1969 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2000 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2000 Mercury Sable is newer by 31 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1969 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1969 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1969 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1969 Ford Thunderbird 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 1969 Ford Thunderbird. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 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. Let's talk about torque, 1969 Ford Thunderbird (300 Nm) has 52 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Mercury Sable. (248 Nm). This means 1969 Ford Thunderbird will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Mercury Sable.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Ford Thunderbird | 2000 Mercury Sable | |
| Make | Ford | Mercury |
| Model | Thunderbird | Sable |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3001 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 355 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 248 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 6 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2760 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 91 L | 68 L |
