2006 Ford Ranger vs. 1980 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 26 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Holden Commodore. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Holden Commodore 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 128 more horse power than 1980 Holden Commodore. (78 HP @ 4600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1980 Holden Commodore.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1980 Holden Commodore. 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 (324 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 184 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Holden Commodore. (140 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Holden Commodore.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Ranger | 1980 Holden Commodore | |
Make | Ford | Holden |
Model | Ranger | Commodore |
Year Released | 2006 | 1980 |
Body Type | Pickup | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4016 cc | 1890 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 206 HP | 78 HP |
Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 4600 RPM |
Torque | 324 Nm | 140 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5150 mm | 4710 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1730 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1780 mm | 1380 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3010 mm | 2670 mm |