1972 Chrysler 160 vs. 2004 Lincoln LS
To start off, 2004 Lincoln LS 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 2,966 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Lincoln LS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Lincoln LS (232 HP) has 153 more horse power than 1972 Chrysler 160. (79 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Lincoln LS should accelerate faster than 1972 Chrysler 160. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Lincoln LS weights approximately 619 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 Lincoln LS (298 Nm) has 173 more torque (in Nm) than 1972 Chrysler 160. (125 Nm). This means 2004 Lincoln LS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1972 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
| 1972 Chrysler 160 | 2004 Lincoln LS | |
| Make | Chrysler | Lincoln |
| Model | 160 | LS |
| Year Released | 1972 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1639 cc | 2966 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 79 HP | 232 HP |
| Torque | 125 Nm | 298 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1068 kg | 1687 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 4940 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1870 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2910 mm |
