2004 Ford Ranger vs. 2012 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2012 Holden Commodore is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Ranger would be higher. At 2,983 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Holden Commodore (240 HP) has 92 more horse power than 2004 Ford Ranger. (148 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Ranger.
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, 2004 Ford Ranger (251 Nm) has 11 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Holden Commodore. (240 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Holden Commodore.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Ranger | 2012 Holden Commodore | |
| Make | Ford | Holden |
| Model | Ranger | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2983 cc | 2564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 148 HP | 240 HP |
| Torque | 251 Nm | 240 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.4 L/100km | 10.9 L/100km |
