2004 Alfa Romeo 156 vs. 2012 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2012 Ford Falcon is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Alfa Romeo 156. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Alfa Romeo 156 would be higher. At 1,999 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Ford Falcon (240 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 127 more horse power than 2004 Alfa Romeo 156. (113 HP @ 6200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2004 Alfa Romeo 156. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Ford Falcon weights approximately 308 kg more than 2004 Alfa Romeo 156. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2012 Ford Falcon 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 2012 Ford Falcon. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Alfa Romeo 156, 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, 2012 Ford Falcon (353 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 207 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Alfa Romeo 156. (146 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2012 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Alfa Romeo 156. 2012 Ford Falcon has automatic transmission and 2004 Alfa Romeo 156 has manual transmission. 2004 Alfa Romeo 156 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2012 Ford Falcon will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Alfa Romeo 156 | 2012 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Alfa Romeo | Ford |
| Model | 156 | Falcon |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Station Wagon | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1598 cc | 1999 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 113 HP | 240 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 146 Nm | 353 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.3:1 | 9.3:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1340 kg | 1648 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4450 mm | 4967 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1750 mm | 1868 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1433 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2838 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 6.5 L/100km | 6.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.5 L/100km | 12.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.5 L/100km | 8.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 68 L |
