1996 Chevrolet Malibu vs. 2010 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2010 Ford Falcon is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Chevrolet Malibu. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Chevrolet Malibu would be higher. At 5,000 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford Falcon (387 HP) has 231 more horse power than 1996 Chevrolet Malibu. (156 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1996 Chevrolet Malibu.
Because 2010 Ford Falcon is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2010 Ford Falcon. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Chevrolet Malibu, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2010 Ford Falcon (520 Nm) has 269 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Chevrolet Malibu. (251 Nm). This means 2010 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Chevrolet Malibu.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Chevrolet Malibu | 2010 Ford Falcon | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Malibu | Falcon |
Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3135 cc | 5000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 156 HP | 387 HP |
Torque | 251 Nm | 520 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4967 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1868 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1433 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2838 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 56 L | 68 L |