2004 Ford E-150 vs. 2013 Mazda 3
To start off, 2013 Mazda 3 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford E-150. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford E-150 would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford E-150 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford E-150 (225 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 70 more horse power than 2013 Mazda 3. (155 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford E-150 should accelerate faster than 2013 Mazda 3. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford E-150 weights approximately 824 kg more than 2013 Mazda 3. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Ford E-150 (388 Nm) has 188 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Mazda 3. (200 Nm). This means 2004 Ford E-150 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford E-150 | 2013 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | E-150 | 3 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2013 |
Body Type | Van | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4605 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 225 HP | 155 HP |
Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 388 Nm | 200 Nm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.0:1 | 12.0:1 |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2127 kg | 1303 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5390 mm | 4595 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 2060 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2640 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 6.9 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 55 L |