2000 Ford Equator vs. 2004 Mazda 6
To start off, 2004 Mazda 6 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford Equator. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford Equator would be higher. At 1,999 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Mazda 6 (144 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 16 more horse power than 2000 Ford Equator. (128 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford Equator. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Mazda 6 weights approximately 202 kg more than 2000 Ford Equator. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Mazda 6 (181 Nm) has 21 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Ford Equator. (160 Nm). This means 2004 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Ford Equator. 2000 Ford Equator has automatic transmission and 2004 Mazda 6 has manual transmission. 2004 Mazda 6 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 | 2004 Mazda 6 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Equator | 6 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1787 cc | 1999 cc |
| Horse Power | 128 HP | 144 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 160 Nm | 181 Nm |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1208 kg | 1410 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 3260 mm | 2610 mm |
