2003 Ford Econoline vs. 2002 Jaguar XJ6
To start off, 2003 Ford Econoline is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Jaguar XJ6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Jaguar XJ6 would be higher. At 4,195 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Ford Econoline is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Jaguar XJ6 (240 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 43 more horse power than 2003 Ford Econoline. (197 HP @ 4700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Jaguar XJ6 should accelerate faster than 2003 Ford Econoline. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Ford Econoline weights approximately 780 kg more than 2002 Jaguar XJ6.
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, 2003 Ford Econoline (338 Nm @ 2700 RPM) has 38 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Jaguar XJ6. (300 Nm @ 4100 RPM). This means 2003 Ford Econoline will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Jaguar XJ6.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Ford Econoline | 2002 Jaguar XJ6 | |
Make | Ford | Jaguar |
Model | Econoline | XJ6 |
Year Released | 2003 | 2002 |
Body Type | Van | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4195 cc | 2967 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 240 HP |
Engine RPM | 4700 RPM | 6800 RPM |
Torque | 338 Nm | 300 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2700 RPM | 4100 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 2325 kg | 1545 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5390 mm | 5100 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1870 mm |
Vehicle Height | 2060 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2920 mm |