2004 Ford Mustang vs. 2012 Dodge Ram
To start off, 2012 Dodge Ram 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 5,700 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Dodge Ram is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 390 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. 2012 Dodge Ram weights approximately 702 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. Let's talk about torque, 2012 Dodge Ram (551 Nm) has 22 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Ford Mustang. (529 Nm). This means 2012 Dodge Ram will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford Mustang | 2012 Dodge Ram | |
Make | Ford | Dodge |
Model | Mustang | Ram |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Convertible | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4589 cc | 5700 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 390 HP | 390 HP |
Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 529 Nm | 551 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1716 kg | 2418 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 5817 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 2017 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1877 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 3569 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 121 L |