1996 Ford Aerostar vs. 2009 Mazda 6
To start off, 2009 Mazda 6 is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Ford Aerostar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Ford Aerostar would be higher. At 2,979 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Ford Aerostar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 6 (168 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 35 more horse power than 1996 Ford Aerostar. (133 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 1996 Ford Aerostar.
Because 1996 Ford Aerostar 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 1996 Ford Aerostar. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 6, 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, 1996 Ford Aerostar (217 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 50 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 6. (167 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1996 Ford Aerostar will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Ford Aerostar | 2009 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | Aerostar | 6 |
Year Released | 1996 | 2009 |
Body Type | Minivan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2979 cc | 2487 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 133 HP | 168 HP |
Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 217 Nm | 167 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1850 mm |