Model Year | 2012 | 2000 | |
Model | Dodge Grand Caravan | Ford Ranger | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
2012 Dodge Grand Caravan Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2013 | 4dr Minivan, ext. 283-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
I dislike the current emphasis on hard seats (and this applies to most other brands as well- Toyotas and Hondas are the worst). Enthusiast magazines can rave all they want about great support, etc, but the softer seats in friend's '92 Caravan are more comfortable than these in my 2013. I have an SXT model, which is sort of mid level in Grand Caravans, and it does have a power seat. However, that is an OPTION, and it should be standard above the SE model. see full Dodge Grand Caravan review |
2012 | 4dr Minivan, ext. 283-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
Nice car, but front seats could be better. Close to a deal breaker. see full Dodge Grand Caravan review |
2000 Ford Ranger Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2001 | 2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 119-horsepower 2.5L I4 5-speed manual RWD |
Standard cab leg room not good for anyone over 6 ft see full Ford Ranger review |
2000 | 4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 150-horsepower 3.0L V6 4-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Too small for anyone over the age of ten. see full Ford Ranger review |