Ford Ranger 2022 vs Mazda BT-50 2020
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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ford Ranger is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Mazda BT-50 can be equipped with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Mazda BT-50 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.0 - 3.0 (petrol, diesel, hybrid) | 1.9 - 3.0 (diesel) | |
| Both cars are available with diesel engines. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 - 292 HP | 150 - 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 405 - 600 NM | 350 - 450 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 - 12.1 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| In general, Mazda BT-50 are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Ford Ranger. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.2 - 13.8 | 6.6 - 8.0 | |
|
On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda BT-50. 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: | 226 - 266 mm (8.9 - 10.5 inches) | 235 - 240 mm (9.3 - 9.4 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 5.28 m | |
| Width: | 2.01 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.89 m | 1.79 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger. Ford Ranger is 8 cm longer than the Mazda BT-50, 14 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 13 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda BT-50, which means Ford Ranger can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 3`276 kg | ~ 3`050 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 2`434 kg | ~ 1`912 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 842 kg | ~ 1`138 kg | |
| Ford Ranger load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 35 procentiem less than Mazda BT-50. Therefore, Mazda BT-50 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 38 800 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mazda BT-50 has
| |