2000 Ford TL-50 vs. 2004 Mazda 3
To start off, 2004 Mazda 3 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford TL-50. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford TL-50 would be higher. At 1,998 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Mazda 3 (144 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 16 more horse power than 2000 Ford TL-50. (128 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford TL-50. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford TL-50 weights approximately 79 kg more than 2004 Mazda 3.
Because 2000 Ford TL-50 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 TL-50. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 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 TL-50 (570 Nm) has 386 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda 3. (184 Nm). This means 2000 Ford TL-50 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford TL-50 | 2004 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | TL-50 | 3 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1798 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 128 HP | 144 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 570 Nm | 184 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1302 kg | 1223 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2760 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 37 L | 55 L |
