2009 Chevrolet Equinox vs. 2004 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2009 Chevrolet Equinox 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 3,802 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (190 HP @ 6150 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 2009 Chevrolet Equinox. (182 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2009 Chevrolet Equinox. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Chevrolet Equinox weights approximately 647 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 Equinox, 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 (298 Nm) has 88 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Chevrolet Equinox. (210 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Chevrolet Equinox.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Chevrolet Equinox | 2004 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
| Model | Equinox | Mustang |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
| Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3349 cc | 3802 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 182 HP | 190 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6150 RPM |
| Torque | 210 Nm | 298 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 92 mm | 97 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 84 mm | 86 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 9.3:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2141 kg | 1494 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4800 mm | 4660 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1710 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2860 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 8.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 59 L |
