1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2006 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 20 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Caterham 1700. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Caterham 1700 would be higher. At 2,299 cc (4 cylinders), 2006 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Caterham 1700 (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 25 more horse power than 2006 Ford Ranger. (143 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 2006 Ford Ranger.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1986 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1986 Caterham 1700 | 2006 Ford Ranger | |
| Make | Caterham | Ford |
| Model | 1700 | Ranger |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1692 cc | 2299 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 168 HP | 143 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 9.7:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4820 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1770 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2840 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 59 L |
