1966 Ford Falcon vs. 2010 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2010 Ford Ecosport is newer by 44 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. In terms of performance, 1966 Ford Falcon (106 HP) has 39 more horse power than 2010 Ford Ecosport. (67 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford Ecosport.
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, 2010 Ford Ecosport, 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 | 2010 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Ford | Ford |
| Model | Falcon | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2782 cc | 1400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 106 HP | 67 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 | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2490 mm |
