Mitsubishi L 200 2006 vs Ford Ranger 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 314 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.6 seconds | 14.7 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 engine produces 7 HP less power than Ford Ranger, whereas torque is 16 NM less than Ford Ranger. Despite less power, Mitsubishi L 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 10.4 | |
|
The Mitsubishi L 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 0.9 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 135 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi L 200 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.76 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi L 200 and Ford Ranger are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1500 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 12.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`850 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |