Ford Ranger 2012 vs Chevrolet Tahoe 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 6.2 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Ford Ranger) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Chevrolet Tahoe) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 426 HP | |
| Torque: | 375 NM | 624 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.3 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Ford Ranger engine produces 276 HP less power than Chevrolet Tahoe, whereas torque is 249 NM less than Chevrolet Tahoe. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 12.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.6 l/100km | 13.2 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Ranger consumes 3.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Tahoe, which means that by driving the Ford Ranger over 15,000 km in a year you can save 540 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Ranger consumes 3.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Tahoe. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 98 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 740 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.36 m | 5.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 2.04 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.89 m | |
| Ford Ranger is 18 cm longer than the Chevrolet Tahoe, 19 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Ranger is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 1210 litres | 433 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 433 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 1210 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2681 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 0.8 metres more than that of the Chevrolet Tahoe, which means Ford Ranger can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`144 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 19 400 | 41 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Chevrolet Tahoe has
| |