2004 Ford Taurus vs. 2006 Mazda RX-8
To start off, 2006 Mazda RX-8 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford Taurus. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Taurus would be higher. At 2,967 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Taurus is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda RX-8 (212 HP @ 7500 RPM) has 59 more horse power than 2004 Ford Taurus. (153 HP @ 4900 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Taurus.
Because 2006 Mazda RX-8 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2006 Mazda RX-8. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Ford Taurus, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 Taurus (251 Nm @ 3950 RPM) has 35 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda RX-8. (216 Nm @ 5500 RPM). This means 2004 Ford Taurus will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda RX-8.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford Taurus | 2006 Mazda RX-8 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | Taurus | RX-8 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2006 |
Body Type | Station Wagon | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2967 cc | 1311 cc |
Engine Type | V | dual-disk rotary |
Horse Power | 153 HP | 212 HP |
Engine RPM | 4900 RPM | 7500 RPM |
Torque | 251 Nm | 216 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3950 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 6 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 4430 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2710 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 60 L |