2012 Mazda BT-50 vs. 2003 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2012 Mazda BT-50 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Ford Ecosport. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Ford Ecosport would be higher. At 2,498 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Mazda BT-50 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Ecosport (143 HP) has 35 more horse power than 2012 Mazda BT-50. (108 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 2012 Mazda BT-50.
Because 2012 Mazda BT-50 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2003 Ford Ecosport. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Mazda BT-50 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.
Compare all specifications:
2012 Mazda BT-50 | 2003 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Mazda | Ford |
Model | BT-50 | Ecosport |
Year Released | 2012 | 2003 |
Body Type | Pickup | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2498 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 108 HP | 143 HP |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Height | 1810 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3010 mm | 2490 mm |