Ford Ranger 2006 vs Mitsubishi L 200 1996
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.3 - 4.0 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 84 - 207 HP | 87 - 132 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 - 380 NM | 154 - 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 - 13.7 seconds | 23.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 - 10.2 | 9.7 | |
|
On average, Ford Ranger equipped with diesel engines consume 0.2 litres less 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! | |||
| Ground clearance: | 203 - 205 mm (8 - 8.1 inches) | 215 - 235 mm (8.5 - 9.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi L 200 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: | 5.08 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger. Ford Ranger is 44 cm longer than the Mitsubishi L 200, 13 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1500 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`986 | ~ 2`690 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7400 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |