1988 Citroen AX vs. 2010 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2010 Ford Ranger is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1988 Citroen AX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1988 Citroen AX would be higher. At 4,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford Ranger (207 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 150 more horse power than 1988 Citroen AX. (57 HP @ 6200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1988 Citroen AX.
Because 2010 Ford Ranger is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2010 Ford Ranger. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1988 Citroen AX, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2010 Ford Ranger (322 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 234 more torque (in Nm) than 1988 Citroen AX. (88 Nm @ 3700 RPM). This means 2010 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1988 Citroen AX.
Compare all specifications:
| 1988 Citroen AX | 2010 Ford Ranger | |
| Make | Citroen | Ford |
| Model | AX | Ranger |
| Year Released | 1988 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1124 cc | 4000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 57 HP | 207 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 88 Nm | 322 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3700 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 3530 mm | 5171 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1763 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1684 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2290 mm | 3193 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.6 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 7.1 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 43 L | 74 L |
