2004 Ford Mustang vs. 1994 Mitsubishi FTO
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1994 Mitsubishi FTO. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1994 Mitsubishi FTO would be higher. At 3,802 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1994 Mitsubishi FTO (197 HP @ 7500 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 2004 Ford Mustang. (190 HP @ 6150 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1994 Mitsubishi FTO should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 1994 Mitsubishi FTO | |
| Make | Ford | Mitsubishi |
| Model | Mustang | FTO |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1994 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3802 cc | 1996 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6150 RPM | 7500 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 97 mm | 78.4 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 86 mm | 69 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.3:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 4370 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1740 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1310 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2510 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.1 L/100km | 8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 12 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 10 L/100km |
