2006 Ford Ranger vs. 2012 Citroen C-Crosser
To start off, 2012 Citroen C-Crosser is newer by 6 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, 2012 Citroen C-Crosser (168 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 82 more horse power than 2006 Ford Ranger. (86 HP @ 4200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Citroen C-Crosser should accelerate faster than 2006 Ford Ranger.
Because 2012 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, 2012 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, 2012 Citroen C-Crosser (232 Nm @ 4100 RPM) has 58 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Ford Ranger. (174 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2012 Citroen C-Crosser will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Ranger | 2012 Citroen C-Crosser | |
Make | Ford | Citroen |
Model | Ranger | C-Crosser |
Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
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 | 86 HP | 168 HP |
Engine RPM | 4200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 174 Nm | 232 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4100 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 21.6:1 | 10.5:1 |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |