1966 Ford Falcon vs. 1991 Mazda 626
To start off, 1991 Mazda 626 is newer by 25 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Ford Falcon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Ford Falcon would be higher. At 2,782 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1966 Ford Falcon 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 Ford Falcon. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1991 Mazda 626, 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 Ford Falcon | 1991 Mazda 626 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Falcon | 626 |
| Year Released | 1966 | 1991 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2782 cc | 1789 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 106 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4700 mm | 4600 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1440 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2580 mm |
