2006 Chevrolet TrailBlazer vs. 2004 Ford E-250
To start off, 2006 Chevrolet TrailBlazer is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford E-250. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford E-250 would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford E-250 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Chevrolet TrailBlazer (292 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 67 more horse power than 2004 Ford E-250. (225 HP @ 6150 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Chevrolet TrailBlazer should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford E-250. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford E-250 weights approximately 620 kg more than 2006 Chevrolet TrailBlazer.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Ford E-250 (389 Nm) has 13 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Chevrolet TrailBlazer. (376 Nm). This means 2004 Ford E-250 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Chevrolet TrailBlazer.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Chevrolet TrailBlazer | 2004 Ford E-250 | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
| Model | TrailBlazer | E-250 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2004 |
| Body Type | SUV | Van |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4163 cc | 4605 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 292 HP | 225 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6150 RPM |
| Torque | 376 Nm | 389 Nm |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1750 kg | 2370 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5280 mm | 5900 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 2020 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1920 mm | 2140 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3280 mm | 3510 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 11.8 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.8 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 95 L | 132 L |
