Ford Ranger 2022 vs Mazda BT-50 2020
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Ford Ranger) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Mazda BT-50) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 292 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 491 NM | 450 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Ford Ranger engine produces 102 HP more power than Mazda BT-50, whereas torque is 41 NM more than Mazda BT-50. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.8 | 8.0 | |
|
The Mazda BT-50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Ranger consumes 5.8 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 870 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 76 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 570 km in combined cycle | 950 km in combined cycle | |
| Mazda BT-50 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: | 265 mm (10.4 inches) | 240 mm (9.4 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 | 5.28 m | |
| Width: | 2.03 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.93 m | 1.79 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger. Ford Ranger is 8 cm longer than the Mazda BT-50, 16 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 14 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 13 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda BT-50, which means Ford Ranger can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`130 kg | 3`100 kg | |
| Net weight: | 2`454 kg | 2`010 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 676 kg | 1`090 kg | |
| Ford Ranger load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 61 procentiem less than Mazda BT-50. Therefore, Mazda BT-50 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 42 000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mazda BT-50 has
| |