1966 DAF Daffodil vs. 2003 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2003 Mercury Sable is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 DAF Daffodil. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 DAF Daffodil would be higher. At 2,986 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Mercury Sable is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Mercury Sable (153 HP @ 4900 RPM) has 127 more horse power than 1966 DAF Daffodil. (26 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Mercury Sable should accelerate faster than 1966 DAF Daffodil. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Mercury Sable weights approximately 846 kg more than 1966 DAF Daffodil. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1966 DAF Daffodil 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 1966 DAF Daffodil. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 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:
1966 DAF Daffodil | 2003 Mercury Sable | |
Make | DAF | Mercury |
Model | Daffodil | Sable |
Year Released | 1966 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 746 cc | 2986 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 26 HP | 153 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 4900 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 666 kg | 1512 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3620 mm | 5100 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1450 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2060 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 33 L | 85 L |