Mitsubishi L 200 2006 vs Ford Ranger 2006
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: | 2.5 (diesel) | 2.3 - 4.0 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 - 168 HP | 143 - 207 HP | |
| Torque: | 314 - 402 NM | 209 - 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.6 seconds | 12 - 14.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 - 9.5 | 8.9 - 10.4 | |
|
On average, Mitsubishi L 200 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.8 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: | 5.08 m | 5.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.73 m | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 is 8 cm longer than the Ford Ranger, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1500 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 13 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`870 | ~ 3`020 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |