Ford Ranger 2015 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 2002
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ford Ranger is available with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Toyota Land Cruiser can be equipped only with four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Ford Ranger also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.2 - 3.2 (diesel) | 3.0 - 4.0 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 - 200 HP | 163 - 249 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 - 470 NM | 343 - 410 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 - 14.9 seconds | 9.5 - 12.8 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 - 8.9 | 9.0 - 13.6 | |
|
On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 4.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.90 m | |
| Ford Ranger is 51 cm longer than the Toyota Land Cruiser, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Ranger is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 620 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.4 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 3`200 | ~ 2`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 31 200 | 9200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Toyota Land Cruiser has
| |