2009 Chevrolet Epica vs. 2004 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2009 Chevrolet Epica is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (305 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 151 more horse power than 2009 Chevrolet Epica. (154 HP @ 5800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2009 Chevrolet Epica. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Chevrolet Epica weights approximately 1 kg more than 2004 Ford Mustang.
Because 2004 Ford Mustang 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 2004 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Chevrolet Epica, 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, 2004 Ford Mustang (434 Nm) has 197 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Chevrolet Epica. (237 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Chevrolet Epica.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Chevrolet Epica | 2004 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Epica | Mustang |
Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2490 cc | 4605 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 154 HP | 305 HP |
Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 237 Nm | 434 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 77 mm | 90.1 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 89.2 mm | 90 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.8:1 | 10.1:1 |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 6 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1575 kg | 1574 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4810 mm | 4660 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1340 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 2580 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.3 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 59 L |