2000 Ford TS-50 vs. 2010 Mazda BT-50
To start off, 2010 Mazda BT-50 is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford TS-50. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford TS-50 would be higher. At 2,953 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Mazda BT-50 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Mazda BT-50 (154 HP @ 3200 RPM) has 26 more horse power than 2000 Ford TS-50. (128 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda BT-50 should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford TS-50.
Because 2010 Mazda BT-50 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2000 Ford TS-50. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Mazda BT-50 will offer significantly more control. 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, 2010 Mazda BT-50 (380 Nm) has 205 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Ford TS-50. (175 Nm). This means 2010 Mazda BT-50 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Ford TS-50. 2000 Ford TS-50 has automatic transmission and 2010 Mazda BT-50 has manual transmission. 2010 Mazda BT-50 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Ford TS-50 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Ford TS-50 | 2010 Mazda BT-50 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | TS-50 | BT-50 |
Year Released | 2000 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1989 cc | 2953 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 128 HP | 154 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 3200 RPM |
Torque | 175 Nm | 380 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 3010 mm |