2012 Suzuki Equator vs 2026 Ford Ranger
📊 Key Differences
- Fuel economy: 21 MPG vs 23 MPG combined — Ford Ranger is more efficient
- Annual fuel cost: $2850 vs $2950 — Suzuki Equator saves $ per year
- Fuel type: Regular Gasoline vs Regular Gasoline
| Specification | 2012 Suzuki Equator | 2026 Ford Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Year | 2012 | 2026 |
| Class | Small Pickup Trucks 2WD | Standard Pickup Trucks 2WD |
| Fuel Type | Regular Gasoline | Regular Gasoline |
| Drive | Rear-Wheel Drive | Rear-Wheel Drive |
| Transmission | Manual 5-spd | Automatic (S10) |
| Cylinders | 4 | 4 |
| Displacement (L) | 2.5 | 2.3 |
| City MPG | 19 | 21 |
| Highway MPG | 23 | 25 |
| Combined MPG | 21 | 23 |
| Annual Fuel Cost | $2850 | $2950 |
| CO₂ (g/mile) | 423.1904761904762 | 395.0 |
| EPA Fuel Economy Score | —/10 | 5/10 |
| EPA GHG Score | —/10 | 5/10 |
🚗 2012 Suzuki Equator
Small Pickup Trucks 2WD with 21 MPG combined fuel economy. Runs on Regular Gasoline. Rear-Wheel Drive drivetrain.
Full Suzuki Equator Profile →🚗 2026 Ford Ranger
Standard Pickup Trucks 2WD with 23 MPG combined fuel economy. Runs on Regular Gasoline. Rear-Wheel Drive drivetrain.
Full Ford Ranger Profile →🔗 Related