1969 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2005 Mercury Mariner
To start off, 2005 Mercury Mariner 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) has 154 more horse power than 2005 Mercury Mariner. (201 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2005 Mercury Mariner.
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, 2005 Mercury Mariner, 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 38 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mercury Mariner. (262 Nm). This means 1969 Ford Thunderbird will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mercury Mariner.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Ford Thunderbird | 2005 Mercury Mariner | |
| Make | Ford | Mercury |
| Model | Thunderbird | Mariner |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2005 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 2999 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 355 HP | 201 HP |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 262 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2630 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 14.7 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 29.4 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 91 L | 62 L |
