Mitsubishi L 200 2015 vs Ford Ranger 2015
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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Ford Ranger can be equipped with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Ford Ranger also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.4 (diesel) | 2.2 - 3.2 (petrol, diesel) | |
| Both cars are available with diesel engines. Ford Ranger is available also with petrol engines. Petrol engines typically offer smoother operation and quicker acceleration compared to other engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 154 - 181 HP | 130 - 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 - 430 NM | 226 - 470 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 - 12.2 seconds | 10.3 - 14.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 - 7.5 | 6.9 - 8.7 | |
|
On average, Mitsubishi L 200 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.4 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: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 135 - 237 mm (5.3 - 9.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi L 200 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: | 5.21 m | 5.33 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.77 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mitsubishi L 200 is 13 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`864 kg | ~ 3`166 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`858 kg | ~ 1`867 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 1`006 kg | ~ 1`299 kg | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 29 procentiem less than Ford Ranger. Therefore, Ford Ranger is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 13 600 | 29 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |