Model Year | 2016 | 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 |
2016 Chevrolet Traverse Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2016 | 4dr SUV 281-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
I bought this vehicle to be able to transport my grandchildren back and forth between New Jersey and Ohio. I have the 2LT version with four captains chairs and really enjoy the convienence of not having to move a middle row seat to allow one of them to get into the "way back". Having three kids jammed together in a middle seat for an 8 hour drive is courting disaster--that's why I needed that third seat. Everyone has plenty of space. Normally I find any drive over 4 hours a bit uncomfortable but the seat and driver's position was very relaxing and comfortable. This particular vehicle has the most room for storage behind the third seat than any in its class. It is only beat by minivans and they just aren't my kind of vehicle. 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 |