1975 Chrysler 160 vs. 2005 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2005 Ford Falcon is newer by 30 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1975 Chrysler 160. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1975 Chrysler 160 would be higher. At 3,984 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Ford Falcon (200 HP @ 4900 RPM) has 121 more horse power than 1975 Chrysler 160. (79 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1975 Chrysler 160. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Ford Falcon weights approximately 516 kg more than 1975 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, 2005 Ford Falcon (357 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 232 more torque (in Nm) than 1975 Chrysler 160. (125 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2005 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1975 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
| 1975 Chrysler 160 | 2005 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Chrysler | Ford |
| Model | 160 | Falcon |
| Year Released | 1975 | 2005 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1639 cc | 3984 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 79 HP | 200 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Torque | 125 Nm | 357 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1065 kg | 1581 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2930 mm |
