2009 Nissan Rogue vs. 2012 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2012 Ford Falcon is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Nissan Rogue. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Nissan Rogue would be higher. At 3,983 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Ford Falcon (261 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 91 more horse power than 2009 Nissan Rogue. (170 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2009 Nissan Rogue. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Ford Falcon weights approximately 99 kg more than 2009 Nissan Rogue. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2009 Nissan Rogue is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Ford Falcon. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Nissan Rogue will offer significantly more control. 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, 2012 Ford Falcon (391 Nm @ 3250 RPM) has 154 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Nissan Rogue. (237 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2012 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Nissan Rogue.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Nissan Rogue | 2012 Ford Falcon | |
Make | Nissan | Ford |
Model | Rogue | Falcon |
Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
Body Type | Crossover | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2488 cc | 3983 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 170 HP | 261 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 237 Nm | 391 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3250 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 99.5 mm | 92.3 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 82.8 mm | 99.3 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.8:1 | 10.3:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1605 kg | 1704 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4650 mm | 4955 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 1868 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1453 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2838 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.1 L/100km | 7.6 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.2 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 9.9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 68 L |