KrAZ-255 vs Ural-375: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data — no editorial review of this pair yet.
KrAZ · 1967–1994
KrAZ-255
- Power
- 177 kW241 PS
- Top speed
- 71 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 11,950 kg
Ural · 1964–1991
Ural-375D / 375DM
- Power
- 132 kW179 PS
- Top speed
- 75 km/h
- Kerb mass
- —
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- Running costs KrAZ-255 Fuel per year: €9,900 vs €13,130 (estimated)
In plain words
KrAZ-255 has more power: 177 kW (241 PS) against 132 kW (179 PS) for Ural-375. At 15,000 km a year, fuel would cost about €9,900 (KrAZ-255), €13,130 (Ural-375) (estimated). Ural-375 is the older design (from 1960); KrAZ-255 arrived in 1967. On the catalog figures, the KrAZ-255 is the pick for running costs. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the Ural-375 yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Full specifications
| KrAZ-255 | Ural-375 | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 255 14.9 MT · diesel · 177 kW (241 PS) | Ural-375D / 375DM · Ural-375D · petrol · 132 kW (179 PS) |
| Production years | 1967–1994 | 1964–1991 |
| Body | Truck | Truck |
| Class | Heavy truck | Heavy truck |
| Country | Soviet Union (USSR) | Soviet Union (USSR) |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 177 kW (241 PS) 237 hp Better | 132 kW (179 PS) 177 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 883 Nm 651 lb-ft | No data |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 71 km/h 44 mph | 75 km/h 47 mph Better |
| Power per tonne | 15 kW/t 18 hp/ton calculated | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Diesel | Petrol |
| Engine | 14,860 cc 14.9 l | 7,000 cc · 8 cyl 7.0 l |
| Engine code | No data | ZIL-375Ya 7.0 L petrol V8 |
| Gearbox | 5-speed manual | 5-speed manual |
| Drive | No data | Multi-axle drive (6×6, 8×8…) |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 8,645 mm 340.4 in | No data |
| Width | 2,750 mm 108.3 in | No data |
| Height | 2,940 mm 115.7 in | No data |
| Wheelbase | 5,300 mm 208.7 in | No data |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 11,950 kg 26,345 lb | No data |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 165 l 43.6 gal US | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 40.0 l/100 km 5.9 mpg US Better | 50.0 l/100 km 4.7 mpg US |
| Fuel cost per year | €9,900/year estimated Better | €13,130/year estimated |
| Range on a full tank | 413 km 257 mi estimated | No data |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (4): Body, Class, Country, Gearbox.
Better marks the stronger figure — only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.65/l diesel, €1.75/l petrol.