Mazda BT-50 2015 vs Ford Ranger 2012
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Mazda BT-50 is available with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Ford Ranger can be equipped only with four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Mazda BT-50 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.2 - 3.2 | 2.2 - 3.2 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 200 HP | 150 - 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 375 - 470 NM | 375 - 470 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 10.3 - 12.6 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 - 9.2 | 8.5 - 10.4 | |
|
On average, Mazda BT-50 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.37 m | 5.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.82 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda BT-50 is 1 cm longer than the Ford Ranger, width is practically the same also the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1210 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.4 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda BT-50 is 0.3 metres less than that of the Ford Ranger. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 3`200 | ~ 1`123 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 19 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda BT-50 has
|
| |