1969 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2005 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2005 Ford Mustang is newer by 36 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. In terms of performance, 1969 Ford Thunderbird (355 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 153 more horse power than 2005 Ford Mustang. (202 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2005 Ford Mustang.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2005 Ford Mustang (326 Nm) has 26 more torque (in Nm) than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. (300 Nm). This means 2005 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1969 Ford Thunderbird.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Ford Thunderbird | 2005 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Ford | Ford |
| Model | Thunderbird | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2005 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 4015 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 355 HP | 202 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 326 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2620 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 14.7 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 29.4 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 91 L | 61 L |
