2004 Ford Econoline vs. 2012 Mazda 3
To start off, 2012 Mazda 3 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford Econoline. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Econoline would be higher. At 4,195 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Econoline is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Econoline (197 HP @ 4700 RPM) has 49 more horse power than 2012 Mazda 3. (148 HP @ 3500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Econoline should accelerate faster than 2012 Mazda 3.
Because 2004 Ford Econoline 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 2004 Ford Econoline. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Mazda 3, 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 Mazda 3 (360 Nm @ 1800 RPM) has 22 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Ford Econoline. (338 Nm @ 2700 RPM). This means 2012 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Ford Econoline.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford Econoline | 2012 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | Econoline | 3 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Van | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4195 cc | 2184 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 148 HP |
Engine RPM | 4700 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Torque | 338 Nm | 360 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2700 RPM | 1800 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Length | 5390 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 2060 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2639 mm |