2004 Ford Taurus vs. 2012 Mazda BT-50
To start off, 2012 Mazda BT-50 is newer by 8 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 2,983 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Taurus is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Taurus (200 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 77 more horse power than 2012 Mazda BT-50. (123 HP @ 4600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Taurus should accelerate faster than 2012 Mazda BT-50. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Mazda BT-50 weights approximately 47 kg more than 2004 Ford Taurus.
Because 2012 Mazda BT-50 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2004 Ford Taurus. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Mazda BT-50 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 Taurus (281 Nm) has 75 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Mazda BT-50. (206 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Taurus will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Mazda BT-50.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Taurus | 2012 Mazda BT-50 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Taurus | BT-50 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2983 cc | 2606 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 200 HP | 123 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4600 RPM |
| Torque | 281 Nm | 206 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 8.4:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 6 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1503 kg | 1550 kg |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1810 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 3010 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 50 L |
