1959 Ford Zodiac vs. 2012 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2012 Toyota Matrix is newer by 53 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1959 Ford Zodiac. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1959 Ford Zodiac would be higher. At 2,552 cc (6 cylinders), 1959 Ford Zodiac is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Toyota Matrix (158 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 82 more horse power than 1959 Ford Zodiac. (76 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Toyota Matrix should accelerate faster than 1959 Ford Zodiac.
Because 1959 Ford Zodiac 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 Zodiac. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Toyota Matrix, 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 Toyota Matrix (219 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 31 more torque (in Nm) than 1959 Ford Zodiac. (188 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2012 Toyota Matrix will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1959 Ford Zodiac.
Compare all specifications:
| 1959 Ford Zodiac | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Ford | Toyota |
| Model | Zodiac | Matrix |
| Year Released | 1959 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2552 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 76 HP | 158 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 188 Nm | 219 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1590 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2601 mm |
