1965 Ford Mustang vs. 1999 Ford Econoline
To start off, 1999 Ford Econoline is newer by 34 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 5,407 cc (8 cylinders), 1999 Ford Econoline is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1999 Ford Econoline (252 HP @ 4500 RPM) has 44 more horse power than 1965 Ford Mustang. (208 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1999 Ford Econoline should accelerate faster than 1965 Ford Mustang. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1999 Ford Econoline weights approximately 1220 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.
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 | 1999 Ford Econoline | |
Make | Ford | Ford |
Model | Mustang | Econoline |
Year Released | 1965 | 1999 |
Body Type | Coupe | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4733 cc | 5407 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 208 HP | 252 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1165 kg | 2385 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 5390 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 2020 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 2060 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 3510 mm |