2000 Ford Ranger vs. 1997 Rover 400
To start off, 2000 Ford Ranger is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1997 Rover 400. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1997 Rover 400 would be higher. At 1,998 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Ranger (135 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 25 more horse power than 1997 Rover 400. (110 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1997 Rover 400.
Because 2000 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 2000 Ford Ranger. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1997 Rover 400, 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, 2000 Ford Ranger (250 Nm) has 105 more torque (in Nm) than 1997 Rover 400. (145 Nm). This means 2000 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1997 Rover 400.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Ranger | 1997 Rover 400 | |
| Make | Ford | Rover |
| Model | Ranger | 400 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1997 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1998 cc | 1589 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 135 HP | 110 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 250 Nm | 145 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 3 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4370 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1410 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2560 mm |
