Nissan 200 SX 1994 vs Ford Mustang 1994
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.0 | 3.8 - 4.6 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 147 - 305 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 NM | 292 - 407 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 - 8.3 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 - 9.3 | 9.3 - 11.3 | |
|
Nissan 200 SX petrol engines consumes on average 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than Ford Mustang. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.30 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Nissan 200 SX is smaller. Nissan 200 SX is 10 cm shorter than the Ford Mustang, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan 200 SX is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 307 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 9.6 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan 200 SX is 2.1 metres less than that of the Ford Mustang, which means Nissan 200 SX can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`780 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan 200 SX has
|
| |