2005 Ford Mustang vs. 2012 Ford E-150
To start off, 2012 Ford E-150 is newer by 7 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 4,603 cc (8 cylinders), 2005 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Ford Mustang (300 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 75 more horse power than 2012 Ford E-150. (225 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2012 Ford E-150. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Ford E-150 weights approximately 1046 kg more 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, 2005 Ford Mustang (434 Nm) has 47 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Ford E-150. (387 Nm). This means 2005 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Ford E-150.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Ford Mustang | 2012 Ford E-150 | |
| Make | Ford | Ford |
| Model | Mustang | E-150 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Van |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4603 cc | 4600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 3 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 300 HP | 225 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Torque | 434 Nm | 387 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1565 kg | 2611 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 5504 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 2017 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 2085 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 3505 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 18.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 132 L |
