2005 Ford Ranger vs. 2003 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2005 Ford Ranger is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 MCC Crossblade. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 MCC Crossblade would be higher. At 1,753 cc (4 cylinders), 2005 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Ford Ranger (86 HP) has 16 more horse power than 2003 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 2003 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Ford Ranger weights approximately 562 kg more than 2003 MCC Crossblade. 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, 2005 Ford Ranger (135 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 33 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 2005 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Ford Ranger | 2003 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | Ford | MCC |
| Model | Ranger | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2003 |
| Engine Size | 1753 cc | 598 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 86 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 135 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 3210 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1302 kg | 740 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2990 mm | 1810 mm |
