1968 Ford Mustang vs. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,733 cc (8 cylinders), 1968 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover (282 HP) has 65 more horse power than 1968 Ford Mustang. (217 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1968 Ford Mustang. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 1277 kg more than 1968 Ford Mustang. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1968 Ford Mustang. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover will offer significantly more control. 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:
| 1968 Ford Mustang | 2004 Land Rover Range Rover | |
| Make | Ford | Land Rover |
| Model | Mustang | Range Rover |
| Year Released | 1968 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4733 cc | 4392 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 217 HP | 282 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1165 kg | 2442 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 4960 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1930 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1870 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 125 L | 100 L |
