2004 Ford Mustang vs. 2006 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2006 Holden Commodore is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 3,801 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Holden Commodore (240 HP) has 50 more horse power than 2004 Ford Mustang. (190 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Mustang.
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 (298 Nm) has 58 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Holden Commodore. (240 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Holden Commodore.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 2006 Holden Commodore | |
| Make | Ford | Holden |
| Model | Mustang | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3801 cc | 2564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 240 HP |
| Torque | 298 Nm | 240 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 10.9 L/100km |
