2005 Ford Mustang vs. 2010 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2010 Jaguar XF is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,015 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Jaguar XF (237 HP) has 35 more horse power than 2005 Ford Mustang. (202 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Jaguar XF should accelerate faster than 2005 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, 2010 Jaguar XF (500 Nm) has 174 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Ford Mustang. (326 Nm). This means 2010 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Ford Mustang | 2010 Jaguar XF | |
Make | Ford | Jaguar |
Model | Mustang | XF |
Year Released | 2005 | 2010 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4015 cc | 3000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 202 HP | 237 HP |
Torque | 326 Nm | 500 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4961 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1877 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1461 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2908 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 6.3 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 70 L |