Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD MT vs Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD AT Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
200 km/h
200 km/h
4
4
1998 cc
1998 cc
GCC
GCC
Dimensions
5 Seater
5 Seater
4 Doors
4 Doors
5370 mm
5370 mm
1918 mm
1918 mm
1884 mm
1884 mm
3270 mm
3270 mm
1200 L
1200 L
230
230 m
Fuel Economy
8 Km/L
8 Km/L
80 L
80 L
8 Km/L
8 Km/L
Comfort
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Keyless Entry
Keyless Entry
✓
✓
Interior
✓
✓
✓
✓
Fabric
Fabric
Digital
Digital
Dual Zone
Dual Zone
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Manual
Manual
✓
✓
✓
✓
Standard
Standard
✓
✓
Safety
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Infotainment
12
12
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Android LCD
Android LCD
✓
✓
6
6
Transmission
6MT
AT
Chassis & Steering
Four-Wheel Drive
Four Wheel Drive
Key Spec
2.0 L - 3.2 L
2.0 L - 3.2 L
118 BHP - 392 BHP
118 BHP - 392 BHP
10AT & 6MT & AT & Automatic & Manual
10AT & 6MT & AT & Automatic & Manual
Diesel & Gasoline & Petrol
Diesel & Gasoline & Petrol
TBD
TBD
3 Seater - 5
3 Seater - 5
Exterior
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
LED
LED
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Engine
In-Line
In-Line
2.0 L
2.0 L
Diesel
Diesel
Single Turbo
Single Turbo
4
4
168 BHP
168 BHP
405 Nm
405 Nm
Technologies
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Comparison of configuration highlights
Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD MT
- Electronic engine immobilizer
- Rear Defogger
- Heated Side Mirrors
- Parking sensor rear
- Parking sensor front
- Heater
- Rear Camera
- Headlight On Reminder
- Remote key types
- Steering Adjustment
- Anti-Theft Alarm System
- Speed Sensing Auto Door Lock
- Driver Seat Belt Warning
- ABS
- EBD/CBC
- EBA/BA
- Passive Pedestrian Protection
- Child Lock
- Speed Alert
- Active braking
Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD AT
- Electronic engine immobilizer
- Rear Defogger
- Heated Side Mirrors
- Parking sensor rear
- Parking sensor front
- Heater
- Rear Camera
- Headlight On Reminder
- Remote key types
- Steering Adjustment
- Anti-Theft Alarm System
- Speed Sensing Auto Door Lock
- Driver Seat Belt Warning
- ABS
- EBD/CBC
- EBA/BA
- Passive Pedestrian Protection
- Child Lock
- Speed Alert
- Active braking
Review Comparison
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Related comparisons
Expert / Editor Recommendation
Choose Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD MT if you care more about overall equipment; choose Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD AT if you care more about overall equipment.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD MT has a fuel consumption of 12.5, while Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD AT has a fuel consumption of 12.5. Therefore, No data is more fuel-efficient.
- In terms of interior space, Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD MT has a wheelbase of 3270 mm, while Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD AT has a wheelbase of 3270 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, No data, offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD MT uses Four-Wheel Drive, while Ranger XLT 2.0 Diesel 4WD AT uses Four Wheel Drive.