2005 Suzuki Reno vs. 2012 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2012 Ford Falcon is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Suzuki Reno. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Suzuki Reno would be higher. At 3,983 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Ford Falcon (261 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 135 more horse power than 2005 Suzuki Reno. (126 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2005 Suzuki Reno. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Ford Falcon weights approximately 442 kg more than 2005 Suzuki Reno. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2012 Ford Falcon 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 Ford Falcon. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Suzuki Reno, 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 Ford Falcon (391 Nm) has 213 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Suzuki Reno. (178 Nm). This means 2012 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Suzuki Reno.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Suzuki Reno | 2012 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Suzuki | Ford |
| Model | Reno | Falcon |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1998 cc | 3983 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 126 HP | 261 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 178 Nm | 391 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 86 mm | 92.3 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 86 mm | 99.3 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.6:1 | 10.3:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1262 kg | 1704 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4300 mm | 4955 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1868 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1453 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2610 mm | 2838 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 7.8 L/100km | 7.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.7 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.4 L/100km | 9.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 68 L |
