Mitsubishi L 200 2012 vs Ford Ranger 2011
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 178 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 375 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 12.4 seconds | |
|
Ford Ranger is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi L 200 engine produces 28 HP more power than Ford Ranger, but torque is 25 NM less than Ford Ranger. Despite the higher power, Mitsubishi L 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 9.4 | |
|
The Mitsubishi L 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 0.7 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 105 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 860 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 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) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.26 m | 5.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi L 200 is 10 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1450 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi L 200 is 0.9 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`900 kg | 3`200 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`915 kg | 2`012 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 985 kg | 1`188 kg | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 21 procentiem less than Ford Ranger. Therefore, Ford Ranger is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 16 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |