1996 Mitsubishi Challenger vs. 2010 Ford E-350
To start off, 2010 Ford E-350 is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger would be higher. At 5,400 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Ford E-350 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger (182 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 5 more horse power than 2010 Ford E-350. (177 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford E-350.
Because 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2010 Ford E-350. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger will offer significantly more control. 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 Mitsubishi Challenger (270 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 86 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Ford E-350. (184 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Ford E-350.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Mitsubishi Challenger | 2010 Ford E-350 | |
Make | Mitsubishi | Ford |
Model | Challenger | E-350 |
Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
Body Type | SUV | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2972 cc | 5400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 182 HP | 177 HP |
Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 270 Nm | 184 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | CVT |
Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 4437 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1806 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1720 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2619 mm |