1969 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer
To start off, 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer 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 122 more horse power than 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer. (233 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Because 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer 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 Mitsubishi Lancer 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, 1969 Ford Thunderbird (300 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 47 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer. (253 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1969 Ford Thunderbird will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Compare all specifications:
1969 Ford Thunderbird | 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer | |
Make | Ford | Mitsubishi |
Model | Thunderbird | Lancer |
Year Released | 1969 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 7029 cc | 1999 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 355 HP | 233 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 300 Nm | 253 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2640 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 14.7 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 29.4 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 91 L | 58 L |