2004 Ford Mustang vs. 2006 Lincoln Zephyr
To start off, 2006 Lincoln Zephyr 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 3,802 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Lincoln Zephyr (218 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 27 more horse power than 2004 Ford Mustang. (191 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Lincoln Zephyr should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Mustang.
Because 2004 Ford Mustang 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 Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Lincoln Zephyr, 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, 2004 Ford Mustang (298 Nm) has 27 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Lincoln Zephyr. (271 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Lincoln Zephyr.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 2006 Lincoln Zephyr | |
| Make | Ford | Lincoln |
| Model | Mustang | Zephyr |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3802 cc | 2983 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 191 HP | 218 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 298 Nm | 271 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.3:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 990 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2730 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 66 L |
