DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2000 Land Rover Range Rover vs 2000 Ford Ranger 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.

62.25–62.5
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

Land RoverMakeFord
Range RoverModelRanger
2000Model year2000
EstateBody typePick-up
5Seats5
5Doors4

Performance

14,3 s0–100 km/h—
185 km/hTop speed0 km/h
2497 ccEngine displacement2499 cc
136 HPPower109 HP
270 NmTorque266 Nm
6Cylinders4

Fuel & Consumption

DieselFuel typeDiesel
100 ltFuel tank70 lt
12,8 ltUrban consumption—
8,9 ltExtra-urban consumption—
10,6 ltAverage consumption—

Transmission & Chassis

4x4DrivetrainRear-wheel drive
5Gears5
235/70 R16Tyre size235/75 R15
YesABSYes

Dimensions

4713 mmLength5020 mm
1853 mmWidth1695 mm
1817 mmHeight1750 mm
2115 KgWeight1399 Kg
2745 mmWheelbase3000 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2000 Land Rover Range Rover and 2000 Ford Ranger 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…