Model Year | 2003 | 2015 | |
Model | Ford Ranger | Cadillac ATS | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
2003 Ford Ranger Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
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 |
2002 | 4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range |
The rear seats are very small but I did not buy it for rear seat comfort. I actually removed the seats to get more storage space behind the front seats. see full Ford Ranger review |
2015 Cadillac ATS Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Comment | |
Unfortunately, the "why nots" from three years ago remain. The compact Cadillac sedan's rear seat hasn't gotten any larger, and the coupe's is even tighter. Meanwhile, Audi, Lexus, and Mercedes have introduced competitors with roomier rear seats. At 5-9 I can sit behind myself with a little room to spare in the ATS sedan, and virtually none to spare in the ATS coupe. Drivers who need the seat further back than I do will eliminate leg room for all but the shortest rear passengers. see full Cadillac ATS review |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2015 Cadillac ATS.