1965 Ford Mustang vs. 1996 Rover 220
To start off, 1996 Rover 220 is newer by 31 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 2,786 cc (6 cylinders), 1965 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Rover 220 (103 HP @ 4200 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 1965 Ford Mustang. (100 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Rover 220 should accelerate faster than 1965 Ford Mustang. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Rover 220 weights approximately 239 kg more than 1965 Ford Mustang. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 1996 Rover 220, 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 | 1996 Rover 220 | |
Make | Ford | Rover |
Model | Mustang | 220 |
Year Released | 1965 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2786 cc | 1993 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 100 HP | 103 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 975 kg | 1214 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 3980 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2510 mm |