Pagani Utopia Roadster vs Pagani Utopia vs Ford Ranger vs Toyota Camry
Pagani Utopia Roadster
€3,100,000
Pagani Utopia
$3,400,000
Ford Ranger
$42,500 – $43,200
Toyota Camry
$36,795
AI Comparison Summary
Comparing Pagani Utopia Roadster vs Pagani Utopia vs Ford Ranger vs Toyota Camry. Toyota Camry offers the strongest value on price. Pagani Utopia Roadster leads on expert rating.
Category Winners
Overall Winner
Pagani Utopia Roadster
Best Value
Toyota Camry
Fuel Economy
Toyota Camry
Performance
Pagani Utopia Roadster
Visual Comparison
Category Radar
Price & Reviews
Model Year
Expert Rating
Pagani Utopia Roadster
€3,100,000
Rating: 4.9/10
Pagani Utopia
$3,400,000
Rating: 4.9/10
Ford Ranger
$42,500 – $43,200
Rating: 4.6/10
Toyota Camry
$36,795
Rating: 4.8/10
| Specification |
Pagani Utopia Roadster |
Pagani Utopia |
Ford Ranger |
Toyota Camry |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand | Pagani | Pagani | Ford | Toyota |
| Model | Utopia Roadster | Utopia | Ranger | Camry |
| Year | 2025 | 2025 | 2025 | 2025 |
| Type | — | — | — | — |
| Body Style | Roadster | Roadster | Pickup Truck | Sedan |
| Current Price | €3,100,000 | $3,400,000 | $42,500 – $43,200 | $36,795 |
| MSRP | €3,100,000 | $3,400,000 | $43,200 | $36,795 |
| Dealer Price | €3,100,000 | $3,400,000 | $41,900 | $35,995 |
| Engine | Mercedes-AMG 6.0L Twin-Turbo V12 | Pagani V12 60° 5980 cc twin-turbochargers | 2.3L EcoBoost I4 Turbo | 2.5L Hybrid I4 |
| Horsepower | 852 hp | 864 hp (635 kW) @ 6000 rpm | 270 hp | 232 hp |
| Torque | 811 lb-ft (1,100 Nm) | 1100 Nm (811 lb-ft) @ 2800-5900 rpm | 310 lb-ft | 163 lb-ft |
| 0–60 mph | Estimated under 3.0 sec (0-60 mph) | 3.1 sec (0-60 mph est) | 6.5 sec (0-60 mph) | 6.8 sec (0-60 mph) |
| Top Speed | 220 mph (Electronically limited) | 350 km/h (217 mph) | 112 mph | 112 mph |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Petrol | Gasoline | Hybrid |
| Mileage / MPG | Not EPA rated (Ultra-low volume hypercar) | Not EPA rated (Estimated ~10 city / 15 highway mpg) | 22 mpg combined | 46 mpg combined |
| Range (EV) | N/A | N/A | — | N/A |
| Emissions | Complies with global homologation standards | Varies by homologation standard | EPA compliant | Low |
| Battery | N/A | N/A | — | Lithium-ion |
| Charging | N/A | N/A | — | Self-charging hybrid |
| Expert Rating | 4.9/10 | 4.9/10 | 4.6/10 | 4.8/10 |
| Community Reviews | 42 | 0 | 1120 | 0 |
| Performance Score | 9.8 | 9.8 | 8.5 | 8.8 |
| Comfort Score | 8.5 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.2 |
| Safety Score | 8.8 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 3.0 |
| Fuel Economy Score | 5.0 | 4.0 | 9.5 | 46 mpg combined |
| Technology Score | 9.0 | 9.5 | 8.8 | 8.8 |
| Value Score | 8.2 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.5 |
| Pros | Magnificent 852-hp twin-turbocharged AMG V12 engine; Available 7-speed gated manual transmission; Incredible lightness w... | Magnificent hand-built Mercedes-AMG twin-turbo V12 engine; Available pure manual transmission with exposed linkage; Exqu... | Ultra-fast 800V DC charging; Distinctive retro-futuristic design; Spacious lounge-style interior; Strong standard safety... | Excellent fuel economy; Standard hybrid powertrain; Comfortable ride; High reliability; Strong safety features |
| Cons | Extremely limited production run of only 99 units; Multi-million euro price tag keeps it out of reach for most; Strictly... | Extremely limited production availability; Multimillion-dollar price point restricts accessibility; High fuel consumptio... | Ride can feel floaty on some roads; No frunk on all trims; Infotainment learning curve for some users; Real-world highwa... | No V6 option; Conservative styling; Limited sporty feel; Rear headroom slightly reduced |
