1962 Ford Thunderbird vs. 1998 Rover 200
To start off, 1998 Rover 200 is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 6,964 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1962 Ford Thunderbird (345 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 243 more horse power than 1998 Rover 200. (102 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1962 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 1998 Rover 200. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Ford Thunderbird weights approximately 800 kg more than 1998 Rover 200. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1962 Ford Thunderbird 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 1962 Ford Thunderbird. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1998 Rover 200, 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:
1962 Ford Thunderbird | 1998 Rover 200 | |
Make | Ford | Rover |
Model | Thunderbird | 200 |
Year Released | 1962 | 1998 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6964 cc | 1396 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 345 HP | 102 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 1875 kg | 1075 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5210 mm | 4230 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1930 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2510 mm |