Ford Ranger 2012 vs Mitsubishi L 200 2010
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.2 - 3.2 | 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 200 HP | 136 - 178 HP | |
| Torque: | 375 - 470 NM | 314 - 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 - 12.6 seconds | 12.1 - 17.8 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 - 10.4 | 7.7 - 8.7 | |
|
On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 1.1 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! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 5.16 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger. Ford Ranger is 20 cm longer than the Mitsubishi L 200, 8 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1210 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 0.9 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 (kg): | ~ 1`123 | ~ 2`875 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 20 000 | 11 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |