2004 Holden UTE vs. 2010 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2010 Ford Ranger is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Holden UTE. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Holden UTE would be higher. At 4,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford Ranger (207 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 2004 Holden UTE. (204 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 2004 Holden UTE.
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, 2010 Ford Ranger (322 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 17 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Holden UTE. (305 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2010 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Holden UTE.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Holden UTE | 2010 Ford Ranger | |
Make | Holden | Ford |
Model | UTE | Ranger |
Year Released | 2004 | 2010 |
Body Type | Pickup | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3791 cc | 4000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 204 HP | 207 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5250 RPM |
Torque | 305 Nm | 322 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5060 mm | 5171 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1763 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1684 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 3193 mm |