1966 Alpine A 110 vs. 2000 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2000 Ford Mustang is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Alpine A 110. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Alpine A 110 would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Mustang (190 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 141 more horse power than 1966 Alpine A 110. (49 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1966 Alpine A 110. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Mustang weights approximately 814 kg more than 1966 Alpine A 110. 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:
1966 Alpine A 110 | 2000 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Alpine | Ford |
Model | A 110 | Mustang |
Year Released | 1966 | 2000 |
Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
Engine Position | Rear | Front |
Engine Size | 956 cc | 3791 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 49 HP | 190 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 65 mm | 96.6 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 72 mm | 86.4 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 576 kg | 1390 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4660 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1470 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1120 mm | 1360 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2140 mm | 2580 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 38 L | 59 L |