1963 Ford Zodiac vs. 2004 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2004 Ford Ecosport is newer by 41 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 2,553 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Ford Zodiac is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Ecosport (143 HP) has 35 more horse power than 1963 Ford Zodiac. (108 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Ecosport 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, 2004 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:
| 1963 Ford Zodiac | 2004 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Ford | Ford |
| Model | Zodiac | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2553 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 108 HP | 143 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4650 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2780 mm | 2490 mm |
