2009 Dodge Dakota vs. 2006 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2009 Dodge Dakota is newer by 3 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 4,606 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine.
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, 2006 Ford Mustang (868 Nm) has 632 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Dodge Dakota. (236 Nm). This means 2006 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Dodge Dakota.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Dodge Dakota | 2006 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Dodge | Ford |
| Model | Dakota | Mustang |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3701 cc | 4606 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 207 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 236 Nm | 868 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5560 mm | 4770 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1750 mm | 1410 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3340 mm | 2730 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 61 L |
