Mazda BT-50 2020 vs Ford Ranger 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 450 NM | 470 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
| Mazda BT-50 engine produces 10 HP less power than Ford Ranger, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Ford Ranger. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 8.9 | |
|
The Mazda BT-50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda BT-50 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger, which means that by driving the Mazda BT-50 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 76 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1080 km on highway | ||
| Mazda BT-50 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.28 m | 5.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.79 m | 1.82 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda BT-50 is 8 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 1 cm wider, while the height of Mazda BT-50 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.5 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`100 | 3`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 31 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda BT-50 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |