Chrysler Pacifica 2006 vs Ford Ranger 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.0 Petrol | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 257 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 355 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| Chrysler Pacifica engine produces 114 HP more power than Ford Ranger, whereas torque is 25 NM more than Ford Ranger. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.3 | 8.9 | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chrysler Pacifica consumes 3.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Pacifica could require 510 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 87 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Ford Ranger gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Chrysler Pacifica) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Ford Ranger) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 149 mm (5.9 inches) | 203 mm (8 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Ford Ranger can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Ford Ranger version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from eight 4x4 versions of Ford Ranger 2006 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.05 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 2.01 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.62 m | |
| Chrysler Pacifica is 3 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 30 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Pacifica is 12 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 4 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 1500 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 370 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 1500 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2250 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.1 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Pacifica has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |