1965 Ford Mustang vs. 1990 Mercury Sable
To start off, 1990 Mercury Sable is newer by 25 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. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1990 Mercury Sable weights approximately 235 kg more than 1965 Ford Mustang.
Because 1965 Ford Mustang 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 1965 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1990 Mercury Sable, 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:
1965 Ford Mustang | 1990 Mercury Sable | |
Make | Ford | Mercury |
Model | Mustang | Sable |
Year Released | 1965 | 1990 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4733 cc | 2511 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 208 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 6 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1165 kg | 1400 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 4790 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1810 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2700 mm |