The and are injecting much-needed excitement into the mid-sized truck segment. Here's how they measure up, down, and sideways against the , , and your forbidden love: 2014 Ford Ranger.

Why is the new Ranger, still unavailable in America, on this list while other non-US pickups are ignored? Simple: we all love the Ranger and wish we could have it. In fact, I might even wager more of you pine for it than any other non-US vehicle. At any rate, we're all keen to see how it compares to the small trucks we do get.

What Specs Are We Talking, Here?

If there's a spec we skipped that you want to discuss, bring it up in the comments and we'll take the analysis further!

Comparison Notes

There's a daunting range of configurations available for all these trucks; so we're going to compare two versions of each: the smallest, cheapest, lightest 2WD version and the largest, loaded, 4WD version.All measurements of "smallest" and "largest" are therefore hinged on being the most-striped or most-loaded model. That means a model's "maximum" isn't always represented, but this method provides a more direct comparison.

For example; the "largest" Nissan Frontier is the luxury SV, so that's the vehicle our "largest" stats are based on. It's approach angle is lower than the PRO-4X, but is a more accurate overall-package comparison.The only spec we ignored that stipulation on is the "smallest bed." Since the "smallest" version of every truck has the long bed, we're looking at bed sizes independent of the trucks trim. The "smallest" bed is simply the smallest possible bed available on a given model range.All specifications sourced from , , , and . The Aussie version of the 2015 Ranger will be our benchmark there.The 2015 Chevy Colorado and 2015 GMC Canyon are mechanically identical, therefore and are interchangeable on these specifications.

Which Trims Are We Comparing?

No mid-sized US-market truck will be available with a regular cab for 2015, including the Tacoma "Extended cabs" — which have two little seats behind the front and are as small as it gets.

Overall Length

Overall Width

Curb Weight

Turning Circle

Horsepower

Torque

Fuel Economy

This number comes from an average of EPA claimed highway and city mileage. The Ranger's is derived from translating "liters per 100 kilometers" to "miles per gallon" through some mathmagical science I found on some website. Looks close enough to me.

Towing

The "largest" configuration here assumes the truck is fitted with an optional tow package, which is applicable to all four trucks.

Payload

Cargo Bed Volume

This is the only category where we deviate from a straight cheapest-to-cheapest and biggest-to-biggest comparison. That's because the cheapest/smallest truck usually has the "long bed" option, as does the largest. See the problem? So we're looking at the smallest bed option here, not the bed option on the cheapest version of the truck.

As for the Ford Ranger's bed volume... I'm working on it. Ford Australia has yet to get back to me but I'll fill this slot in as soon as I get in touch with them. The estimate of the long bed is based on the approximate length x height x width (which is off because a bed isn't a perfect rectangle.) Meanwhile, anyone have any idea?

Ground Clearance

Approach Angle

Departure Angle

Breakover Angle

Any comparison tables we're missing? Let us know or make your own and put it in the comments! (Cut-and-paste straight from a GoogleDrive spreadsheet works).

So... find any of these stats impressive, or have I just cursed you with more want than ever for a new a Ford Ranger?

Images: Andrew P. Collins, Ford Ranger graphic: Dr Dan Saranga/