2006 Ford Ranger vs. 1952 Jeep CJ3A
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 54 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Jeep CJ3A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Jeep CJ3A would be higher. At 4,016 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Ford Ranger (206 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 147 more horse power than 1952 Jeep CJ3A. (59 HP @ 3600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1952 Jeep CJ3A.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear 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, 2006 Ford Ranger (324 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 179 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Jeep CJ3A. (145 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Jeep CJ3A.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Ranger | 1952 Jeep CJ3A | |
Make | Ford | Jeep |
Model | Ranger | CJ3A |
Year Released | 2006 | 1952 |
Body Type | Pickup | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4016 cc | 2199 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 206 HP | 59 HP |
Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Torque | 324 Nm | 145 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Length | 5150 mm | 3130 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1460 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1780 mm | 1630 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3010 mm | 2040 mm |