2000 Ford ST 460 vs. 2003 Mazda 3
To start off, 2003 Mazda 3 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford ST 460. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford ST 460 would be higher. At 4,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford ST 460 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford ST 460 (460 HP @ 6150 RPM) has 360 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 3. (100 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford ST 460 should accelerate faster than 2003 Mazda 3.
Because 2000 Ford ST 460 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2000 Ford ST 460. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Mazda 3, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 ST 460 (178 Nm) has 33 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 3. (145 Nm). This means 2000 Ford ST 460 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford ST 460 | 2003 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | ST 460 | 3 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4600 cc | 1600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 460 HP | 100 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6150 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 178 Nm | 145 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 4430 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1760 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2650 mm |
