The XLT trim level is one of the Blue Oval's most endearing spec monikers, but has a series of differences based on the product it represents.
The Citizen’s time with our long-term Ford Ranger XLT is fast coming to an end after what will be six months and, at the time of writing, 7 409 km.
Having been a “me, myself and I” tenure, the recent arrival of one of its siblings presented an opportunity too good to miss for a different type of comparison, rather than a typical road test or update.
Same same but different
Comparatively, matching our Ranger XLT against the Everest XLT isn’t a direct apples-for-apples assessment.
Whereas the Ranger uses the single turbo version of Ford’s 2.0-litre Panther diesel engine, the Everest has the bi-turbo unit that makes 154kW/500Nm versus 125kW/405Nm.
ALSO READ: Ford Ranger XLT perfect addition to typical Mzansi household
As is, however, well known, the previous Everest did offer a single turbo version of the original Panther unit, which was ultimately decided against when the wraps came off the now present third generation three years ago.
Going further, the Ranger has a six-speed automatic gearbox while the Everest comes equipped with the 10-speed automatic co-developed between the Blue Oval and General Motors.
Although available with four-wheel drive, the engine’s amount of twist in “our” Ranger goes to the rear wheels only, whereas the opposite applies to the Everest, which can be had with two-wheel drive as a credit over the four-wheel drive test unit.
Similarly, while the Everest seats seven and the Ranger five, both ride on the T6.1 platform also used by the North American Ranger and the Bronco.
What the badge means?
The most common denominator, though, is the badge. A staple of Ford’s commercial vehicle and SUV ranges, the XLT designation has always denoted a more upscale trim grade compared to others, such as XL or XLS.
For the Ranger, this still applies, but on the Everest, it represents the entry-level variant as the previous generation did have an XLS range opener.
The second part of the XLT conundrum comes in the guise of the Everest feeling, unsurprisingly, more premium than Ranger, though with the bias of going up against the single turbo variant and not the more luxurious bi-turbo equivalent, as mentioned.
As seemingly irrelevant as matters are, the crux of the matter is the XLT badge in how the same description can differ based on two related models.
Stepping inside makes this also clear as both come standard with the eight-inch digital instrument cluster, yet the Ranger receives the entry-level 10.1-inch SYNC 4A infotainment system versus the bigger 12-inch system all but the flagship Everest Platinum comes equipped with.
At the same time, fabric upholstery in the Ranger makes way for leather in the Everest and the storage space at the base of the infotainment display for a wireless smartphone charger.
Going further, the manual air-conditioning is replaced by dual-zone climate control, the silver decorative strip and small storage shelf on the passenger side dashboard with a secondary glovebox, and the conventional handbrake with an electronic setup.
Both, though, are fitted with a reverse camera and rear parking sensors, cruise control, push-button start, a multi-function steering wheel and the ability to tow 3 500 kg.
On the move
Locally built at the Silverton plant outside Pretoria, compared to the Everest originating from the Rayong facility in Thailand, the intriguing difference shows itself on the move.
While the Everest feels understandably more comfortable and refined, its added mass and four-wheel drive system translate to a marginally perkier feel than the less powerful, but also lighter, Ranger off the mark.
Curiously, the replacing of the handbrake for the electronic switch has resulted in a more immersive cabin feel as the lever falls perfectly to hand whereas in the Ranger, some stretching is required as the result of the former being mounted directly next to the seat.
Comfort inside is similar, and although the Everest has the practical edge with seven seats and a proper boot, space in the back of the Ranger is still good for a double cab, although rear air vents would have been a welcome addition.
Having amassed a smidgen over 637 km during it seven-day stay, the Everest’s best fuel consumption figure stood at 9.1 L/100 km, while the best for the Ranger was 6.5 L/100 km on long distance trek with editor Jaco van der Merwe behind the wheel.
Over the course of its 7 000-plus kilometres, though, the latter’s indicated consumption has almost refused to move from an indicated 8.9 L/100 km.
Conclusion
As mentioned earlier, the main takeaway isn’t a direct comparison, but how different two products from the same brand with the same trim level badge can be.
The same also applies to price. At present, the two-wheel drive Everest XLT carries a sticker of R942 000 – the only sub-R1-million derivative – while the tested four-wheel drive has a price tag of R1 017 500.
Without options, pricing for the single turbo Ranger XLT starts at R681 500, though forking out an additional R84 500 nets four-wheel drive.
Still the default choice of trim grade for the majority of buyers, regardless of it being affixed to the tailgate of a Ranger or the bootlid of an Everest, the XLT trim, arguably, rates as the best of both worlds
Although available with a series of optional packages on the Ranger, in its purest form, and on the Everest for that matter, it still has the measure of striking the ideal balance between having enough features and not breaking the bank.
NOW READ: Ford Everest XLT a worthy competitor for the Toyota Fortuner
