Ford Ranger 2006 vs Mazda BT-50 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ford Ranger is available with both manual and automatic gearboxes, whereas Mazda BT-50 is available only with manual gearbox. | |||
| 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 Mazda BT-50 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: | 2.3 - 4.0 (petrol, diesel) | 2.5 (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: | 143 - 207 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 209 - 380 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 - 14.7 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 - 10.4 | 8.9 | |
|
On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 0.9 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: | 203 - 205 mm (8 - 8.1 inches) | 207 mm (8.1 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.00 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.76 m | |
| Ford Ranger is 8 cm shorter than the Mazda BT-50, 7 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1500 litres | 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 (kg): | ~ 3`020 | ~ 3`030 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7200 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mazda BT-50 has
| |