2000 Ford Artic vs. 2010 Suzuki Equator
To start off, 2010 Suzuki Equator is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford Artic. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford Artic would be higher. At 3,998 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Ford Artic is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Suzuki Equator (150 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 22 more horse power than 2000 Ford Artic. (128 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Suzuki Equator should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford Artic. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Artic weights approximately 323 kg more than 2010 Suzuki Equator.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2000 Ford Artic (325 Nm) has 154 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Suzuki Equator. (171 Nm). This means 2000 Ford Artic will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Suzuki Equator.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Artic | 2010 Suzuki Equator | |
| Make | Ford | Suzuki |
| Model | Artic | Equator |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3998 cc | 2501 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 128 HP | 150 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 325 Nm | 171 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 1298 kg | 975 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5240 mm | 5250 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1790 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3200 mm | 3200 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 80 L |
