Does Kia’s first ute have what it takes to topple the king of utes?

We all know how popular and successful the Ford Ranger has been in recent years, dominating sales charts and comparisons alike. There’s plenty of Drive Car of the Year silverware in Ford’s cupboard to back this up, along with being Australia’s top-selling model for two years running.

Aussies love their utes, and are willing to spend a significant amount of money for something that can pull off a dizzying number of roles: load carrying, off-roading, long-distance touring, towing, work commuting, and family hauling.

It’s a tough ask from an engineering point of view, but the potential rewards of sales and profits for car makers are immense.

It’s currently the Ford Ranger taking the lion’s share of spoils in this segment, unseating the long-standing Toyota HiLux as the darling of the segment. It’s selling well and is consistently critiqued at the top of the class.

Can the Kia Tasman – the brand’s first crack at a four-wheel-drive ute – ruffle some feathers beyond the abnormal aesthetics?

The Kia ute we have in this review is the mid-range X-Line, which is one step down from the off-road hero X-Pro trim level. Coming in at $67,990 plus on-road costs, the Tasman is helped by a drive-away offer (at the time of writing, at least) that pins at just over $71,000 drive-away.

You could argue that the lower-priced Kia Tasman SX+ ($62,390 plus on-roads) – with its cloth seats and manual adjustment – is a more natural competitor to the Ranger XLT. However, when you look at the drive-away prices listed by Kia and Ford online, the X-Line is a neater fiscal fit.

And there’s an advantage for the Kia here, because spending similar money gets you a good list of standard equipment: faux leather seat trimming with electric adjustment for the driver and heating for the two front seats, sliding and reclining rear seats, LED projector headlights, a 360-degree camera system and twin wireless charging pads.

This trim level also moves the gear selector to a chunky stalk on the steering column (instead of a traditional shifter on the centre console), as well as adding in technology like Remote Start Parking Assist and low-speed autonomous braking. There are also roof rails, privacy glass, a rear centre armrest, paddle shifters and a storage slot (with handy table) built into one of the rear plastic guards.

Like the rest of the range, the Kia Tasman uses a 2.2-litre turbocharged four-cylinder diesel engine with 154kW and 440Nm, which is an engine that is similar to what you get in a Sorento, Carnival and a bunch of Hyundais.

This engine recently adopted a timing belt instead of the previous chain, as well as picking up an alloy block (instead of cast iron) and a new fuel injection system.

For those who want to get to work straight away, the Tasman X-Line gets a drop-in tub liner as standard, as well as a 240-volt power outlet in the tub.

The engine is normally used in front-wheel-drive applications, but this north-south set-up requires a different transmission. So, the eight-speed torque converter unit out of a Kia Stinger (plus a few Genesis vehicles) has been adopted for the Tasman, along with an on-demand four-wheel-drive system and low-range transfer case.

One interesting point here is the adoption of an automatic locking rear differential in all four-wheel-drive Tasmans, except for the top-spec X-Pro that gets a selectable locker.

The XLT trim is firmly in the middle of Ford’s Ranger line-up priced at $63,890 plus on-road costs, and has Ford’s more powerful twin-turbocharged four-cylinder diesel engine with 154kW and 500Nm, running through a 10-speed automatic transmission, part-time four-wheel-drive system, low-range transfer case and selectable rear differential lock. For those who want it, this is the first trim level to unlock the 184kW/600Nm 3.0-litre diesel V6 as an option.

It’s not a trim level that’s swimming in leather and soft-touch materials, however. With mostly hard plastics, cloth seats and manual adjustment, the Ranger XLT brings more work-truck vibes than swish premium ute.

You do get leather wrapping for the steering wheel and gear shifter, a tow bar, reflector-style LED headlights, adaptive cruise control with stop-and-go functionality, lane centring, a tub liner (including a 12-volt plug in the back), and a chrome-finished grille.

