Model Year | 2003 | 2016 | |
Model | Ford Ranger | Toyota Sienna | |
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 |
2016 Toyota Sienna Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Comment | |
2015 | The Sienna's seats are cushier than those in the Odyssey or the Sedona. But I slightly preferred the Sedona's front seats because they had four-way lumbar (rather than two-way) and provided more lateral support. The Toyota earns a clear win in front seat space. The first-row foot wells are unusually wide, and there's no tall center console (as in the Kia) or a protruding center stack (as in the Honda) to crowd the driver's right elbow or knee. This said, a relatively tall instrument panel does cut into the view forward and contribute to the Sienna feeling larger than the others. see full Toyota Sienna review |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2016 Toyota Sienna.