Ford Ranger 2011 vs Mazda 3 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Crossover / SUV | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ford Ranger is available with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Mazda 3 can be equipped with front wheel drive. | |||
| Engines: | 2.2 - 3.2 | 1.3 - 2.3 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 200 HP | 84 - 260 HP | |
| Torque: | 226 - 470 NM | 122 - 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 - 12.4 seconds | 6.1 - 14.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 - 10.8 | 4.7 - 9.7 | |
|
Ford Ranger petrol engines consumes on average 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda 3. On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 4.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Ground clearance: | 229 mm (9 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Ford Ranger can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger. Ford Ranger is 87 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 9 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 27 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1450 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1285 litres | |
|
Ford Ranger has more luggage capacity. Ford Ranger has 1037 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 1.8 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Ford Ranger can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 3`200 | ~ 1`796 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 18 400 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |