2006 Ford Ranger vs. 2010 Citroen C-Crosser
To start off, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser 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 2,499 cc (4 cylinders), 2006 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser (168 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 60 more horse power than 2006 Ford Ranger. (108 HP @ 3500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser should accelerate faster than 2006 Ford Ranger.
Because 2010 Citroen C-Crosser is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Ford Ranger. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser 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 (257 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 25 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Citroen C-Crosser. (232 Nm @ 4100 RPM). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Citroen C-Crosser.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Ranger | 2010 Citroen C-Crosser | |
Make | Ford | Citroen |
Model | Ranger | C-Crosser |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Body Type | Pickup | Crossover |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2499 cc | 2359 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 3 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 108 HP | 168 HP |
Engine RPM | 3500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 257 Nm | 232 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4100 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 19.8:1 | 10.5:1 |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |