1965 Ford Mustang vs. 1973 Rover 2000
To start off, 1973 Rover 2000 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,733 cc (8 cylinders), 1965 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1965 Ford Mustang (208 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 102 more horse power than 1973 Rover 2000. (106 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1965 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1973 Rover 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1973 Rover 2000 weights approximately 130 kg more than 1965 Ford Mustang.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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:
| 1965 Ford Mustang | 1973 Rover 2000 | |
| Make | Ford | Rover |
| Model | Mustang | 2000 |
| Year Released | 1965 | 1973 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4733 cc | 1978 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 106 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1165 kg | 1295 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 4550 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2640 mm |
