Mitsubishi L 200 2010 vs Ford Ranger 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 178 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 375 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 engine produces 28 HP more power than Ford Ranger, whereas torque is 25 NM more than Ford Ranger. Despite the higher power, Mitsubishi L 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.9 l/100km | 9.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 0.6 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 90 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi L 200 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 970 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 1070 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | 5.19 m | 5.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi L 200 is 17 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 10 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`900 kg | 1`946 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 1`000 kg | 1`254 kg | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 25 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
| |