2009 Ford E-350 vs. 2004 Mazda 6
To start off, 2009 Ford E-350 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 5,408 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Ford E-350 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Ford E-350 (255 HP @ 4500 RPM) has 156 more horse power than 2004 Mazda 6. (99 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Ford E-350 should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda 6. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Mazda 6 weights approximately 375 kg more than 2009 Ford E-350.
Because 2009 Ford E-350 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 2009 Ford E-350. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Mazda 6, 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, 2009 Ford E-350 (475 Nm) has 244 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda 6. (231 Nm). This means 2009 Ford E-350 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Ford E-350 | 2004 Mazda 6 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | E-350 | 6 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Van | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5408 cc | 1596 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 255 HP | 99 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 475 Nm | 231 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 12 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 1345 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2630 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 6.9 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 61 L |
