1976 Chrysler 1609 vs. 2003 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2003 Ford Ecosport is newer by 27 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 2,000 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Ford Ecosport is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Ecosport (143 HP) has 43 more horse power than 1976 Chrysler 1609. (100 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 1976 Chrysler 1609.
Because 1976 Chrysler 1609 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1976 Chrysler 1609. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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.
Compare all specifications:
1976 Chrysler 1609 | 2003 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Chrysler | Ford |
Model | 1609 | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1976 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1812 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 100 HP | 143 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4530 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2490 mm |