2012 Ford Falcon vs. 2013 Mazda 2
To start off, 2013 Mazda 2 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2012 Ford Falcon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2012 Ford Falcon 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 (362 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 262 more horse power than 2013 Mazda 2. (100 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2013 Mazda 2. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Ford Falcon weights approximately 661 kg more than 2013 Mazda 2. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2012 Ford Falcon 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 2012 Ford Falcon. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Mazda 2, 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, 2012 Ford Falcon (533 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 400 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Mazda 2. (133 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2012 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Mazda 2. 2012 Ford Falcon has automatic transmission and 2013 Mazda 2 has manual transmission. 2013 Mazda 2 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2012 Ford Falcon will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2012 Ford Falcon | 2013 Mazda 2 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Falcon | 2 |
| Year Released | 2012 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3983 cc | 1498 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 362 HP | 100 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 533 Nm | 133 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 92.3 mm | 78 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 99.3 mm | 78 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.8:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | 6-speed automatic | 5-speed manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1704 kg | 1043 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4967 mm | 3950 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1868 mm | 1694 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1433 mm | 1476 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2838 mm | 2489 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 43 L |
