1998 BMW 316 vs. 2006 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1998 BMW 316. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1998 BMW 316 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 100 more horse power than 1998 BMW 316. (106 HP @ 5300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1998 BMW 316.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1998 BMW 316. 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 1998 BMW 316. (165 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1998 BMW 316.
Compare all specifications:
1998 BMW 316 | 2006 Ford Ranger | |
Make | BMW | Ford |
Model | 316 | Ranger |
Year Released | 1998 | 2006 |
Body Type | Hatchback | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1895 cc | 4016 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 106 HP | 206 HP |
Engine RPM | 5300 RPM | 5250 RPM |
Torque | 165 Nm | 324 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 85 mm | 100.4 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 83.5 mm | 84.4 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4220 mm | 5150 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1780 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 3010 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 84 L |