The optional Touring Pack – which costs $1750 – adds in a 360-degree camera system, as well as zone lighting, puddle lamps, overhead auxiliary switches and an integrated brake controller. This is good value as a pack, but is required to matched the standard equipment of the Tasman X-Line.

If you want 18-inch alloy wheels, faux leather seat trimming with electric adjustment and wireless phone charging, you’ll need to step up into the more expensive Sport trim level ($66,390 plus ORCs). The first variant to get heated seats is the Wildtrak, which is more expensive again at $69,890 plus ORCs. However, this variant gets a roller cover and plenty of other goodies for the extra spending money.

What is clear, though, is that the Kia Tasman beats the Ford Ranger in this direct spec-for-spec comparison.

For those who are looking for a bargain, Drive Marketplace is a good place to scratch around for a Ford Ranger or Kia Tasman. There are used and near-new (NUSED) examples of both utes to search through. You can find a load of other utes there as well.

If you want to get up close and personal with a Ranger or a Tasman, follow these links to find your closest dealership for Ford or Kia to find out what is in stock at your local dealer.

If you’re looking for more pricing, specifications, and the latest offers on either the Ford Ranger or Kia Tasman, follow the links.

It might feel like the Ford Ranger is fighting with an arm behind its back in this particular comparison, but I need to stress that drive-away prices (at the time of testing and writing) are starkly close. At the end of the day, buyers trade on this singular price.

Stepping inside the Ranger, the first thing you notice is a lack of faux leather and other nice materials throughout the cabin. The Ranger presents well in terms of design and practicality, but it does feel like a clear second place in this lens.

In the Tasman, you’ll notice fancier and more cosseting seats, which include heating for the front and electric adjustment for the driver. Materials and features aside, the Tasman’s seats are more comfortable and offer better bolstering.

From an ergonomic point of view, the two are hard to split. Both are good, with ample tilt and reach adjustment available through the steering column matching well to the seat adjustment. Although, some of us at Drive prefer the more bolstered seat design of the Tasman.

There is a big difference in interior space in the Tasman thanks to the increased overall size of the vehicle and the more squared-off shape. When you inspect the shape of the Ranger in comparison to the Tasman, you can see a side profile that trims inwards towards the roof, and a more curving roof. Overall width can be a little misleading as well, where the Ranger bulges out wider at the guards. The Tasman, in comparison, is quite slab-sided.

The end result is an interior that feels more spacious, and offers good levels of head room. However, the overall design and layout of the Tasman feels like a next-generation offering. Don’t get me wrong, the Ranger is still one of the best ute interiors out there. But now, the Tasman is better.

In terms of practicalities, both of these utes are good. The Ranger XLT doesn’t get the second glovebox and two pop-out cupholders that higher trim levels enjoy – which is a shame, mid-spec ute buyers get thirsty too – but at least the smaller infotainment display yields a bit of extra storage space underneath the physical climate controls, and we like the storage shelf in front of the front passenger.

However, the Tasman has good storage available where the twin wireless charging pads lie (Ranger XLT has none), a small second glovebox is better than none, and the centre console lids flips over to become an in situ workbench.

The Tasman also wins for power outlets when you compare X-Line versus XLT. We initially thought it was line-ball: two USBs lower down, and a 12V slot either up front or in the centre console. However, we also found an extra pairing of USB-C power outlets hiding under a lid on top of the dash. These would work well for anything mounted on the windscreen, but also if you routed the wiring to power-hungry devices lower down.

In the second row, the Tasman streaks ahead of the Ranger for interior space, comfort and features. It’s clear that Kia was reading Ford’s homework here through many of the features. But instead of direct copying, Kia has managed to improve in some key areas.

Take, for example, the under-seat storage spaces in the second row. Both utes have this feature, but the Kia’s is better. It’s more spacious overall, with a large removable plastic tub being easier to clean and modify.

The Tasman offers marginally more leg room and head room than the Ranger, as well as giving the ability to slide the seatbase forward for some additional backrest tilt and underthigh support. It works well, and gives the Tasman an advantage of comfort over almost every other ute in the segment (the GWM Cannon Alpha does have a similar feature).

