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 | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi L 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. 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 0.5 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 | 660 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: | 2`850 kg | 3`020 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`935 kg | 1`955 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 915 kg | 1`065 kg | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 16 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 (€): | 7800 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |