2001 Ford Ranger vs. 2010 Mazda BT-50
To start off, 2010 Mazda BT-50 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2001 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2001 Ford Ranger would be higher. At 2,498 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Mazda BT-50 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 108 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2001 Ford Ranger weights approximately 805 kg more than 2010 Mazda BT-50.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear 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, 2001 Ford Ranger (266 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 9 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Mazda BT-50. (257 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2001 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Mazda BT-50.
Compare all specifications:
| 2001 Ford Ranger | 2010 Mazda BT-50 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Ranger | BT-50 |
| Year Released | 2001 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2497 cc | 2498 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 3 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 108 HP | 108 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3500 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Torque | 266 Nm | 257 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Diesel |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1760 kg | 955 kg |
| Vehicle Height | 1750 mm | 1810 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3010 mm | 3010 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 50 L |
