1962 AC Greyhound vs. 2004 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 AC Greyhound. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 AC Greyhound would be higher. At 3,802 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (190 HP @ 6150 RPM) has 67 more horse power than 1962 AC Greyhound. (123 HP @ 5750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1962 AC Greyhound. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford Mustang weights approximately 479 kg more than 1962 AC Greyhound. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Ford Mustang (298 Nm) has 119 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 AC Greyhound. (179 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 AC Greyhound.
Compare all specifications:
1962 AC Greyhound | 2004 Ford Mustang | |
Make | AC | Ford |
Model | Greyhound | Mustang |
Year Released | 1962 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1971 cc | 3802 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 123 HP | 190 HP |
Engine RPM | 5750 RPM | 6150 RPM |
Torque | 179 Nm | 298 Nm |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1015 kg | 1494 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4580 mm | 4660 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1670 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1360 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 59 L |