Ford Ranger 2022 vs Mitsubishi L 200 2023
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 Mitsubishi L 200 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, Mitsubishi L 200 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.0 - 3.0 (petrol, diesel, hybrid) | 2.4 (petrol, diesel) | |
| Both cars are available with petrol and diesel engines. Ford Ranger is available also with hybrid engines. Hybrid engines offer superior fuel efficiency and reduced emissions compared to conventional engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 - 292 HP | 128 - 201 HP | |
| Torque: | 405 - 600 NM | 194 - 470 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 - 12.1 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| In general, Mitsubishi L 200 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 | 8.1 - 8.5 | |
|
On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 0.9 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: | 226 - 266 mm (8.9 - 10.5 inches) | 228 - 240 mm (9 - 9.4 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 5.32 m | |
| Width: | 2.01 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.89 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger. Ford Ranger is 4 cm longer than the Mitsubishi L 200, 14 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 12 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 13 meters | 12.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 0.4 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi L 200, which means Ford Ranger can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 3`276 kg | ~ 2`920 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 2`434 kg | ~ 1`907 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 842 kg | ~ 1`013 kg | |
| Ford Ranger load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 20 procentiem less than Mitsubishi L 200. Therefore, Mitsubishi L 200 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 42 000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |