DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2000 Ford Ranger vs 2000 Land Rover Range Rover Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

Ford Ranger

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.25 points.

62.5–62.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

FordMakeLand Rover
RangerModelRange Rover
2000Model year2000
Pick-upBody typeEstate
5Seats5
4Doors5

Performance

—0–100 km/h14,3 s
0 km/hTop speed185 km/h
2499 ccEngine displacement2497 cc
109 HPPower136 HP
266 NmTorque270 Nm
4Cylinders6

Fuel & Consumption

DieselFuel typeDiesel
70 ltFuel tank100 lt
—Urban consumption12,8 lt
—Extra-urban consumption8,9 lt
—Average consumption10,6 lt

Transmission & Chassis

Rear-wheel driveDrivetrain4x4
5Gears5
235/75 R15Tyre size235/70 R16
YesABSYes

Dimensions

5020 mmLength4713 mm
1695 mmWidth1853 mm
1750 mmHeight1817 mm
1399 KgWeight2115 Kg
3000 mmWheelbase2745 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2000 Ford Ranger and 2000 Land Rover Range Rover approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.

Overall, Ford Ranger leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.25 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.

SIMILAR COMPARISONS

Similar comparisons

Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.

Comments are loading…