2000 Ford Mustang vs. 1966 Nissan Cedric
To start off, 2000 Ford Mustang is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Nissan Cedric. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Nissan Cedric would be higher. At 4,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Mustang (130 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 16 more horse power than 1966 Nissan Cedric. (114 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1966 Nissan Cedric. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Mustang weights approximately 8 kg more than 1966 Nissan Cedric. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2000 Ford Mustang (447 Nm) has 282 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Nissan Cedric. (165 Nm). This means 2000 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Nissan Cedric.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Mustang | 1966 Nissan Cedric | |
| Make | Ford | Nissan |
| Model | Mustang | Cedric |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1966 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4600 cc | 1997 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 130 HP | 114 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 447 Nm | 165 Nm |
| Vehicle Weight | 1298 kg | 1290 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 4700 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1700 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2700 mm |
