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 4,606 cc (8 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 263 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. 2012 BMW 535 has automatic transmission and 2004 Ford Mustang has manual transmission. 2004 Ford Mustang will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2012 BMW 535 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
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 | 4606 cc | 2979 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 296 HP | 0 HP |
Engine Bore Size | 90.1 mm | 89.6 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 90 mm | 84 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline / Electric Hybrid |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | 8-speed automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1662 kg | 1925 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4899 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1464 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2968 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 6.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 67 L |