Compare the2023 Ford RangerVS 2022 Chevrolet Colorado

Safety
Warranty
Reliability
Engine
Fuel Economy and Range
Transmission
Brakes and Stopping
Tires and Wheels
Suspension and Handling
Chassis
Passenger Space
Cargo Capacity
Payload and Towing
Ergonomics
Economic Advantages

Safety

© 1999 - 2024Advanta-STAR Automotive Research, all rights reserved. This vehicle comparison and all of the content in it are provided only by license from Advanta-STAR Automotive Research Corporation of America (“Advanta-STAR”). If you are not a legally licensed user of this vehicle comparison, it is against federal law to access it, copy it, forward it, or use it in any manner whatsoever. Any unauthorized use of this vehicle comparison is a violation of U.S. and international law and is punishable criminally and civilly. Removal of this watermark/notification without prior written license and approval received from Advanta-STAR is an agreement, understanding, and/or stipulation by the person(s), entities, agents, attorneys, and any other persons involved in the removal of this watermark/notification (including but not limited to Search Optics, LLC and any and all parent entities, sister entities, and subsidiary entities of Search Optics, LLC and/or any other entity, agent, attorney, and persons related in any manner to Search Optics, LLC) to: 1) an agreed upon amount of liquidated monetary damages of a minimum of $1,250,000.00 US Dollars in favor of Advanta-STAR; 2) the jurisdiction and enforcement of any legal claims associated with this matter asserted by Advanta-STAR in the United States Federal District Court in Portand, Oregon; and 3) service of process of any legal claims asserted by Advanta-STAR associated with this matter may be accomplished by First-Class Postage by the United States Postal Service or comparable service. XPYNN-M34HG 2a06:98c0:3600::103 2024/11/21

The Ranger has standard Automatic Emergency Braking, which use forward mounted sensors to warn the driver of a possible collision ahead. If the driver doesn’t react and the system determines a collision is imminent, it automatically applies the brakes at full-force in order to reduce the force of the crash or avoid it altogether. The Colorado offers an available collision warning system without the automated brake feature that would prevent or reduce the collision if the driver fails to react.

The Ranger offers optional parking sensors to help warn the driver about vehicles, pedestrians or other obstacles behind or, optionally, in front of the vehicle. The Colorado doesn’t offer a front parking aid.

To help make backing out of a parking space safer, the Ranger’s optional rear cross-path warning system uses sensors in the rear bumper to alert the driver to vehicles approaching from the side, helping the driver avoid collisions. The Colorado doesn’t offer a cross-path warning system.

The Ranger’s optional driver alert monitor detects an inattentive driver then sounds a warning and suggests a break. According to the NHTSA, drivers who fall asleep cause about 100,000 crashes and 1500 deaths a year. The Colorado doesn’t offer a driver alert monitor.

Both the Ranger and the Colorado have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, side-impact head airbags, front seatbelt pretensioners, height adjustable front shoulder belts, plastic fuel tanks, four-wheel antilock brakes, traction control, electronic stability systems to prevent skidding, daytime running lights, rearview cameras, available four-wheel drive, lane departure warning systems and blind spot warning systems.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does 35 MPH front crash tests on new vehicles. In this test, results indicate that the Ford Ranger is safer than the Chevrolet Colorado:

	Ranger	Colorado
	Driver
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	137	210
	Passenger
STARS	4 Stars	4 Stars
Chest Compression	.5 inches	.6 inches
Neck Injury Risk	41%	44.9%
Neck Stress	194 lbs.	300 lbs.

New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does side impact tests on new vehicles. In this test, which crashes the vehicle into a flat barrier at 38.5 MPH and into a post at 20 MPH, results indicate that the Ford Ranger is safer than the Chevrolet Colorado:

	Ranger	Colorado
	Front Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	12	22
Abdominal Force	151 lbs.	203 lbs.
Hip Force	177 lbs.	180 lbs.
	Rear Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	43	46
Spine Acceleration	25 G’s	41 G’s
Hip Force	329 lbs.	545 lbs.
	Into Pole
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
Max Damage Depth	12 inches	13 inches
HIC	209	227
Spine Acceleration	44 G’s	47 G’s
Hip Force	683 lbs.	716 lbs.

New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.

For its top level performance in all IIHS frontal, side, rear impact and roof-crush tests, and its standard front crash prevention system, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety grants the Ranger the rating of “Top Safety Pick” for 2017, a rating granted to only 230 vehicles tested by the IIHS. The Colorado was last qualified as a “Top Safety Pick” in 2016.

