2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser vs. 2010 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2010 Ford Ranger is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser would be higher. At 4,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser (220 HP @ 5100 RPM) has 13 more horse power than 2010 Ford Ranger. (207 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford Ranger.
Because 2010 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 2010 Ford Ranger. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser, 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, 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser (333 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 11 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Ford Ranger. (322 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser | 2010 Ford Ranger | |
Make | Chrysler | Ford |
Model | PT Cruiser | Ranger |
Year Released | 2005 | 2010 |
Body Type | Hatchback | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2351 cc | 4000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 220 HP | 207 HP |
Engine RPM | 5100 RPM | 5250 RPM |
Torque | 333 Nm | 322 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 5171 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1763 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1684 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 3193 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.2 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 57 L | 74 L |