In isolation, the Ranger is good for second-row space and comfort is good. It’s one of the larger utes in the segment, and gives enough room for a 180cm-tall journalist to sit behind themselves without knees going into the door. There are air vents, a single 12V power outlet and drop-down armrest with cupholders.

The Tasman matches the Ranger for the armrest and air vents, but ups the ante with more leg room and head room, twin USB-C power outlets (mounted on the seats), a 240-volt household plug, and the trick tilt-and-slide functionality.

Instead of regular map pockets that you get in the Ranger, the Tasman gets a neoprene-style zippered pocket as a different take on seatback storage.

In the back, the Kia Tasman offers a little more length, height and width, but less width between the wheel arches. The Tasman goes for a 240-volt plug instead of 12V in the Ranger, but the Ford gets six tie-down points, bolstered in our case by an additional rail on each side with adjustable cleats.

The Tasman has four tie-down points, but the same rail and cleats (a handy adjustable feature) are standard fit.

Once again, rack up another win to the Tasman in this regard. A 12.3-inch infotainment display in the Kia – which is backed up by good response times and a slick operating system – works well in terms of size, technology and integration.

The Ranger’s 10.1-inch display works well, but the smaller screen is further impinged upon by permanent climate controls at the bottom and navigation higher up. The operating system of the Ranger works well also, but perhaps is not as slick and seamless as what you get in the Kia.

Both have wired and wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, native navigation, digital radio and a companion app with remote functionality.

The digital instrument cluster of the Tasman – also 12.3 inches in size – is more comprehensive with technology and features than the Ranger, along with feeling distinctly more premium. The 8.0-inch display in the Ranger, flanked by non-digital fuel and temperature gauges, does provide some adjustability and gets the job done well.

The Tasman also benefits from a small 5.0-inch display sandwiched between the two larger screens, which – despite being obscured by the steering wheel – is helpful for on-the-move adjustments of fan speed and direction without having to dig through any screens.

Both of these four-wheel-drive utes get a maximum five-star ANCAP safety score on some variants, but the Kia Tasman X-Line is not included in its respective lineup. However, the Tasman’s rating does come at a later date against tougher testing criteria.

So while both scores are good, it’s not a complete apples-against-apples comparison.

The Ranger gets 84 per cent for adult occupant protection, and 93 per cent for child occupant protection. Vulnerable road users (pedestrians) get a 74 per cent protection rating, while the Ranger’s onboard safety systems received an 83 per cent score against ANCAP’s ratings.

For what it’s worth, rated variants of the Kia Tasman got 85 per cent for adult and child occupant protection alike, while vulnerable road users get a 74 per cent score. Safety assistance systems in the Tasman get an 80 per cent score.

I have to stress, the Tasman X-Line in this review is effectively unrated, whereas the Ranger XLT has a five-star rating. However, prospective buyers can at least cherry-pick some information about the crash performance of the Tasman X-Line by investigating some of the details in ANCAP’s report.

From what we understand, the major difference between rated and unrated versions of the Kia Tasman boils down to an additional bottom lip on the front bumper, which is there to help the Tasman’s performance in crash testing against deformable barriers and pedestrian impact simulation. Both the Kia Tasman X-Line and X-Pro – both of which don’t have this bottom lip – are officially unrated by ANCAP.

While the Tasman is Kia’s first four-wheel-drive ute, this light commercial vehicle does benefit from dipping into the broader passenger car range for safety and driving convenience technology.

Thankfully, Kia (and Hyundai, for that matter) has been busy ferreting away in the background smoothing, finessing and dulling the new range of driver monitoring and traffic sign recognition technology in its cars to make things more bearable. The Tasman – while not perfect in this regard – is better. Exceeding the speed limit (which can be wrong at times) is easily muted through a long press on the right-side steering wheel dial, and the driver monitoring camera isn’t as despotic as it once was.

