2000 Ford Mustang vs. 1962 Riley One-Point-Five
To start off, 2000 Ford Mustang is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Riley One-Point-Five. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Riley One-Point-Five would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Mustang (190 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 128 more horse power than 1962 Riley One-Point-Five. (62 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1962 Riley One-Point-Five. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Mustang weights approximately 455 kg more than 1962 Riley One-Point-Five. 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, 2000 Ford Mustang (298 Nm @ 2750 RPM) has 186 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Riley One-Point-Five. (112 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2000 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Riley One-Point-Five.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Mustang | 1962 Riley One-Point-Five | |
| Make | Ford | Riley |
| Model | Mustang | One-Point-Five |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1962 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3791 cc | 1489 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 62 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Torque | 298 Nm | 112 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2750 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 96.6 mm | 73 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 86.4 mm | 88.9 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.4:1 | 8.3:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1390 kg | 935 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 3890 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1560 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1530 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2190 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 45 L |
