Ford Ranger 2006 vs Mazda BT-50 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 156 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| Ford Ranger engine produces 13 HP more power than Mazda BT-50, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Mazda BT-50. Despite the higher power, Ford Ranger reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.2 | 8.9 | |
|
The Mazda BT-50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Ranger consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda BT-50, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Ranger could require 195 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 780 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Mazda BT-50 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 205 mm (8.1 inches) | 207 mm (8.1 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Ranger and Mazda BT-50 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1500 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 12.5 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 3`030 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7200 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mazda BT-50 has
| |