2006 Ford Ranger vs. 2010 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 2010 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Ford Ranger would be higher. At 4,014 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Ford Ranger (207 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 38 more horse power than 2010 Chevrolet Malibu. (169 HP @ 6400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 2010 Chevrolet Malibu.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2010 Chevrolet Malibu. 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 (323 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 106 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Chevrolet Malibu. (217 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Chevrolet Malibu.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Ranger | 2010 Chevrolet Malibu | |
Make | Ford | Chevrolet |
Model | Ranger | Malibu |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Body Type | Pickup | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4014 cc | 2400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 207 HP | 169 HP |
Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 6400 RPM |
Torque | 323 Nm | 217 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5160 mm | 4872 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1786 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3200 mm | 2852 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 74 L | 61 L |