1969 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2012 Land Rover LR2
To start off, 2012 Land Rover LR2 is newer by 43 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 125 more horse power than 2012 Land Rover LR2. (230 HP @ 6300 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2012 Land Rover LR2.
Because 2012 Land Rover LR2 is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Land Rover LR2 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, 2012 Land Rover LR2 (317 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 17 more torque (in Nm) than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. (300 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2012 Land Rover LR2 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1969 Ford Thunderbird.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Ford Thunderbird | 2012 Land Rover LR2 | |
| Make | Ford | Land Rover |
| Model | Thunderbird | LR2 |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3200 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 355 HP | 230 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6300 RPM |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 317 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2659 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 14.7 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 29.4 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 91 L | 70 L |
