1980 Chrysler 160 vs. 1997 Ford Mustang
To start off, 1997 Ford Mustang is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Chrysler 160. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Chrysler 160 would be higher. At 4,600 cc (8 cylinders), 1997 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Chrysler 160 weights approximately 150 kg more than 1997 Ford Mustang.
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, 1997 Ford Mustang (678 Nm) has 546 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Chrysler 160. (132 Nm). This means 1997 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
1980 Chrysler 160 | 1997 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Chrysler | Ford |
Model | 160 | Mustang |
Year Released | 1980 | 1997 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1639 cc | 4600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 132 Nm | 678 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1086 kg | 936 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 4620 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1830 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2580 mm |