1960 Ford Zodiac vs. 2003 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2003 Ford Ecosport is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Ford Zodiac. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Ford Zodiac would be higher. At 2,552 cc (6 cylinders), 1960 Ford Zodiac is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Ecosport (109 HP) has 33 more horse power than 1960 Ford Zodiac. (76 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 1960 Ford Zodiac.
Because 1960 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 1960 Ford Zodiac. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1960 Ford Zodiac | 2003 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Ford | Ford |
Model | Zodiac | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1960 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2552 cc | 1600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 76 HP | 109 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2490 mm |