2005 Ford Ranger vs. 2013 Rolls-Royce Phantom
To start off, 2013 Rolls-Royce Phantom is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Ford Ranger would be higher. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Rolls-Royce Phantom weights approximately 1351 kg more than 2005 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, 2013 Rolls-Royce Phantom (720 Nm) has 470 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Ford Ranger. (250 Nm). This means 2013 Rolls-Royce Phantom will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Ford Ranger | 2013 Rolls-Royce Phantom | |
Make | Ford | Rolls-Royce |
Model | Ranger | Phantom |
Year Released | 2005 | 2013 |
Body Type | Pickup | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 148 HP | 0 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5350 RPM |
Torque | 250 Nm | 720 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 89.1 mm | 92 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 80 mm | 84 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1298 kg | 2649 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4790 mm | 5842 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1990 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1638 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 3570 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 10.2 L/100km | 10.3 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 100 L |