Although it's not necessarily the kind of thing I would buy myself, I've always quite liked the Ford Ranger. I've found it to be a simple and sturdy beast, not over-burdened with frills even in range-topping Thunder form. But the pickup market has been maturing rapidly in the last few years, and there was always the risk that the Ranger could start to lag seriously behind the opposition.That threat was addressed in the second half of 2006, when Ford launched an all-new Ranger. The basic principle remains the same, but there's no question that in detail the pickup has moved forward considerably.To begin with, all models now have a 2.5-litre turbo diesel engine producing 141bhp, a long way in advance of the 106bhp achieved by the unit it replaces. It would be a mistake to assume that this has turned the Ranger into a quick vehicle, but it can now be persuaded to hit 62mph within 13 seconds of a standing start, rather than some time the following month.This engine is also significantly quieter than the old one, which adds a previously unexpected air of refinement to Ranger motoring. And attention has been paid to the suspension, with most components having been replaced in an effort to improve the ride and handling.Has this worked? Well, the Ranger is without question better to drive than it used to be, and you'll find evidence elsewhere in this magazine that I quite liked it before. But the game has moved on. Both Mitsubishi and Nissan are doing the job a lot better, and they have raised the standards of expectation. The old Ranger seemed reasonable for what it was; the new one is very obviously a second-division contender.Not that it's without its uses. This test happened to coincide with the need to assist my mother in moving 16 years' worth of junk (accumulated by my father, who never threw anything away) from her old house prior to moving to her new one. We must have made a dozen trips to the local rubbish tip in the Ranger, and it occurred to me more than once that I could hardly have chosen a better machine for the job. (Actually, we made similar journeys in a Transit, which was even better, but that's hardly a fair comparison.)Of course, any Ranger would have done that job. The test car was a Thunder, which means it had as much equipment as Ford is prepared to throw at its pickup. The 2006 model change means that the Ranger is now in any case a lot smarter than it was before, with much better seats, an innovative pull-out tray to keep stationery ... er, stationary, and - for what is basically a workhorse - an almost fey sensibility to the interior design.The Thunder, like the second-in-line XLT, also gets an in-dash 6-CD audio system with additional speakers, plus side airbags for front seat occupants. Unlike the XLT, its list of equipment also includes chrome sports bar, side sill bar and rear underbar, plus leather upholstery, scuff plates, air-conditioning and a set of off-road gauges. Not sure about the off-road gauges, to be honest. It's interesting to see how many degrees of lean you get as you change lanes on a motorway, or how much the nose pitches downwards under heavy braking, but I wouldn't have put this sort of thing under the heading of Useful Information. It would gain considerably in importance if you were in a tough off-road situation, but surely, of all the Rangers, the Thunder is the very least likely to be taken so far off the beaten track? No, the Thunder is the one that combines an ability to do the dirty work with some degree of acceptability as family transport. And it's in this second respect that it finds itself in trouble, because it just doesn't have the refinement it needs to be able to compete with the best of its rivals.