2000 Ford Equator vs. 1996 Mazda 626
To start off, 2000 Ford Equator is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mazda 626 would be higher. At 1,840 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Mazda 626 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Equator (128 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 24 more horse power than 1996 Mazda 626. (104 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Equator should accelerate faster than 1996 Mazda 626. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Equator weights approximately 68 kg more than 1996 Mazda 626. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2000 Ford Equator (160 Nm) has 11 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Mazda 626. (149 Nm). This means 2000 Ford Equator will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Mazda 626. 2000 Ford Equator has automatic transmission and 1996 Mazda 626 has manual transmission. 1996 Mazda 626 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Ford Equator will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Equator | 1996 Mazda 626 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Equator | 626 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1996 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1787 cc | 1840 cc |
| Horse Power | 128 HP | 104 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 160 Nm | 149 Nm |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1208 kg | 1140 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 3260 mm | 2620 mm |
