2000 Ford Ranger vs. 2003 MG TF
To start off, 2003 MG TF is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford Ranger would be higher. At 1,998 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 MG TF (158 HP @ 6900 RPM) has 23 more horse power than 2000 Ford Ranger. (135 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 MG TF should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford Ranger. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Ranger weights approximately 108 kg more than 2003 MG TF.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 76 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MG TF. (174 Nm). This means 2000 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MG TF.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Ford Ranger | 2003 MG TF | |
Make | Ford | MG |
Model | Ranger | TF |
Year Released | 2000 | 2003 |
Body Type | Pickup | Roadster |
Engine Position | Front | Middle |
Engine Size | 1998 cc | 1796 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 135 HP | 158 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6900 RPM |
Torque | 250 Nm | 174 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 3 seats | 2 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1298 kg | 1190 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 3950 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1630 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1270 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2380 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 50 L |