Ford Ranger 2015 vs Chevrolet Tahoe 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.2 Diesel | 5.3 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Ford Ranger) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Chevrolet Tahoe) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 355 HP | |
| Torque: | 470 NM | 519 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Ford Ranger engine produces 155 HP less power than Chevrolet Tahoe, whereas torque is 49 NM less than Chevrolet Tahoe. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 11.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.0 l/100km | 12.3 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Ranger consumes 3.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Tahoe, which means that by driving the Ford Ranger over 15,000 km in a year you can save 510 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Ranger consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Tahoe. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 98 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 232 mm (9.1 inches) | 200 mm (7.9 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. Note, however, that this Ford Ranger version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from five 4x4 versions of Ford Ranger 2015 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 5.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 2.04 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.89 m | |
| Ford Ranger is 18 cm longer than the Chevrolet Tahoe, 18 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Ranger is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 433 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 433 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 2681 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.9 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 3`200 kg | 3`220 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`883 kg | 2`479 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 1`317 kg | 741 kg | |
| Ford Ranger load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 44 procentiem more than Chevrolet Tahoe. Therefore, Ford Ranger is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 23 200 | 25 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Chevrolet Tahoe has
| |