1963 Ford Zodiac vs. 2002 Jeep Wrangler
To start off, 2002 Jeep Wrangler is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Ford Zodiac. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Ford Zodiac would be higher. At 3,960 cc (6 cylinders), 2002 Jeep Wrangler is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Jeep Wrangler (141 HP @ 3800 RPM) has 33 more horse power than 1963 Ford Zodiac. (108 HP @ 4750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Jeep Wrangler should accelerate faster than 1963 Ford Zodiac.
Because 1963 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 1963 Ford Zodiac. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Jeep Wrangler, 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, 2002 Jeep Wrangler (319 Nm) has 128 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Ford Zodiac. (191 Nm). This means 2002 Jeep Wrangler will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Ford Zodiac.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Ford Zodiac | 2002 Jeep Wrangler | |
| Make | Ford | Jeep |
| Model | Zodiac | Wrangler |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2002 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2553 cc | 3960 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 108 HP | 141 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 191 Nm | 319 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 4650 mm | 3950 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1810 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2780 mm | 2380 mm |
