1959 Ford 17M vs. 2002 Mitsubishi eK
To start off, 2002 Mitsubishi eK is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1959 Ford 17M. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1959 Ford 17M would be higher. At 1,697 cc (4 cylinders), 1959 Ford 17M is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1959 Ford 17M weights approximately 325 kg more than 2002 Mitsubishi eK.
Because 1959 Ford 17M 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 1959 Ford 17M. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Mitsubishi eK, 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. 2002 Mitsubishi eK has automatic transmission and 1959 Ford 17M has manual transmission. 1959 Ford 17M will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2002 Mitsubishi eK will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1959 Ford 17M | 2002 Mitsubishi eK | |
Make | Ford | Mitsubishi |
Model | 17M | eK |
Year Released | 1959 | 2002 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1697 cc | 657 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 59 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1115 kg | 790 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 3400 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1480 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1560 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2610 mm | 2350 mm |