| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
2012 Toyota 4Runner and 2000 Ford Ranger Specifications
| Model Year | 2012 | 2000 | |
| Model | Toyota 4Runner | Ford Ranger | |
| Engine | |||
| Transmission | |||
| Drivetrain | |||
| Body | |||
| Difference | |||
| Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2012 Toyota 4Runner
| 2012 Toyota 4Runner Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2011 | 4dr SUV 270-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed shiftable automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Not wide enough for circumferentially challenged bodies. Bottom cushion too narrow, confined bolsters, not long enough under thighs. see full Toyota 4Runner review |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2000 Ford Ranger
| 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 |
See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs
See TrueDelta's information for all Toyota models.
