2004 Mazda MPV vs. 2012 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2012 Jaguar XF is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda MPV. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda MPV would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Jaguar XF is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Jaguar XF (237 HP) has 37 more horse power than 2004 Mazda MPV. (200 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Jaguar XF should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda MPV.
Because 2012 Jaguar XF 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 2012 Jaguar XF. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Mazda MPV, 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, 2012 Jaguar XF (500 Nm) has 233 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda MPV. (267 Nm). This means 2012 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda MPV.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Mazda MPV | 2012 Jaguar XF | |
Make | Mazda | Jaguar |
Model | MPV | XF |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Minivan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2966 cc | 3000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 200 HP | 237 HP |
Torque | 267 Nm | 500 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4820 mm | 4961 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1877 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1760 mm | 1461 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2850 mm | 2908 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 6.3 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 70 L |