2004 Ford Mustang vs. 2012 Nissan X-Trail
To start off, 2012 Nissan X-Trail 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 4,589 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (390 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 253 more horse power than 2012 Nissan X-Trail. (137 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2012 Nissan X-Trail.
Because 2012 Nissan X-Trail 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, 2012 Nissan X-Trail 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 (529 Nm) has 331 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Nissan X-Trail. (198 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Nissan X-Trail.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 2012 Nissan X-Trail | |
| Make | Ford | Nissan |
| Model | Mustang | X-Trail |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Convertible | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4589 cc | 1997 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 390 HP | 137 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 529 Nm | 198 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 4640 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1690 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2640 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.4 L/100km | 6.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 65 L |
