Ford Ranger 2015 vs Mitsubishi L 200 2015
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 Mitsubishi L 200 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 (petrol, diesel) | 2.4 (diesel) | |
| Both cars are available with diesel engines. Ford Ranger is available also with petrol engines. Petrol engines typically offer smoother operation and quicker acceleration compared to other engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 - 200 HP | 154 - 181 HP | |
| Torque: | 226 - 470 NM | 380 - 430 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 - 14.9 seconds | 10.4 - 12.2 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 - 8.7 | 7.1 - 7.5 | |
|
On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi L 200. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 135 - 237 mm (5.3 - 9.3 inches) | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi L 200 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.33 m | 5.21 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.77 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger, but slightly lower. Ford Ranger is 13 cm longer than the Mitsubishi L 200, 5 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.8 meters | |
| Gross weight: | ~ 3`166 kg | ~ 2`864 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`867 kg | ~ 1`858 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 1`299 kg | ~ 1`006 kg | |
| Ford Ranger load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 23 procentiem more than Mitsubishi L 200. Therefore, Ford Ranger is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 29 800 | 13 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |