2006 Ford Ranger vs. 1966 Riley Kestrel
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 40 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Riley Kestrel. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Riley Kestrel would be higher. At 2,299 cc (4 cylinders), 2006 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Ford Ranger (143 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 90 more horse power than 1966 Riley Kestrel. (53 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1966 Riley Kestrel.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1966 Riley Kestrel. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger will offer significantly more control. 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 (209 Nm @ 3750 RPM) has 126 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Riley Kestrel. (83 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Riley Kestrel.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Ranger | 1966 Riley Kestrel | |
Make | Ford | Riley |
Model | Ranger | Kestrel |
Year Released | 2006 | 1966 |
Engine Size | 2299 cc | 1098 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 143 HP | 53 HP |
Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 209 Nm | 83 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 2500 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 8.3:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Vehicle Length | 4820 mm | 3730 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1540 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2380 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 25 L |