1999 Ford Mustang vs. 2004 Rover 25
To start off, 2004 Rover 25 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1999 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1999 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 1,994 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Rover 25 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1999 Ford Mustang weights approximately 78 kg more than 2004 Rover 25.
Because 1999 Ford Mustang 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 1999 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Rover 25, 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, 2004 Rover 25 (245 Nm) has 85 more torque (in Nm) than 1999 Ford Mustang. (160 Nm). This means 2004 Rover 25 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1999 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
1999 Ford Mustang | 2004 Rover 25 | |
Make | Ford | Rover |
Model | Mustang | 25 |
Year Released | 1999 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1753 cc | 1994 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 101 HP |
Engine RPM | 5750 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Torque | 160 Nm | 245 Nm |
Top Speed | 321 km/hour | 185 km/hour |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1208 kg | 1130 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 3990 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2540 mm | 2510 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 55 L |