2003 Ford Puma vs. 2000 Mazda B2500

To start off, 2003 Ford Puma is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Mazda B2500. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Mazda B2500 would be higher. At 2,499 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Mazda B2500 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Puma (99 HP @ 6150 RPM) has 17 more horse power than 2000 Mazda B2500. (82 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Puma should accelerate faster than 2000 Mazda B2500. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Mazda B2500 weights approximately 702 kg more than 2003 Ford Puma.

Because 2000 Mazda B2500 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2003 Ford Puma. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Mazda B2500 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, 2000 Mazda B2500 (194 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 48 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Ford Puma. (146 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2000 Mazda B2500 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Ford Puma.

Compare all specifications:

2003 Ford Puma 2000 Mazda B2500
Make Ford Mazda
Model Puma B2500
Year Released 2003 2000
Body Type Coupe Pickup
Engine Position Front Front
Engine Size 1796 cc 2499 cc
Engine Cylinders 4 cylinders 4 cylinders
Engine Type in-line in-line
Valves per Cylinder 4 valves 3 valves
Horse Power 99 HP 82 HP
Engine RPM 6150 RPM 4000 RPM
Torque 146 Nm 194 Nm
Torque RPM 4000 RPM 2000 RPM
Fuel Type Gasoline Diesel
Drive Type Front 4WD
Transmission Type Manual Manual
Number of Seats 4 seats 3 seats
Vehicle Weight 1038 kg 1740 kg
Vehicle Length 3990 mm 5010 mm
Vehicle Width 1680 mm 1700 mm
Vehicle Height 1350 mm 1620 mm
Wheelbase Size 2450 mm 2990 mm