Mitsubishi L 200 2006 vs Ford Ranger 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 12 seconds | |
|
Ford Ranger is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi L 200 engine produces 7 HP less power than Ford Ranger, whereas torque is 16 NM less than Ford Ranger. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi L 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 8.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 0.3 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 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi L 200 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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: | 5.08 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.81 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 | 13 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`850 | 3`020 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |