Battle of the bakkies: A Shark or a Ranger?

The Shark has all the power and technology, but comfort wise, the Ranger is up there with it and offers more for the off-roader

- Eyaaz Matwadia

All the comparisons surrounding the BYD Shark 6 since its release have been with the Ford Ranger Raptor based purely on the power outputs of both vehicles.

On paper, the Shark 6 edges it out, thanks to the 1.5 litre turbocharged petrol engine that works with two electric motors to provide 321kW of power and 650Nm of torque, while the three-litre twin-turbo V6 of the Raptor pushes out 292kW of power and 583Nm of torque.

It’s actually given BYD great confidence in the South African market. On the N3, just before Marlboro Drive, there’s a billboard that reads “BYD Shark vs who?”

But the Ford Ranger Platinum offers a very different experience to the Raptor. It emphasises comfort, technology and refined style with its chrome accents and high-quality materials.

The Shark, on the other hand, tries to give the best of both worlds.

We are throwing performance out of the window for this comparison and focusing on comfort and luxury; ride quality; presence and value for money.

Comfort and luxury

This was the second month that I had the Ranger Platinum and the comfort that I felt driving this bakkie was unmatched, even by bakkies in the Ranger lineup.

It almost spoils you and makes it difficult to sit in another bakkie without looking for all the features that you get from the Ranger Platinum. Quilted leather seats, which are both heated and ventilated, a 12-inch portrait infotainment screen seamlessly integrated into the dashboard and very easy to use, premium materials across the dash and on the door panels and the hidden door handles which add to the clean look.

The Ranger Platinum has ambient lighting which the Shark lacks.

But, the interior is where the BYD Shark 6 excels. It provides larger and sportier seats than the Ranger, which are also heated and ventilated, but I did find that the seat cooling function in the Ranger was more effective.