2006 Ford Ranger vs. 2000 Ford e-Ka
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford e-Ka. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford e-Ka 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 54 more horse power than 2000 Ford e-Ka. (89 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford e-Ka.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2000 Ford e-Ka. 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) has 19 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Ford e-Ka. (190 Nm). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Ford e-Ka. 2000 Ford e-Ka has automatic transmission and 2006 Ford Ranger has manual transmission. 2006 Ford Ranger will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Ford e-Ka will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Ford Ranger | 2000 Ford e-Ka | |
| Make | Ford | Ford |
| Model | Ranger | e-Ka |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2000 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2299 cc | 1758 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 143 HP | 89 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 209 Nm | 190 Nm |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 2 seats |
| Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2730 mm |
