1969 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2009 Honda Pilot
To start off, 2009 Honda Pilot is newer by 40 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 105 more horse power than 2009 Honda Pilot. (250 HP @ 5700 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2009 Honda Pilot.
Because 2009 Honda Pilot is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Honda Pilot 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. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Honda Pilot (343 Nm @ 4800 RPM) has 43 more torque (in Nm) than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. (300 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Honda Pilot will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1969 Ford Thunderbird.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Ford Thunderbird | 2009 Honda Pilot | |
| Make | Ford | Honda |
| Model | Thunderbird | Pilot |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3471 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 355 HP | 250 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5700 RPM |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 343 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.5:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 8 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2780 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 14.7 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 29.4 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 91 L | 79 L |
