2005 Suzuki Reno vs. 2011 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2011 Ford Ranger is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Suzuki Reno. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Suzuki Reno would be higher. At 2,300 cc (4 cylinders), 2011 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2011 Ford Ranger (143 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 17 more horse power than 2005 Suzuki Reno. (126 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2011 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 2005 Suzuki Reno.
Because 2011 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 2011 Ford Ranger. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Suzuki Reno, 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, 2011 Ford Ranger (209 Nm) has 31 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Suzuki Reno. (178 Nm). This means 2011 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Suzuki Reno.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Suzuki Reno | 2011 Ford Ranger | |
| Make | Suzuki | Ford |
| Model | Reno | Ranger |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2011 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1998 cc | 2300 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 126 HP | 143 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 178 Nm | 209 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4300 mm | 5171 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1763 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1684 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2610 mm | 3193 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.7 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 74 L |
