Mitsubishi L 200 1996 vs Ford Ranger 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 87 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 201 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 23.7 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Ford Ranger is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi L 200 engine produces 56 HP less power than Ford Ranger, whereas torque is 129 NM less than Ford Ranger. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi L 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 11.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 8.9 | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi L 200 could require 120 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 225 mm (8.9 inches) | 203 mm (8 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: | 4.92 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.75 m | 1.75 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is smaller. Mitsubishi L 200 is 16 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 6 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1500 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`525 | 3`070 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |