2005 Ford Ranger vs. 1976 Rover 2000
To start off, 2005 Ford Ranger is newer by 29 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Rover 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Rover 2000 would be higher. At 3,532 cc (8 cylinders), 1976 Rover 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1976 Rover 2000 (142 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 38 more horse power than 2005 Ford Ranger. (104 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1976 Rover 2000 should accelerate faster than 2005 Ford Ranger. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1976 Rover 2000 weights approximately 9 kg more than 2005 Ford Ranger. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 1976 Rover 2000 (272 Nm @ 2600 RPM) has 100 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Ford Ranger. (172 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 1976 Rover 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Ford Ranger | 1976 Rover 2000 | |
Make | Ford | Rover |
Model | Ranger | 2000 |
Year Released | 2005 | 1976 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2184 cc | 3532 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 104 HP | 142 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 172 Nm | 272 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 2600 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1323 kg | 1332 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2990 mm | 2640 mm |