1985 Caterham 1700 vs. 2006 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1985 Caterham 1700. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1985 Caterham 1700 would be higher. At 4,016 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Ford Ranger (206 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 71 more horse power than 1985 Caterham 1700. (135 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1985 Caterham 1700.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1985 Caterham 1700. 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. Let's talk about torque, 2006 Ford Ranger (324 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 159 more torque (in Nm) than 1985 Caterham 1700. (165 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1985 Caterham 1700.
Compare all specifications:
1985 Caterham 1700 | 2006 Ford Ranger | |
Make | Caterham | Ford |
Model | 1700 | Ranger |
Year Released | 1985 | 2006 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1692 cc | 4016 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 135 HP | 206 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
Torque | 165 Nm | 324 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 83.3 mm | 100.4 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 77.6 mm | 84.4 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3400 mm | 5150 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1580 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1090 mm | 1780 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2240 mm | 3010 mm |