Mazda BT-50 2020 vs Ford Ranger 2022
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: | 1.9 - 3.0 (diesel) | 2.0 - 3.0 (petrol, diesel, hybrid) | |
| Both cars are available with diesel engines. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 190 HP | 170 - 292 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 - 450 NM | 405 - 600 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 7.9 - 12.1 seconds | |
| In general, Ford Ranger are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Mazda BT-50. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 - 8.0 | 3.2 - 13.8 | |
|
On average, Mazda BT-50 equipped with diesel engines consume 1.9 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! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 235 - 240 mm (9.3 - 9.4 inches) | 226 - 266 mm (8.9 - 10.5 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.28 m | 5.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 2.01 m | |
| Height: | 1.79 m | 1.89 m | |
|
Mazda BT-50 is smaller. Mazda BT-50 is 8 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 14 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda BT-50 is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.5 meters | 13 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda BT-50 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Ford Ranger, which means Mazda BT-50 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 3`050 kg | ~ 3`276 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`912 kg | ~ 2`434 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 1`138 kg | ~ 842 kg | |
| Mazda BT-50 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 26 procentiem more than Ford Ranger. Therefore, Mazda BT-50 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 38 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda BT-50 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |