2000 Ford Mustang vs. 2002 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Mustang (130 HP) has 60 more horse power than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Mustang weights approximately 558 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 Mustang (447 Nm) has 345 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm). This means 2000 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Mustang | 2002 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | Ford | MCC |
| Model | Mustang | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2002 |
| Engine Size | 4600 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 130 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 447 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1298 kg | 740 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1630 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 1810 mm |
