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: | 10.4 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Nissan Navara is a more dynamic driving. Ford Ranger engine produces 31 HP less power than Nissan Navara, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Nissan Navara. Due to the lower power, Ford Ranger reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 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 0.8 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 120 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: | 910 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Ranger 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) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Nissan Navara 2010 3.0 engine: The V9X engine stands out due to its unusual 65-degree V-angle. It features a lightweight cast-iron block, aluminum cylinder heads with hydraulic lifters, a variable geometry turbocharger, and a chain-driven timing ... More about Nissan Navara 2010 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 5.40 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.80 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 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 13.3 meters | |
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`200 kg | 3`010 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`969 kg | 2`110 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 1`231 kg | 900 kg | |
| Ford Ranger load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 27 procentiem more than Nissan Navara. Therefore, Ford Ranger is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 29 800 | 15 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Nissan Navara has
| |