Ford Ranger 2010 vs Mitsubishi L 200 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 314 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.7 seconds | 14.6 seconds | |
| Ford Ranger engine produces 7 HP more power than Mitsubishi L 200, whereas torque is 16 NM more than Mitsubishi L 200. Despite the higher power, Ford Ranger reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.4 | 9.5 | |
|
The Mitsubishi L 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Ranger consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi L 200, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Ranger could require 135 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi L 200 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.78 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Ranger and Mitsubishi L 200 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1500 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7600 | 8600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |