2000 Chevrolet Astro vs. 2006 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2006 Ford Mustang is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Chevrolet Astro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Chevrolet Astro would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Ford Mustang weights approximately 291 kg more than 2000 Chevrolet Astro.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Astro is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Ford Mustang. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Astro 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, 2006 Ford Mustang (434 Nm) has 95 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Astro. (339 Nm). This means 2006 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Astro.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Chevrolet Astro | 2006 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
| Model | Astro | Mustang |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Minivan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4300 cc | 4605 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 300 HP |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 434 Nm |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 8 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1187 kg | 1478 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 4770 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1980 mm | 1890 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1940 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2730 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 61 L |
