2004 Ford Mustang vs. 2012 BMW 535
To start off, 2012 BMW 535 is newer by 8 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. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 BMW 535 weights approximately 431 kg more 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 2012 BMW 535 | |
| Make | Ford | BMW |
| Model | Mustang | 535 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3802 cc | 2979 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 0 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 97 mm | 89.6 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 86 mm | 84 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1494 kg | 1925 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 4899 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1464 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2968 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.1 L/100km | 6.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 5.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 6.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 67 L |
