2006 Ford Mustang vs. 2012 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2012 Jaguar XF is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,015 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Ford Mustang (210 HP) has 23 more horse power than 2012 Jaguar XF. (187 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2012 Jaguar XF.
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, 2012 Jaguar XF (450 Nm) has 125 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Ford Mustang. (325 Nm). This means 2012 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Ford Mustang | 2012 Jaguar XF | |
Make | Ford | Jaguar |
Model | Mustang | XF |
Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4015 cc | 2200 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 210 HP | 187 HP |
Torque | 325 Nm | 450 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
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 | 2730 mm | 2908 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 5.4 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 70 L |