2006 Mazda B2300 vs. 2012 Ford E-350
To start off, 2012 Ford E-350 is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda B2300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda B2300 would be higher. At 5,400 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Ford E-350 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Ford E-350 (255 HP @ 4500 RPM) has 112 more horse power than 2006 Mazda B2300. (143 HP @ 5250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford E-350 should accelerate faster than 2006 Mazda B2300. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Ford E-350 weights approximately 1472 kg more than 2006 Mazda B2300. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 Ford E-350 (474 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 265 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda B2300. (209 Nm @ 3750 RPM). This means 2012 Ford E-350 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda B2300.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Mazda B2300 | 2012 Ford E-350 | |
| Make | Mazda | Ford |
| Model | B2300 | E-350 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Van |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2260 cc | 5400 cc |
| Horse Power | 143 HP | 255 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Torque | 209 Nm | 474 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1358 kg | 2830 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 5504 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 2017 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1650 mm | 2111 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 3505 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.1 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 9.8 L/100km | 21.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 62 L | 132 L |
