Mitsubishi L 200 2015 vs Ford Ranger 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 181 HP | 160 HP | |
| Torque: | 430 NM | 385 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 12.6 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi L 200 engine produces 21 HP more power than Ford Ranger, whereas torque is 45 NM more than Ford Ranger. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi L 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 9.6 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi L 200 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 135 mm (5.3 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 | 5.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.80 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is smaller. Mitsubishi L 200 is 16 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight: | 2`850 kg | 3`200 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`860 kg | 1`749 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 990 kg | 1`451 kg | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 47 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
| |