2004 Ford Mustang vs. 2009 Suzuki Equator
To start off, 2009 Suzuki Equator is newer by 5 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 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 261 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford Mustang weights approximately 223 kg more than 2009 Suzuki Equator.
Because 2009 Suzuki Equator is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2004 Ford Mustang. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Suzuki Equator will offer significantly more control. 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 (410 Nm) has 29 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Suzuki Equator. (381 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Suzuki Equator.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 2009 Suzuki Equator | |
| Make | Ford | Suzuki |
| Model | Mustang | Equator |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4605 cc | 3953 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 261 HP | 261 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 410 Nm | 381 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.4:1 | 9.5:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1518 kg | 1295 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 5600 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 3560 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 80 L |
