Ford Ranger 2011 vs Mazda 3 2007
| Body: | Crossover / SUV | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 375 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.4 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
| Ford Ranger engine produces 7 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Mazda 3. Despite the higher power, Ford Ranger reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.7 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Ranger consumes 3.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Ranger could require 510 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Ranger consumes 4.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 229 mm (9 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 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 | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Ford Ranger is larger. Ford Ranger is 87 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 10 cm wider, while the height of Ford Ranger is 24 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1450 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1285 litres | |
|
Ford Ranger has more luggage capacity. Ford Ranger has 1037 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Ranger is 1.8 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Ford Ranger can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`200 | 1`925 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 18 400 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |