1996 Ford Ranger vs. 2009 Mazda 5
To start off, 2009 Mazda 5 is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Ford Ranger would be higher. At 2,507 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 5 (154 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 36 more horse power than 1996 Ford Ranger. (118 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 5 should accelerate faster than 1996 Ford Ranger.
Because 1996 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 1996 Ford Ranger. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 5, 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, 2009 Mazda 5 (201 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 3 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Ford Ranger. (198 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda 5 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Ford Ranger | 2009 Mazda 5 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | Ranger | 5 |
Year Released | 1996 | 2009 |
Body Type | Pickup | Minivan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2507 cc | 2260 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 118 HP | 154 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque | 198 Nm | 201 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 6 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4620 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1650 mm | 1640 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2760 mm |