2008 Nissan Armada vs. 2010 Ford E-350
To start off, 2010 Ford E-350 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Nissan Armada. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Nissan Armada would be higher. At 5,552 cc (8 cylinders), 2008 Nissan Armada is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Nissan Armada (317 HP @ 4900 RPM) has 140 more horse power than 2010 Ford E-350. (177 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2008 Nissan Armada should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford E-350.
Because 2008 Nissan Armada 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 2008 Nissan Armada. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Ford E-350, 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, 2008 Nissan Armada (523 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 339 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Ford E-350. (184 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2008 Nissan Armada will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Ford E-350.
Compare all specifications:
2008 Nissan Armada | 2010 Ford E-350 | |
Make | Nissan | Ford |
Model | Armada | E-350 |
Year Released | 2008 | 2010 |
Body Type | SUV | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5552 cc | 5400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 317 HP | 177 HP |
Engine RPM | 4900 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 523 Nm | 184 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | CVT |
Vehicle Length | 5260 mm | 4437 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2010 mm | 1806 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1980 mm | 1720 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3140 mm | 2619 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 13.1 L/100km | 7.6 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 19.6 L/100km | 6.9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 106 L | 57 L |