1964 Citroen 2CV vs. 2006 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Citroen 2CV. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Citroen 2CV would be higher. At 2,499 cc (4 cylinders), 2006 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Ford Ranger (108 HP @ 3500 RPM) has 90 more horse power than 1964 Citroen 2CV. (18 HP @ 3500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1964 Citroen 2CV. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Ford Ranger weights approximately 1155 kg more than 1964 Citroen 2CV. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1964 Citroen 2CV. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
1964 Citroen 2CV | 2006 Ford Ranger | |
Make | Citroen | Ford |
Model | 2CV | Ranger |
Year Released | 1964 | 2006 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 425 cc | 2499 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | boxer | in-line |
Horse Power | 18 HP | 108 HP |
Engine RPM | 3500 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 560 kg | 1715 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3790 mm | 4670 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2410 mm | 3010 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.9 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 82 L |