1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 1966 Ford Mustang
To start off, 1986 Caterham 1700 is newer by 20 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 6,385 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Ford Mustang (320 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 152 more horse power than 1986 Caterham 1700. (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1966 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1986 Caterham 1700.
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. 1966 Ford Mustang has automatic transmission and 1986 Caterham 1700 has manual transmission. 1986 Caterham 1700 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1966 Ford Mustang will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1986 Caterham 1700 | 1966 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Caterham | Ford |
Model | 1700 | Mustang |
Year Released | 1986 | 1966 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1692 cc | 6385 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 168 HP | 320 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4670 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1820 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2750 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 45 L |