Model Year | 2000 | 2013 | |
Model | Ford Ranger | Chevrolet Camaro | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
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 |
2013 Chevrolet Camaro Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2012 | 2dr Convertible 323-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
The rear seat is small and unlike the nonconvertable does not have a center seat. see full Chevrolet Camaro review |
2013 Chevrolet Camaro Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2013 | 2dr Convertible 400-horsepower 6.2L V8 6-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
The rear seating is not meant for a Adult but a child or a set of golf clubs.. & a few complaints over the comfort.. in long drives.. any thing over a hour or more. see full Chevrolet Camaro review |