Ford Ranger 2010 vs Mazda BT-50 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.7 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| Ford Ranger and Mazda BT-50 have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. Ford Ranger reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.4 | 8.9 | |
|
The Mazda BT-50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Ranger consumes 1.5 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 225 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 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: | 203 mm (8 inches) | 207 mm (8.1 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 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: | 12.6 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda BT-50. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 3`030 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6800 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda BT-50 has
| |