1972 Chrysler 160 vs. 2004 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1972 Chrysler 160. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1972 Chrysler 160 would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (305 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 226 more horse power than 1972 Chrysler 160. (79 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1972 Chrysler 160. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford Mustang weights approximately 506 kg more than 1972 Chrysler 160. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2004 Ford Mustang (434 Nm) has 309 more torque (in Nm) than 1972 Chrysler 160. (125 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1972 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
1972 Chrysler 160 | 2004 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Chrysler | Ford |
Model | 160 | Mustang |
Year Released | 1972 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1639 cc | 4605 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 79 HP | 305 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 125 Nm | 434 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1068 kg | 1574 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 4660 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1340 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2580 mm |