The adaptive cruise control – which can hold lane position smoothly and even change lanes autonomously – is quite nice and will help for longer cruises on highways and motorways. The 360-degree camera system, which also gives you a view of your blind spot on the driver’s display when the indicators are on, is another nice touch.

The Ford Ranger is well equipped with safety and convenience technology, but doesn’t have the same range of standard equipment as what you get on the Tasman. The lack of a driver monitoring camera (which checks your attention levels on the road) could be seen as a negative, or one less nagging nanny for other drivers.

Adaptive cruise control is there for eating up those longer drives, and it works with a decent lane-centring system to reduce strain on the driver.

We noted that during our test drive on long, straight highway runs in the Ranger, the car would interrupt the driver with a warning to keep their hands on the wheel, even though I never took them off. The only way to get around this was to tug on the wheel occasionally to sedate the system.

While the Kia Tasman does have a longer warranty at seven years, the Ranger does work out to be a cheaper servicing proposition over three, five or seven years.

What’s more, Ford offers a capped-price servicing program that goes to 12 years (which is quite impressive) compared to a seven-year limit on the Tasman.

While many Australian Ranger buyers are too busy going agog over the big V6, there is a respectable efficiency advantage to be had with the smaller twin-turbocharged four-cylinder engine.

While we weren’t able to match the impressively frugal 7.2-litre per 100 kilometre efficiency claim, keeping things below 9L/100km after a range of highway, suburban, loaded and off-road driving feels pretty good.

In comparison, the Kia Tasman came close but used around a half litre more over a similar (but not exactly the same) range of driving conditions. Not as good, but in the realm of average for the segment and pretty good in isolation.

It’s clear that in the design, engineering and tuning of the Tasman – Kia’s first ever four-wheel-drive ute – the Korean brand paid a lot of attention to the benchmark offering in the segment. Which is, of course, the Ford Ranger.

It’s not an easy job to make a vehicle with a stout payload and good towing credentials maintain a modicum of ride compliance, easy-driving nature and roadholding ability.

Being all things to all people means neither the Ford Ranger nor Kia Tasman excels in any single area. Think of these two utes as being high-performing decathletes: not the best high-jumper, sprinter or endurance runner individually, but pretty damned good at each.

And while the Ford Ranger has around a decade of segment-leading prowess behind it (after being in the segment for many years before that), the fact that the Kia Tasman is catapulted right to the top of the segment in its first attempt is a huge achievement.

For reference, think about all of the manufacturers out there that have decades of experience in this competitive segment, but aren’t able to produce as competitive a vehicle.

In terms of ride quality, it’s the Ford Ranger that still has the best-in-class experience in this regard. There’s an extra edge of compliance here that the Tasman – as good as it is – cannot match completely. Partially, the lower placarded tyre pressures of the Ranger (30psi unladen) help. But even with the rears pumped up to 38psi, the Ranger doesn’t immediately crumble.

In comparison, the Tasman has a little more of that characteristic rear-end jiggle when driving unladen. It’s not a huge difference, and the Tasman would probably be amongst the top four or five utes in the segment for ride quality.

In terms of the powertrain, the driving experience is closer than what the specifications suggest. Despite the Ranger having 60 extra newton metres, less weight and more forward ratios to choose from, the Ranger doesn’t feel like it has a distinct performance advantage from seat-of-pants testing.

Perhaps it’s because the lower 440Nm of torque is available in a wider range of revs (1750–2750rpm) versus 500Nm between 1750–2000rpm in the case of the Ranger.

Both powertrains are decently responsive and refined (for a diesel ute, of course) and offer smooth transmission performance with well-geared ratios.

The steering is equally similar overall, with both of these utes being towards the top of the class of mid-corner decorum and overall roadholding ability. Hardcore driving dynamics aren’t necessarily the most important facet to nail for a four-wheel-drive ute, but a predictable nature through the steering wheel and easy-to-place feeling on the road are. And it helps to underpin the higher asking price of both of these vehicles.

