Ural-5557 vs KrAZ-260: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Ural · 1984
Ural-5557
- Power
- 177 kW241 PS
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- -
Photo: Druschba 4 / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
KrAZ · 1979–1993
KrAZ-260
- Power
- 221 kW300 PS
- Top speed
- 80 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 12,775 kg
Photo: Svetlov Artem / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- Off-road Ural-5557 Drive and body: Four-wheel drive (4×4) · Truck vs All-wheel drive · Truck
In plain words
KrAZ-260 has more power: 221 kW (300 PS) against 177 kW (241 PS) for Ural-5557. KrAZ-260 is the older design (from 1979); Ural-5557 arrived in 1984. On the catalog figures, the Ural-5557 is the pick for off-road. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the Ural-5557 yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Full specifications
| Ural-5557 | KrAZ-260 | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 11.2 · 177 kW (241 PS) | 14.9 YaMZ-238L · diesel · 221 kW (300 PS) |
| Production years | 1984 | 1979–1993 |
| 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 | 221 kW (300 PS) 296 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 169–177 kW (230–241 PS) 227–237 hp | 221 kW (300 PS) 296 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | No data | 1,079 Nm 796 lb-ft |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | No data | 80 km/h 50 mph |
| Power per tonne | No data | 17 kW/t 21 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Diesel | Diesel |
| Engine | 11,150 cc 11.2 l | 14,860 cc · 8 cyl 14.9 l |
| Engine code | No data | YaMZ-238L |
| Drive | Four-wheel drive (4×4) | All-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | No data | 9,030 mm 355.5 in |
| Width | No data | 2,722 mm 107.2 in |
| Height | No data | 3,115 mm 122.6 in |
| Wheelbase | No data | 4,600 mm 181.1 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | No data | 12,775 kg 28,164 lb |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | No data | 165 l 43.6 gal US |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 38.5 l/100 km 6.1 mpg US |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €9,530/year estimated |
| Range on a full tank | No data | 429 km 267 mi estimated |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (4): Body, Class, Country, Fuel.
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.