1963 Nissan Cedric vs. 2000 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2000 Ford Mustang is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Nissan Cedric. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Nissan Cedric would be higher. At 3,801 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Mustang (187 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 127 more horse power than 1963 Nissan Cedric. (60 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1963 Nissan Cedric. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Mustang weights approximately 307 kg more than 1963 Nissan Cedric. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2000 Ford Mustang (298 Nm @ 2750 RPM) has 183 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Nissan Cedric. (115 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 2000 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Nissan Cedric.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Nissan Cedric | 2000 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Nissan | Ford |
| Model | Cedric | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1488 cc | 3801 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 60 HP | 187 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 115 Nm | 298 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 2750 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1085 kg | 1392 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4420 mm | 4660 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1530 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2540 mm | 2580 mm |
