1969 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2013 Honda Ridgeline
To start off, 2013 Honda Ridgeline is newer by 44 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 108 more horse power than 2013 Honda Ridgeline. (247 HP @ 5700 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2013 Honda Ridgeline.
Because 2013 Honda Ridgeline 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, 2013 Honda Ridgeline 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, 2013 Honda Ridgeline (335 Nm @ 4300 RPM) has 35 more torque (in Nm) than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. (300 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2013 Honda Ridgeline will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1969 Ford Thunderbird.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Ford Thunderbird | 2013 Honda Ridgeline | |
| Make | Ford | Honda |
| Model | Thunderbird | Ridgeline |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2013 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3471 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 355 HP | 247 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5700 RPM |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 335 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4300 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 5-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 3100 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 14.7 L/100km | 9.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 29.4 L/100km | 13.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 91 L | 83 L |
