2009 Ford Mustang vs. 2005 Suzuki Reno
To start off, 2009 Ford Mustang is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Suzuki Reno. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Suzuki Reno would be higher. At 4,009 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Ford Mustang (210 HP @ 5300 RPM) has 84 more horse power than 2005 Suzuki Reno. (126 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2005 Suzuki Reno. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Suzuki Reno weights approximately 296 kg more than 2009 Ford Mustang.
Because 2009 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 2009 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Suzuki Reno, 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 Mustang (325 Nm) has 147 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Suzuki Reno. (178 Nm). This means 2009 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Suzuki Reno.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Ford Mustang | 2005 Suzuki Reno | |
| Make | Ford | Suzuki |
| Model | Mustang | Reno |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4009 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 210 HP | 126 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5300 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 325 Nm | 178 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.4:1 | 9.6:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 966 kg | 1262 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4300 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1730 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2610 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.2 L/100km | 7.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.9 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 55 L |
