2004 Ford Mustang vs. 2000 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Holden Commodore. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Holden Commodore would be higher. At 4,995 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (435 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 238 more horse power than 2000 Holden Commodore. (197 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2000 Holden Commodore.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2004 Ford Mustang (544 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 240 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Holden Commodore. (304 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Holden Commodore.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 2000 Holden Commodore | |
| Make | Ford | Holden |
| Model | Mustang | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2000 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4995 cc | 3791 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 435 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 544 Nm | 304 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5500 RPM | 3600 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1850 mm |