While both utes offer a good driving experience, the Ranger does feel more nimble and responsive, with an extra edge of car-like nature.

Once loaded up close to GVM with around 850kg in the tray, the interesting thing here is that the Ranger managed to maintain the most decorum while driving laden. Both had a fair amount of sag at the back and corresponding lift at the front, but the longer, more supple bumpstop design at the rear of the Ranger meant there wasn’t as much vicious thudding into the chassis over bumps.

The Tasman was worse in this regard, and not something you’d be able to live with if you were driving the vehicle heavily laden regularly in standard form.

Both maintained decent steering and braking feel when loaded up, but it’s worth noting here that I was driving to the conditions: gently through the corners, and not standing hard on the brakes if I could avoid it.

This is an interesting one, because the two utes are mostly very similar overall. Similar tyre size and tread pattern, exact-same wheelbase and mostly similar off-road ground clearance. You’ll notice in the numbers below that the Ranger has an inferior departure angle, but that is because of the standard-fit towbar – something the Tasman doesn’t have.

The main differences here are in two parts: the off-road traction-control system, and the different nature of the locking rear differential.

And my personal preference is for the selectable rear differential lock of the Ranger compared to the auto-locking set-up of the Tasman. I prefer selectable because it gives you the ability to pre-emptively turn it on and off as needed, rather than waiting for the wheelspin needed to activate it.

However, the auto-locking set-up does come with an advantage in this case. On the Ranger, turning on the rear diff lock disables any off-road traction control, which means the front wheels (with relatively stiff independent front suspension) are able to spin freely over rough and steep surfaces.

In comparison, the Tasman’s locking rear differential – which kicks in as a response to wheelspin – doesn’t interrupt the well-tuned traction-control system. You’ll get a bit of a forward surge (but less of a clunk than other auto-lockers) when it kicks in, and the traction control smartly inhibits wheelspin on the front wheels to maintain forward traction.

To see it in action, watch the video review to see what I mean. Whereas the Ranger struggles with more wheelspin and wheel speed to overcome an obstacle, the Tasman feels like it does things a little easier.

However, there would be situations beyond this hillclimb test where the selectable locking differential of the Ranger would be more beneficial.

The hill descent control system in the Ranger is impressive, minimising wheel slippage when going down some steep ruts, and maintaining nice slow progress. In comparison, the Tasman’s system isn’t as slow or controlled.

If you’re keen on towing, both of these utes have a 3500kg braked towing capacity. But slapping a huge off-road caravan of that weight straight onto the back of either of these utes isn’t a good idea, because you’ll likely run into overloading issues. Why? Because of limitations in the gross combination mass of both vehicles.

While we didn’t get to do any tow testing this time – the Tasman we had was not fitted with a towbar – going by the numbers puts the Ranger in better stead. A lower weight and larger gross combination mass means the Ford would be slightly better at towing heavier weights without becoming overloaded.

However, buyers will need to be acutely aware of actual weights of their trailer and vehicle, including everything loaded into and bolted onto both (and don’t forget the people).

What’s clear from this comparison is that both the Ford Ranger and Kia Tasman represent the best of the breed for a four-wheel-drive ute in terms of the driving experience, technology, interior and powertrain.

You can see and feel where Kia engineers have had a very close look at the Ranger, and have benchmarked their own development against the Aussie-grown Ford ute. And while the Ranger still has clear advantages for the driving experience, the technology, inclusions, interior and comfort of the Tasman allow it to do the unthinkable and unseat the Ranger – a ute not used to playing second fiddle – from the top spot.

Neither of these utes represents best-in-segment off-road capability, but both are good enough in my opinion for a pass mark. In our testing, the Tasman had some advantage, whereas the Ranger clawed back some points in loaded suspension performance.

However, it wasn’t enough to overturn the result. You might not be a fan of the looks, but even the staunchest of critics must respect the quality of Kia’s first tilt at a four-wheel-drive ute. It’s very good.