Mind you, my wife did complain a bit about back ache (she has a bad back) in the front passenger seat of the Ranger – something which doesn’t happen in my Forester.

We may as well have been in a Ford Fusion (the company’s mid-sized executive sedan), the atmosphere was so similar. It was quiet, relaxed and the steering had none of the wandering, drunken sailor feel which has afflicted bakkies of the past.

And then I realised that, much as I may have turned up my nose previously at a double cab as a family transport solution, this Ford Ranger was changing my tune.

With the smaller (2.2-litre), lower-powered (118kW) engine, this Ranger is much less frenetic in nature than its 3.2-litre, 147kW Big Boet – and, for my money anyway, is the pick of the bunch.

The 2.2 has more than enough power and torque to cope with highways and tough off-road conditions – remembering that I drove the vehicle as a bakkie and not, as many owners do, like a “Kalahari Ferrari”…

The smaller-engined Ranger is much more economical to boot. We averaged just over 8.4 litres per 100km over just under 1 000km, which included some stretches in four-wheel-drive High range because of the bad roads in the Haenertsburg area.

The Ranger makes a lot of sense for a family which likes to tackle outdoor pursuits. I would opt for the full 4x4 version because it gives you the option of going properly off-road.

It goes without saying that there is plenty of space in that “bak” area – although with a tonneau cover you might find issues with dust getting in if you’re travelling long distances on dirt… so maybe a tightly sealing canopy is a better idea.

I walked away from this test surprised: surprised that the Ranger was so much like a car, without surrendering any of its macho characteristics… and surprised I liked it so much.

I also started to notice how many of them are on the roads these days. I’m glad I don’t work for Toyota…