Warranty

The Ranger’s corrosion warranty is unlimited miles longer than the Colorado’s (unlimited vs. 100,000 miles).

Reliability

A hardened steel chain, with no maintenance needs, drives the camshafts in the Ranger’s engine. A rubber cam drive belt that needs periodic replacement drives the Colorado’s camshafts. If the Colorado’s belt breaks, the engine could be severely damaged when the pistons hit the opened valves.

A reliable vehicle saves its owner time, money and trouble. Nobody wants to be stranded or have to be without a vehicle while it’s being repaired. Consumer Reports rates the Ranger’s reliability 18 points higher than the Colorado.

J.D. Power and Associates rated the Ranger first among midsize pickups in their 2022 Initial Quality Study. The Colorado was rated third.

From surveys of all its subscribers, Consumer Reports’ January 2023 Auto Issue reports that Ford vehicles are more reliable than Chevrolet vehicles. Consumer Reports ranks Ford 2 places higher in reliability than Chevrolet.

Engine

The Ranger’s 2.3 turbo 4-cylinder produces 70 more horsepower (270 vs. 200) and 119 lbs.-ft. more torque (310 vs. 191) than the Colorado’s standard 2.5 DOHC 4-cylinder. The Ranger’s 2.3 turbo 4-cylinder produces 35 lbs.-ft. more torque (310 vs. 275) than the Colorado’s optional 3.6 DOHC V6.

As tested in Motor Trend the Ford Ranger is faster than the Chevrolet Colorado:

	Ranger	Colorado 4 cyl.	Colorado V6
Zero to 60 MPH	6.3 sec	9.3 sec	7.2 sec
Quarter Mile	14.9 sec	17.1 sec	15.6 sec
Speed in 1/4 Mile	92.9 MPH	82.4 MPH	87.9 MPH

Fuel Economy and Range

On the EPA test cycle the Ranger gets better mileage than the Colorado:

			MPG
Ranger
	RWD	2.3 turbo 4-cyl.	21 city/26 hwy
	AWD	2.3 turbo 4-cyl.	20 city/24 hwy
		Tremor 2.3 turbo 4-cyl.	19 city/19 hwy
Colorado
	RWD	2.5 DOHC 4-cyl.	19 city/25 hwy
		3.6 DOHC V6	18 city/25 hwy
	AWD	2.5 DOHC 4-cyl.	19 city/24 hwy
		3.6 DOHC V6	17 city/24 hwy
		ZR2 2.8 turbo 4-cyl. Diesel	18 city/22 hwy
		ZR2 3.6 DOHC V6	16 city/18 hwy

In heavy traffic or at stoplights the Ranger’s engine automatically turns off when the vehicle is stopped, saving fuel and reducing pollution. The engine is automatically restarted when the driver gets ready to move again. If the conditions warrant or the driver wishes, the system can be manually disabled at any time for the duration of a trip. The Colorado doesn’t offer an automatic engine start/stop system.

Transmission

A 10-speed automatic is standard on the Ford Ranger, for better acceleration and lower engine speed on the highway. Only an eight-speed automatic is available for the Colorado.

Brakes and Stopping

The Ranger’s standard front and rear disc brakes are vented to help dissipate heat for shorter stops with less fading. The rear discs on the Colorado are solid, not vented.

The Ranger stops much shorter than the Colorado:

	Ranger	Colorado
70 to 0 MPH	190 feet	206 feet	Car and Driver
60 to 0 MPH	122 feet	135 feet	Motor Trend

Tires and Wheels

The Ranger has a standard full size spare so a flat doesn’t interrupt your work or a trip. A full size spare costs extra on the Colorado. Without the option you must depend on a temporary spare, which limits mileage and speed before replacement.

Suspension and Handling

The Ranger has a standard front stabilizer bar, which help keep the Ranger flat and controlled during cornering. The Colorado’s suspension doesn’t offer a stabilizer bar

The Ranger XLT SuperCrew 4x4 handles at .78 G’s, while the Colorado Short Box ZR2 Crew Cab pulls only .68 G’s of cornering force in a Car and Driver skidpad test.

The Ranger Lariat SuperCrew 4x4 executes Motor Trend’s “Figure Eight” maneuver 2 seconds quicker than the Colorado Short Box Z71 Crew Cab 4x4 (27.7 seconds @ .61 average G’s vs. 29.7 seconds @ .53 average G’s).

