1969 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2010 Mazda 5
To start off, 2010 Mazda 5 is newer by 41 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 202 more horse power than 2010 Mazda 5. (153 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2010 Mazda 5.
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, 2010 Mazda 5, 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 @ 4000 RPM) has 100 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Mazda 5. (200 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 1969 Ford Thunderbird will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Mazda 5.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Ford Thunderbird | 2010 Mazda 5 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Thunderbird | 5 |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 2300 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 355 HP | 153 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 200 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2751 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 14.7 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 29.4 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 91 L | 60 L |
