1976 Chrysler 1609 vs. 1999 Ford Mustang
To start off, 1999 Ford Mustang is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Chrysler 1609. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Chrysler 1609 would be higher. At 1,812 cc (4 cylinders), 1976 Chrysler 1609 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1999 Ford Mustang weights approximately 108 kg more than 1976 Chrysler 1609.
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, 1999 Ford Mustang (160 Nm) has 16 more torque (in Nm) than 1976 Chrysler 1609. (144 Nm). This means 1999 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1976 Chrysler 1609.
Compare all specifications:
| 1976 Chrysler 1609 | 1999 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Chrysler | Ford |
| Model | 1609 | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1976 | 1999 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1812 cc | 1753 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 100 HP | 0 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 5750 RPM |
| Torque | 144 Nm | 160 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1100 kg | 1208 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4530 mm | 4620 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1830 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1350 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2540 mm |
