Mitsubishi L 200 2023 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) | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 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, Mitsubishi L 200 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.4 (petrol, diesel) | 2.0 - 3.0 (petrol, diesel, hybrid) | |
| Both cars are available with petrol and diesel engines. Ford Ranger is available also with hybrid engines. Hybrid engines offer superior fuel efficiency and reduced emissions compared to conventional engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 128 - 201 HP | 170 - 292 HP | |
| Torque: | 194 - 470 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 Mitsubishi L 200. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 - 8.5 | 3.2 - 13.8 | |
|
On average, Mitsubishi L 200 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.9 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: | 228 - 240 mm (9 - 9.4 inches) | 226 - 266 mm (8.9 - 10.5 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.32 m | 5.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 2.01 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.89 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is smaller. Mitsubishi L 200 is 4 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 14 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.6 meters | 13 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi L 200 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Ford Ranger, which means Mitsubishi L 200 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`920 kg | ~ 3`276 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`907 kg | ~ 2`434 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 1`013 kg | ~ 842 kg | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 17 procentiem more than Ford Ranger. Therefore, Mitsubishi L 200 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 | 43 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |