2006 Ford Ranger vs. 1976 Rover 2000
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 30 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Rover 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Rover 2000 would be higher. At 3,532 cc (8 cylinders), 1976 Rover 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Ford Ranger (143 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 1 more horse power than 1976 Rover 2000. (142 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1976 Rover 2000.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1976 Rover 2000. 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, 1976 Rover 2000 (272 Nm @ 2600 RPM) has 63 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Ford Ranger. (209 Nm @ 3750 RPM). This means 1976 Rover 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Ranger | 1976 Rover 2000 | |
Make | Ford | Rover |
Model | Ranger | 2000 |
Year Released | 2006 | 1976 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2299 cc | 3532 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 143 HP | 142 HP |
Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 209 Nm | 272 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 2600 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 87.4 mm | 88.9 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 94 mm | 71.1 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4820 mm | 4550 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1400 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2640 mm |