Ford Ranger 2015 vs Mitsubishi L 200 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.2 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 154 HP | |
| Torque: | 470 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Ranger is more dynamic to drive. Ford Ranger engine produces 46 HP more power than Mitsubishi L 200, whereas torque is 90 NM more than Mitsubishi L 200. Thanks to more power Ford Ranger reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.0 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi L 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Ranger consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi L 200, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Ranger could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Ranger consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi L 200. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 1200 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 820 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi L 200 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 237 mm (9.3 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 5.21 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.80 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger. Ford Ranger is 16 cm longer than the Mitsubishi L 200, 8 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.8 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 3`200 kg | 2`850 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`969 kg | 1`855 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 1`231 kg | 995 kg | |
| Ford Ranger load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 19 procentiem more than Mitsubishi L 200. 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 (€): | 29 800 | 13 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |