Ford Ranger 2006 vs Nissan Navara 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 403 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Nissan Navara is a more dynamic driving. Ford Ranger engine produces 47 HP less power than Nissan Navara, whereas torque is 73 NM less than Nissan Navara. Due to the lower power, Ford Ranger reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 9.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Ranger consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Navara, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Ranger could require 90 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Ranger consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Navara. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Navara gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 5.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.79 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is smaller. Ford Ranger is 15 cm shorter than the Nissan Navara, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Ranger is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1500 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 13 meters | 13.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 0.2 metres less than that of the Nissan Navara. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`020 | 2`805 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 15 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Nissan Navara has
| |