2006 Ford Ranger vs. 1949 Hudson Commodore
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 57 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1949 Hudson Commodore. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1949 Hudson Commodore would be higher. At 4,166 cc (8 cylinders), 1949 Hudson Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1949 Hudson Commodore (128 HP @ 4200 RPM) has 20 more horse power than 2006 Ford Ranger. (108 HP @ 3500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1949 Hudson Commodore should accelerate faster than 2006 Ford Ranger. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Ford Ranger weights approximately 59 kg more than 1949 Hudson Commodore.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Ford Ranger | 1949 Hudson Commodore | |
| Make | Ford | Hudson |
| Model | Ranger | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1949 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2498 cc | 4166 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 108 HP | 128 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3500 RPM | 4200 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 19.8:1 | 6.5:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1715 kg | 1656 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 5280 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2990 mm | 3160 mm |