Chassis

As tested by Car and Driver while at idle, the interior of the Ranger XLT SuperCrew 4x4 is quieter than the Colorado Short Box ZR2 Crew Cab (39 vs. 45 dB).

Passenger Space

The Ranger SuperCab has .8 inches more front hip room, 1.8 inches more rear legroom and 3.1 inches more rear hip room than the Colorado Extended Cab.

The Ranger SuperCrew has .8 inches more front hip room, .2 inches more rear hip room and .1 inches more rear shoulder room than the Colorado Crew Cab.

Cargo Capacity

The Ranger SuperCab has a much larger cargo box than the Colorado Extended Cab shortbed (51.8 vs. 49.9 cubic feet).

The Ranger SuperCrew has a much larger cargo box than the Colorado Crew Cab shortbed (43.3 vs. 41.3 cubic feet).

The Ranger’s cargo box is larger than the Colorado’s in almost every dimension:

	Ranger SuperCrew	Ranger SuperCab	Colorado Extended Cab
Length (short/long)	61”	72.8”	74”
Max Width	61.4”	61.4”	57.8”
Min Width	44.8”	44.8”	44.4”
Height	20.8”	20.8”	20.9”

A standard locking glovebox keeps your small valuables safer in the Ranger. The Colorado doesn’t offer locking storage for small valuables.

Payload and Towing

The Ranger’s standard towing capacity is much higher than the Colorado’s (7500 vs. 3500 pounds).

The Ranger has a much higher standard payload capacity than the Colorado:

	Ranger	Colorado
Extended Cab	1905 lbs.	1400 lbs.
Crew Cab	1818 lbs.	1400 lbs.
Extended Cab 4x4	1696 lbs.	1380 lbs.
Crew Cab 4x4	1609 lbs.	1460 lbs.

The Ranger has much higher optional payload capacities than the Colorado:

	Ranger	Colorado
Extended Cab	1905 lbs.	1543 lbs.
Crew Cab	1818 lbs.	1548 lbs.
Extended Cab 4x4	1696 lbs.	1504 lbs.
Crew Cab 4x4	1609 lbs.	1550 lbs.

Ergonomics

Intelligent Access standard on the Ranger Lariat allows you to unlock the driver’s door and start the engine all without removing a key from pocket or purse. This eliminates searching for keys before getting in the vehicle in bad weather or making a hurried start to your trip. The Chevrolet Colorado doesn’t offer an advanced key system.

The Ranger Lariat’s optional wipers adjust their speed and turn on and off automatically according to the amount of rainfall on the windshield. The Colorado’s manually variable intermittent wipers have to be constantly adjusted.

The Ranger Lariat’s LED headlights produce a whiter, brighter light (up to 3x) using five times less power than the Colorado’s optional projector halogen headlights and light instantly. LED lights also last over twenty times longer than halogen.

While driving with high beams on, sensitive light sensors available for the Ranger detect other vehicles which could be blinded and automatically switch to low beams. The Colorado doesn’t offer automatic dimming high beams.

The Ranger’s optional dual zone air conditioning allows the driver and front passenger to choose two completely different temperatures so people with different temperature preferences won’t have to compromise. This makes both the driver and front passenger as comfortable as possible. The Colorado doesn’t offer dual zone air conditioning.

To keep a safe, consistent following distance, the Ranger XLT/Lariat offers an optional Adaptive Cruise Control, which alters the speed of the vehicle without driver intervention. This allows the driver to use cruise control more safely without constantly having to disengage it when approaching slower traffic. The Colorado doesn’t offer an adaptive cruise control.

The Ranger offers an optional 115-volt a/c outlet on the center console, allowing you to recharge a laptop or run small household appliances without special adapters that can break or get misplaced. The Colorado doesn’t offer a house-current electrical outlet.

Economic Advantages

Insurance will cost less for the Ranger owner. The Car Book by Jack Gillis rates the Ranger with a number “5” insurance rate while the Colorado is rated higher at a number “10” rate.

According to The Car Book by Jack Gillis, the Ranger is less expensive to operate than the Colorado because it costs $106 less to do the manufacturer’s suggested maintenance for 50,000 miles. Typical repairs cost less on the Ranger than the Colorado, including $37 less for front brake pads and $54 less for front struts.

IntelliChoice estimates that five-year ownership costs (depreciation, financing, insurance, fuel, fees, repairs and maintenance) for the Ford Ranger will be $2515 to $5572 less than for the Chevrolet Colorado.