2003 Bristol Fighter vs. 2005 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2005 Ford Ecosport is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Bristol Fighter. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Bristol Fighter would be higher. At 7,994 cc (10 cylinders), 2003 Bristol Fighter is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Bristol Fighter (518 HP) has 424 more horse power than 2005 Ford Ecosport. (94 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Bristol Fighter should accelerate faster than 2005 Ford Ecosport.
Because 2003 Bristol Fighter 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 2003 Bristol Fighter. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Ford Ecosport, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Bristol Fighter | 2005 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Bristol | Ford |
| Model | Fighter | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2005 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7994 cc | 1000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 10 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 518 HP | 94 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4430 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2490 mm |
