Ford Ranger 2006 vs Mitsubishi L 200 2006
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: | 2.3 - 4.0 (petrol, diesel) | 2.5 (diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 - 207 HP | 136 - 168 HP | |
| Torque: | 209 - 380 NM | 314 - 402 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 - 14.7 seconds | 14.6 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 - 10.4 | 8.6 - 9.5 | |
|
On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 0.8 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: | 5.00 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.78 m | |
| Ford Ranger is 8 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi L 200, 7 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1500 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 13 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 3`020 | ~ 2`870 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |