Model Year | 2011 | 2005 | |
Model | Chevrolet Traverse | Ford Ranger | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
2011 Chevrolet Traverse Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2012 | 4dr SUV 281-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
Although the rear captain seats are quite comfortable, I do not like how they roll forward. There is a track in the floor in which the rear seats fold and slide up behind the front seats. All I notice when in the back seat is how extremely difficult it is to clean out the mud and grit and salt (I live in Canada, we use salt on our roads) that gets left behind in the track from passenger footwear. see full Chevrolet Traverse review |
2011 | 4dr SUV 281-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
The headrest position is horrible for long trips. Felt like my head was being pushed forward. see full Chevrolet Traverse review |
2005 Ford Ranger Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2005 | 4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Rear compartment of Ranger extended cab is smaller and has side-facing jumpseats. see full Ford Ranger review |
2004 | 2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
The jump seats in a Ranger are not very practical for long trips what so ever, not much room other than for storage, and they are not comfortable. I think that a Full 4 door model of the Ranger would be great, maybe a redesign will incorporate a backseat see full Ford Ranger review |