Ford Ranger 2006 vs Land Rover Range Rover 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 4.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 313 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 700 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 7.8 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is a more dynamic driving. Ford Ranger engine produces 170 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover, whereas torque is 370 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover. Due to the lower power, Ford Ranger reaches 100 km/h speed 4.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 11.2 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Ranger consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover, which means that by driving the Ford Ranger over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Ranger consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 100 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 1060 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 1210 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 890 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 4.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | no data | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 1500 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 13 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`020 | 3`200 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7600 | 15 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Land Rover Range Rover has
| |