Ford Ranger 2015 vs Nissan Navara 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.2 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 231 HP | |
| Torque: | 470 NM | 550 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Ford Ranger engine produces 31 HP less power than Nissan Navara, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Nissan Navara. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 9.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.0 l/100km | 11.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Ranger consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Navara, which means that by driving the Ford Ranger over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Ranger consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Navara. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Ranger gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 5.40 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.79 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Ranger is 3 cm shorter than the Nissan Navara, 1 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 13.3 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`200 | 3`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 31 400 | 14 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Nissan Navara has
| |