![truedelta | real car owners driving real car information](https://www.truedelta.com/images/logo-truedelta.gif)
![truedelta | real car owners driving real car information](https://www.truedelta.com/images/logo-truedelta-mobile.gif)
Model Year | 2003 | 2000 | |
Model | Ford Mustang | Ford Ranger | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
2003 Ford Mustang Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2003 | 2dr Convertible 190-horsepower 3.8L V6 4-speed automatic RWD |
The existence of a rear seat, comfortable or not, was a major factor. see full Ford Mustang review |
2003 Ford Mustang Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2003 | 2dr Convertible 190-horsepower 3.8L V6 4-speed automatic RWD |
Front seats are not particularly comfortable but not so different from most cars I've driven. I've already bought seat cushions. I've put long days on a bicycle I ride regularly which is more comfortable than anything between a vintage VW Beetle and a modern Buick with the exception of a Renault 16. In fact most car makers would do well to go out and find a 1972 Renault 16 and take very, very careful note of the seats. But seat comfort was secondary to other considerations such as water-tightness of the convertible. Not a deal-breaker. see full Ford Mustang 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 |